1 comment

  1. The crux of Godfrey’s presentation is what is hostility. For in terms of what Christians are experiencing in this new world of ours, hostility is simply having a presence in a place where a good majority of the people do not share our religious view of the world or our standards as they use to. It doesn’t mean being present in the world where people don’t share our faith. But because of past Christendom, we had more in common with unbelievers back then than we do now and so now our nation is hostile toward us. We religiously conservative Christians should compare that hostility with the hostility that we have shown to people of different races, women, and the LGBT community. That is because while what Godfrey is calling hostility today is just living in a society where people without worldviews are significantly outnumbered. But in the past, our hostility toward others came in the form of laws that criminalized and punished certain groups as well as violence.

    But how does being in the presence of others who see the world so differently than we do qualify as hostility? That it does qualify as hostility results in Godfrey resisting this new world by demanding that the government help fund us starting religious schools to train our children in the faith rather than send them to public schools. But can’t we train our children in the faith while sending them to public schools? And as we Christians are to speak out for justice, which Godfrey tells us to do, are we going to acknowledge our failures of doing so in the past? Will our calls for justice from the government be calls to oppress certain groups in the end like they did in the past?

    Because Godfrey’s perspective here is so Christian-centric, it seems that Godfrey doesn’t really understand democracy. That democracy is more than just having a set of procedures and policies so that there is majority rule. That democracy is a state of being where all citizens have an equal share of the nation rather than where some groups have established privileges over other groups in speaking to and controlling the government.

    Godfrey’s talk reminds us of the common flaw shared by traditionalists of all ideologies and old people. That they rely too heavily on the past to interpret and respond to the future. That is why Godfrey uncritically cites Kuyper for suggestions as to how we are to react and relate to our present outnumbered situation. Godfrey could have done better by relying on the New Testament Scriptures and how Christians responded to their situation back then than to rely on more recent Christians and their theologies.

Comments are closed.