Like many young evangelicals, I grew up with a chip on my shoulder. I had a bit of a martyr’s complex if you will. This view was incubated by the fact that from my right-wing Evangelical political worldview the country was against “us.” Due to the various agendas of the left (i.e. homosexuals, evolutionists, atheists, big-government liberals), our nation was forsaking its heritage, namely, its Christian heritage. America had turned its back on the faith of our fathers, becoming a modern Sodom and Gomorrah intent on pushing Christians out of the public sphere completely. Because of this persecution, we needed to be all the more vigilant to make sure that the army of darkness did not overrun the citadel that is a Christian America. I was becoming a culture warrior, and could not wait to head into battle against the pagans.
I began to see the error of this type of thinking when I came across the portion of John that Jesus talks about being persecuted (John 15:18-16:4). He says that we should not think it strange that the world is persecuting us, because it persecuted him first. I was deeply troubled by the fact that this seems to be something that a Christian should expect in this life. At first it seemed to only be another justification for my calling as a culture warrior. “This explains why the country is turning against us! This is why we are fighting!” But the more I pondered this, the more my battle cry echoed hollow. If we were supposed to fight against this persecution, and our persecutors, then why was there no biblical model for such an action? Suddenly the foundation for my attack against the ungodly seemed to be crumbling.
Recently I have been reading Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship with some of my closest friends, and again, the point that we keep stumbling over is this concept of persecution. However, this time, years after my first question concerning persecution, the query that keeps rising is, “why am I not being persecuted?” Every Believer should find Bonhoeffer’s example truly inspiring, but I find that it also highlights how shallow the “persecutions” are that we face here in America. Suddenly the fact that we don’t pray in school, or that some Atheist wants to remove “In God We Trust” from the dollar bill doesn’t seem as important. I am reminded of Clarence Jordan’s poignant words: “One wonders why Christians today get off so easily. Is it because unchristian Americans are that much better than unchristian Romans, or is our light so dim that the tormentor can’t see it? What are the things we do that are worthy of persecuting?”
I believe that our light is indeed dim. And it is not because the Gospel is weak, the Gospel is the same that it has been for millennia. Our light is dim because we are shinning it in the wrong places. Instead of taking our light to free the captives and loose the chains of injustice, we are trying to make a heathen world live like Christians. We are more concerned that two men are going to marry each other than we are that they both have never heard that Jesus loves them. We are more worried about that fact that they are taking God out of the classroom than the fact that He is not in many of our churches. We need to listen when Paul says, “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church” (1 Cor. 6:12). Instead of taking our light to the Supreme Court, we need to start by taking it to my neighbor, the one who desperately needs to experience the saving grace of Christ.
It seems that somewhere along the way we Christians have allowed our mission to go off course. The ideal of social morality was used as license to make the ungodly at least appear to live out the Christian standard. When a society that doesn’t believe the Bible to apply to them feels pressured to follow its rules, they naturally push back, causing the “persecution.” In turn, many culture warriors are taught that these persecutions are coming as a result of doing God’s will. This erroneous concept can be summarized in that we think we are being persecuted and therefore should fight, when the truth is that we are fighting and are therefore persecuted. The sad reality is that we are bringing these trials down upon ourselves by not listening to the words of Christ. And the worst part is that the only observable outcome of our culture war is a whole generation that only knows that the Church is against homosexuals, against abortion, against science, against sex, alcohol, gambling and drugs. The average American has no idea that the Bible is a revelation of God’s grace, not a list of don’ts.
As followers of Christ we dare not shrink from persecution, but if the only scars we are getting come from trying to impose Christian morality on a godless society, then we would be better off just staying at home.
Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. John 15:20
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Luther and Erasmus
Every generation has a leader who changes the course of history, what is rare is for a generation to have two significant leaders from the same continent. In the mid-sixteenth century Europe was being shaped by two opposite, yet strikingly similar, religious leaders: Luther and Erasmus. The similarities are obviously their desire to see the church, specifically the Church of Rome, reformed. Their differences, however, take a much larger scope. Luther was a pastor, Erasmus an academic. Luther ardently propagated his ideas, Erasmus was less forceful with his views. Luther believed that doctrine was worth splitting over, Erasmus thought that unity was important. Similarly, Luther saw correct theology as the most important thing about the Church, Erasmus, on the other hand, thought that theology should not be at the forefront, rather, Christians should focus on morality and love as a way to continue on in the faith.
The question then remains as to why Luther was able to be so successful, eventually altering the face of Christianity, while Erasmus has been resigned to the annals of history. On a basic level Luther’s willingness to circulate his writings with the expressed intent of winning converts is reason enough for his success. More importantly, though, is Luther’s connection with the state. Erasmus was ardently opposed to having the state enforce doctrine. As a pacifist he did not think it wise to have wars fought over issues of theology. Luther’s willingness to have his views promoted by government, especially at a time when the nation state was beginning to become a force, allowed his theological beliefs to continue after his own personal influence had waned.
There are some who would identify the failure of Erasmus as one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Christianity. This is due to the fact that if Erasmus had won, if the Catholic Church had been reformed without the rise of Protestantism, there would still exist a unity in the Church that is unthinkable today. And there is a piece of this critique that is certainly valid. The divisions and doctrinal disputes that exist today can be troubling indeed. Certainly we have a long way to go before Christ’s prayer for unity can be realized. But even considering this, it is not clear that Luther’s victory is the Church’s failure. The essence of Erasmus’ ideas failing to gain hold has led the Church to be more focused on doctrine, precisely as Luther envisioned. In order for Erasmus’ failure to be a tragedy, in the truest sense of the word, one has to concede that doctrine is of secondary importance. While it is not necessary to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it is important to know why we celebrate communion, who should be baptized, and how one obtains salvation. We should never cease working for unity, and we should certainly never create controversy over secondary issues, but if we are going to truly love God we must begin by understanding who God is, and thus the importance of theology.
The question then remains as to why Luther was able to be so successful, eventually altering the face of Christianity, while Erasmus has been resigned to the annals of history. On a basic level Luther’s willingness to circulate his writings with the expressed intent of winning converts is reason enough for his success. More importantly, though, is Luther’s connection with the state. Erasmus was ardently opposed to having the state enforce doctrine. As a pacifist he did not think it wise to have wars fought over issues of theology. Luther’s willingness to have his views promoted by government, especially at a time when the nation state was beginning to become a force, allowed his theological beliefs to continue after his own personal influence had waned.
There are some who would identify the failure of Erasmus as one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Christianity. This is due to the fact that if Erasmus had won, if the Catholic Church had been reformed without the rise of Protestantism, there would still exist a unity in the Church that is unthinkable today. And there is a piece of this critique that is certainly valid. The divisions and doctrinal disputes that exist today can be troubling indeed. Certainly we have a long way to go before Christ’s prayer for unity can be realized. But even considering this, it is not clear that Luther’s victory is the Church’s failure. The essence of Erasmus’ ideas failing to gain hold has led the Church to be more focused on doctrine, precisely as Luther envisioned. In order for Erasmus’ failure to be a tragedy, in the truest sense of the word, one has to concede that doctrine is of secondary importance. While it is not necessary to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it is important to know why we celebrate communion, who should be baptized, and how one obtains salvation. We should never cease working for unity, and we should certainly never create controversy over secondary issues, but if we are going to truly love God we must begin by understanding who God is, and thus the importance of theology.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Supremacy of Scripture in Political Theology
Scripture is our ultimate authority. For the Believer, this simple statement seems basic enough. Christians of all walks throughout history have affirmed this austere truth, with only a few minor exceptions. But what does it mean for the Bible to be our ultimate authority? More specifically, what does it mean for the Bible to be our ultimate authority in our political engagement?
Too often in life we unknowingly let our backgrounds and biases influence our decision making, especially in the realm of politics. What we grew up with, what we were taught in school, what we find trendy, all of these factors collide with each decision we make. But as Christians we claim to hold to a higher standard, an unmovable standard: the Bible. We proudly claim that the Bible is the centerpiece of our lives, and if we are asked, we would also affirm that the Bible is our guide when it comes to our political involvement. Tragically, however, it seems that this is not entirely true. For many of us the stream flows the wrong way. Our political outlook influences our interpretation of Scripture instead of the other way around.
In their popular work, Jesus for President, Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw attempt to carve a framework for a political theology. Using an immense amount of Scripture citations, they try to convince the reader that their political philosophy is a truly biblical one. But in numerous places we find them bending and abusing Scripture in order to make it fit their desired outcome. God refusing to let David build the Temple is said to be because Yahweh likes sleeping in a tent and being close to poor people, instead of what the passage really says, that David had too much blood on his hands to erect God’s Holy Temple. The tragedy of this example isn’t found in the fact that the authors are saying God loves the poor, for that can certainly be proved from countless other places. Rather, it is the disrespect, the bending of the text to make it say what they want to hear that is truly startling. But we cannot merely point the finger at these two men as if the blame stopped there. All too frequently our pastors, politicians and friends, yes, even ourselves, succumb to the same temptation, the temptation to hear our own voice louder than Scripture’s.
At the core this problem is a result of pride, the temptation to believe that our way of thinking is best. And by the looks of things, we are all infected. This infection is spread through the social enclaves that we are all a part of. We surround ourselves with likeminded people, people who also read the Bible the way we do, encouraging us to keep making the same hermeneutical errors. But there is a solution, and it is called the Body of Christ. The Body is incredibly diverse. Full of people from all backgrounds and biases; backgrounds and biases different from our own. And bumping into these people not only helps us work through our biases, but it also has the same affect on them. This principle only serves to highlight how important it is that we all adhere to the unmoving standard of Holy Scripture. We can work towards unity in the body, even in our politics, but only if we agree to approach the Bible humbly, allowing God’s word to shape our lives instead of a blind following of our chosen political philosophy.
Too often in life we unknowingly let our backgrounds and biases influence our decision making, especially in the realm of politics. What we grew up with, what we were taught in school, what we find trendy, all of these factors collide with each decision we make. But as Christians we claim to hold to a higher standard, an unmovable standard: the Bible. We proudly claim that the Bible is the centerpiece of our lives, and if we are asked, we would also affirm that the Bible is our guide when it comes to our political involvement. Tragically, however, it seems that this is not entirely true. For many of us the stream flows the wrong way. Our political outlook influences our interpretation of Scripture instead of the other way around.
In their popular work, Jesus for President, Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw attempt to carve a framework for a political theology. Using an immense amount of Scripture citations, they try to convince the reader that their political philosophy is a truly biblical one. But in numerous places we find them bending and abusing Scripture in order to make it fit their desired outcome. God refusing to let David build the Temple is said to be because Yahweh likes sleeping in a tent and being close to poor people, instead of what the passage really says, that David had too much blood on his hands to erect God’s Holy Temple. The tragedy of this example isn’t found in the fact that the authors are saying God loves the poor, for that can certainly be proved from countless other places. Rather, it is the disrespect, the bending of the text to make it say what they want to hear that is truly startling. But we cannot merely point the finger at these two men as if the blame stopped there. All too frequently our pastors, politicians and friends, yes, even ourselves, succumb to the same temptation, the temptation to hear our own voice louder than Scripture’s.
At the core this problem is a result of pride, the temptation to believe that our way of thinking is best. And by the looks of things, we are all infected. This infection is spread through the social enclaves that we are all a part of. We surround ourselves with likeminded people, people who also read the Bible the way we do, encouraging us to keep making the same hermeneutical errors. But there is a solution, and it is called the Body of Christ. The Body is incredibly diverse. Full of people from all backgrounds and biases; backgrounds and biases different from our own. And bumping into these people not only helps us work through our biases, but it also has the same affect on them. This principle only serves to highlight how important it is that we all adhere to the unmoving standard of Holy Scripture. We can work towards unity in the body, even in our politics, but only if we agree to approach the Bible humbly, allowing God’s word to shape our lives instead of a blind following of our chosen political philosophy.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Devotional Thought: A Theology of Recreation
I once heard a story about an umpire at a major league baseball game. As the story goes, in between innings the umpire took a baseball, one that was scuffed up and unable to be used for the game, and gave it to a young kid in the crowd. But instead of just tossing it in the kid’s direction and moving on, as is usually the case, the umpire had a special set of instructions for the child. He said, “I want you to take this home, but don’t put it in a case or on a shelf. I want you to play with it. Baseballs are meant to be played with.” I believe that there is something we all should connect with in this story, not because it is about America’s Pastime, but because it reflects a theology of recreation.
We American Christians are not known for having a very good theology of recreation, not just because this one doctrine has gone largely unnoticed, but because for the most part we don’t have a robust theology of anything. We compartmentalize our lives, drawing lines between sacred and secular pursuits. We assume that theology only pertains to what happens at church, not our everyday activities. We find no significance in our vocations because we do not have a theology of work. We find ourselves wanting to be “called into ministry” because we do not have a theology of homemaking. And we cannot fully enjoy our times of rest because we do not have a theology of recreation.
So, what then is a theology of recreation? It is recognizing that God is Lord over all of our actions, including our play. It is understanding that God created the world and deemed it “good.” That means that if we properly comprehend His creation in our lives we can enjoy the fruit of His labors. We tend to think of creation as referring only to nature, but God also created the human body, as well as human ingenuity. In our society these two forces combine to create such enjoyments as baseball, yard work, hiking trails, and even the hammock. Once we obtain an understanding of a theology of recreation we can enjoy all of these for what they are: a way to honor God with our time.
The obvious critique of this is that there are much more important things than recreation, such as evangelism, promoting justice, and protecting the innocent. And we should never become so concerned with our own pleasure that we neglect these godly callings. Too often we can tend toward apathy and fulfilling our own selfish desires instead of taking up these causes. But, as Believers who have surrendered our lives to Christ, we must find balance in our lives. Sometimes playing baseball on Saturday allows us to more effectively love our neighbor on Monday.
We American Christians are not known for having a very good theology of recreation, not just because this one doctrine has gone largely unnoticed, but because for the most part we don’t have a robust theology of anything. We compartmentalize our lives, drawing lines between sacred and secular pursuits. We assume that theology only pertains to what happens at church, not our everyday activities. We find no significance in our vocations because we do not have a theology of work. We find ourselves wanting to be “called into ministry” because we do not have a theology of homemaking. And we cannot fully enjoy our times of rest because we do not have a theology of recreation.
So, what then is a theology of recreation? It is recognizing that God is Lord over all of our actions, including our play. It is understanding that God created the world and deemed it “good.” That means that if we properly comprehend His creation in our lives we can enjoy the fruit of His labors. We tend to think of creation as referring only to nature, but God also created the human body, as well as human ingenuity. In our society these two forces combine to create such enjoyments as baseball, yard work, hiking trails, and even the hammock. Once we obtain an understanding of a theology of recreation we can enjoy all of these for what they are: a way to honor God with our time.
The obvious critique of this is that there are much more important things than recreation, such as evangelism, promoting justice, and protecting the innocent. And we should never become so concerned with our own pleasure that we neglect these godly callings. Too often we can tend toward apathy and fulfilling our own selfish desires instead of taking up these causes. But, as Believers who have surrendered our lives to Christ, we must find balance in our lives. Sometimes playing baseball on Saturday allows us to more effectively love our neighbor on Monday.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Family Matters
One of the great hallmarks of Christianity is the importance of the family. Even a cursory reading of the Bible, especially the New Testament, shows that God clearly values the family unit. Plenty of sociological, psychological and economic data proves that a stable home is the best place for the individual to thrive. Here in our own country many churches do a fantastic job of promoting families and encouraging their members to create loving homes, efforts that certainly are to be commended. Unfortunately, many times we are known in the media for what we are against, instead of what we are for. Christians are generally seen as a people who are against homosexuals, against divorce and against promiscuous sex, when we could just as easily be known for promoting two-parent homes, committed relationships and the trust and love that comes with monogamy.
Often our bad image comes as a result of the issues we choose to focus on. During the 1990s one didn’t have to look far to find a Christian leader condemning President Clinton for his extramarital affairs. This critique came because they claimed that the President was a role model, which meant he is harming families all across the nation by what his lifestyle was promoting. While that may verywell be true, I believe that in order to accurately reflect biblical doctrine, we must not simply condemn, but also must promote the good.
This past weekend President Obama made news for his weekend activities. He was seen attending his daughter’s soccer game, and then boarding a jet to take his wife out on a date. But instead of being praised for promoting the role of a good husband and father, he was attacked for “wasting tax-payer dollars.”
The current state of the family is certainly in disarray. Divorce, child-abuse (or neglect) and dysfunctional homes are all too common. That is why it should be so refreshing to see a man being there for his daughter, and showing love to his wife. Even if one disagrees with his policies, all Christians should applaud his commitment to his family. It is true that the President is an important role model, which is why we should all thank God that this president seems to believe that family does truly matter.
Often our bad image comes as a result of the issues we choose to focus on. During the 1990s one didn’t have to look far to find a Christian leader condemning President Clinton for his extramarital affairs. This critique came because they claimed that the President was a role model, which meant he is harming families all across the nation by what his lifestyle was promoting. While that may verywell be true, I believe that in order to accurately reflect biblical doctrine, we must not simply condemn, but also must promote the good.
This past weekend President Obama made news for his weekend activities. He was seen attending his daughter’s soccer game, and then boarding a jet to take his wife out on a date. But instead of being praised for promoting the role of a good husband and father, he was attacked for “wasting tax-payer dollars.”
The current state of the family is certainly in disarray. Divorce, child-abuse (or neglect) and dysfunctional homes are all too common. That is why it should be so refreshing to see a man being there for his daughter, and showing love to his wife. Even if one disagrees with his policies, all Christians should applaud his commitment to his family. It is true that the President is an important role model, which is why we should all thank God that this president seems to believe that family does truly matter.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Loud Silence
Obama's first Pro-life decision came in the first few days of his presidency and was greeted with silence from the "Religious Right" the group that claims as their mantle the sanctity of life. Obama signed orders to halt what Bush called enhanced interrogation techniques, but what was classified by Amnesty International and the Red Cross as torture. When these practices were reveled to occur during Bush's presidency there was silence in response from the Christian's that supported the republicans platform of life, and similarly when Obama banned the practice the same silence occured. I realize that the torture that occurs to prisoners in American camps are small compared to the deaths that occur from Abortion but as Bush said, '"I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters."
Saturday, March 7, 2009
President Obama's Third Strike
President Obama has again raised the ire of Evangelicals, this week for another decision on abortion. Sadly, this proves to be the third major policy move he has initiated that will further devalue life and the protection of the unborn. A few weeks ago the President announced he was repealing what is known as the Mexico City Policy, a holdover from the Reagan administration that limited federal funding to organizations that did abortions outside our borders. Recently President Obama has also rescinded a Bush administration policy that allowed those in the medical field to refuse to provide abortions or abortifacient medication if it was against their personal beliefs. Finally, this past week, Mr. Obama withdrew the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. These decisions have collectively made him the most pro-abortion President we have had in over thirty years, perhaps ever.
As Christians engaging the political sphere, we are called to have a broad issue agenda. Part of that agenda, for the Believer, must be protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Whether they are in the far reaches of another continent, or in the wombs of mothers in our own country. In this era of economic crisis and war half a world away, let us not forget our call to protect life in every venue possible.
As Christians engaging the political sphere, we are called to have a broad issue agenda. Part of that agenda, for the Believer, must be protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Whether they are in the far reaches of another continent, or in the wombs of mothers in our own country. In this era of economic crisis and war half a world away, let us not forget our call to protect life in every venue possible.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Pitfalls of Liberalism and Conservatism
We all have our ideological biases, and no matter how much we like to think that God shares our worldview, the truth is that, all too often, instead of our Savior, our surrounding environment shapes our ideas. The task for the Believer, throughout his or her life, is to systematically jettison any and all facets of our worldview that do not conform to scripture, and replace them with a biblically sound outlook on life. But how is one supposed to do this? Ultimately we will always be shaped by our environment, so how are we to perform the amputation of our environment from our worldview? I believe a starting point (and it should certainly be emphasized that this is merely a starting point) is to recognize the inherent pitfalls of our particular ideological leanings. While Liberalism and Conservatism each offer very contrasting worldviews, they both provide the Believer with certain assets and liabilities.
One of the main things that Liberalism has going for it is its ability to dream. Often criticized for being too utopian in their worldview, Liberals can posses the ability to look at a situation and envision the potential of what lies within. Ultimately the benefit of this outlook is that it encourages its adherents to strive for perfection; never satisfied with the status quo, they attempt to better their surroundings by pushing their vision of a utopian society. The shortcomings of this are also readily apparent. Their dreams can often be so picturesque that they lack any grounding in reality whatsoever, and by striving for perfection, the perfect ultimately becomes the enemy of the good. Christians who find themselves drawn towards this worldview must remember that the utopia they seek will ultimately only be found in the culmination of Christ’s Kingdom, not in our present reality. By confusing the perfection of Heaven with the depravity of earth, they strive for a world that will not exist under present circumstances.
Conservatives pose a completely different set of pros and cons. If Liberalism leans towards how things should be, Conservatives are firmly grounded in the way things are. Often criticized for being too utilitarian, Conservatives have a good grasp of how the free market works, how human nature works, and how a government should balance those two realities. The benefit of this worldview is that it is realistic. By not dreaming of a utopia, they are able to make the current system work for the overall good of society. The pitfalls of this are equally obvious. By accepting our current reality, they can become complacent towards bettering society. Also, by focusing on what works, they can neglect those for whom the system doesn’t work. While the current structure obviously creates wealth (despite periodic downturns), it can also be unjust. Christians who inherently align themselves with Conservatism must remember that just because something is the way it is, doesn’t mean it should be. God’s economy is not man’s, and while being practical is, well, practical, it can lead to a blind acceptance of the inherent injustice that God despises.
In short, it could be argued that Liberalism tends to be utopian, which leads to it being unrealistic, while Conservatism can be utilitarian, which can lead to it being unjust. Neither one offers the Believer with a complete understanding of our situation or responsibilities. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list of the strengths or weakness of our nation’s two main political philosophies, but it is a starting point. From here it is up to us to ask God to show us the places in which our default worldview keeps us from seeing the whole of biblical truth. In so doing we will not only better love our neighbor, but we will better serve our Creator as well.
One of the main things that Liberalism has going for it is its ability to dream. Often criticized for being too utopian in their worldview, Liberals can posses the ability to look at a situation and envision the potential of what lies within. Ultimately the benefit of this outlook is that it encourages its adherents to strive for perfection; never satisfied with the status quo, they attempt to better their surroundings by pushing their vision of a utopian society. The shortcomings of this are also readily apparent. Their dreams can often be so picturesque that they lack any grounding in reality whatsoever, and by striving for perfection, the perfect ultimately becomes the enemy of the good. Christians who find themselves drawn towards this worldview must remember that the utopia they seek will ultimately only be found in the culmination of Christ’s Kingdom, not in our present reality. By confusing the perfection of Heaven with the depravity of earth, they strive for a world that will not exist under present circumstances.
Conservatives pose a completely different set of pros and cons. If Liberalism leans towards how things should be, Conservatives are firmly grounded in the way things are. Often criticized for being too utilitarian, Conservatives have a good grasp of how the free market works, how human nature works, and how a government should balance those two realities. The benefit of this worldview is that it is realistic. By not dreaming of a utopia, they are able to make the current system work for the overall good of society. The pitfalls of this are equally obvious. By accepting our current reality, they can become complacent towards bettering society. Also, by focusing on what works, they can neglect those for whom the system doesn’t work. While the current structure obviously creates wealth (despite periodic downturns), it can also be unjust. Christians who inherently align themselves with Conservatism must remember that just because something is the way it is, doesn’t mean it should be. God’s economy is not man’s, and while being practical is, well, practical, it can lead to a blind acceptance of the inherent injustice that God despises.
In short, it could be argued that Liberalism tends to be utopian, which leads to it being unrealistic, while Conservatism can be utilitarian, which can lead to it being unjust. Neither one offers the Believer with a complete understanding of our situation or responsibilities. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list of the strengths or weakness of our nation’s two main political philosophies, but it is a starting point. From here it is up to us to ask God to show us the places in which our default worldview keeps us from seeing the whole of biblical truth. In so doing we will not only better love our neighbor, but we will better serve our Creator as well.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
How to Handle a President
In the days and weeks following the inauguration of President Barack Obama, there was a swarm of news stories, editorials, and commentary on the historic nature of the event. As Americans we can all celebrate the fact that we have made this historic stride in electing our first African-American president. Several weeks have passed since this momentous day, and some semblance of normalcy is settling in. Washington has rolled up their collective sleeves and gone back to work. Yet, despite the constant call for a change in approach with the dawn of this new day, things already appear to be slipping back into their old routine. Bickering, animosity and bitter discourse have dominated the political scene both from our elected leaders and our fellow countrymen. What is worse, even some of our fellow Christians have been contributing to this chaotic scene. So, as we make our way through another presidency, another congress, and another few years, let us lay some ground rules as to how a Christian who desires to be faithful with his or her politics can engage in this tumultuous political climate.
First, a few words to those who voted against our current president: while this should go without saying, it seems from time to time we need to be reminded to respect the elected officials that God has given us. The hatred that was directed towards President Bush can be taken as a prime example of what not to do. No matter how much one disagrees with the policies of a of leader, we are commanded by God to pray for him or her, and to respect him or her. If we do disagree with a policy stance, let us disagree in such a manner as to not depredate the Body of Christ, as one man in the recent March for Life in Washington D.C. did by carrying a sign that said, “Impeach Adolf Obama.”
Now, a few words to those who voted for our current president: we must not fall into the same trap that we so easily criticized the right for during the Bush Administration. No matter how much we may like President Obama, he is not the messiah, nor is he always going to do implement policy that we should support. When he does advocate a policy that contradicts Scripture, let us have the integrity to stand up to him, instead of finding a way to justify every position he takes. Just as the Religious Right succumbed to blindly following President Bush, so too the left is just as vulnerable to being a group of mindless supporters of President Obama.
Politics will always be a messy game. But as followers of Christ we must strive to stay above the mire that so easily entangles all who approach the realm of public policy. As we engage the sphere of political action these next few years, let us do so in a manner that first and foremost brings glory, not shame, to our Savior.
First, a few words to those who voted against our current president: while this should go without saying, it seems from time to time we need to be reminded to respect the elected officials that God has given us. The hatred that was directed towards President Bush can be taken as a prime example of what not to do. No matter how much one disagrees with the policies of a of leader, we are commanded by God to pray for him or her, and to respect him or her. If we do disagree with a policy stance, let us disagree in such a manner as to not depredate the Body of Christ, as one man in the recent March for Life in Washington D.C. did by carrying a sign that said, “Impeach Adolf Obama.”
Now, a few words to those who voted for our current president: we must not fall into the same trap that we so easily criticized the right for during the Bush Administration. No matter how much we may like President Obama, he is not the messiah, nor is he always going to do implement policy that we should support. When he does advocate a policy that contradicts Scripture, let us have the integrity to stand up to him, instead of finding a way to justify every position he takes. Just as the Religious Right succumbed to blindly following President Bush, so too the left is just as vulnerable to being a group of mindless supporters of President Obama.
Politics will always be a messy game. But as followers of Christ we must strive to stay above the mire that so easily entangles all who approach the realm of public policy. As we engage the sphere of political action these next few years, let us do so in a manner that first and foremost brings glory, not shame, to our Savior.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Ballot, the Bullet, or Option #3
Malcom X gave a speech called "The Ballot or the Bullet" in which he said that you can use the ballot to change things and if that fails then you have no choice but to fall back on the bullet. It seems as though Christians have accepted these two options as well. The only way to change the world is through either politics or force. We are able to change laws through the voting process or through democracy in other lands, or we have to use force to overcome dictators and unjust governments around the world. These two options are accepted mainly because they are preached to us from every radio and television and newspaper and is accepted as fact. While Christians occasionally offer lip service to the power of God to change situations they often fall back on the two accepted change agents being either force or politics. If you were to ask a Christian how to deal with a unjust government or mass killings going on in other countries the most common answers will involve the ways to get the government involved through protesting, sending letters, getting the government to send in its military or peacekeeping troops to applying international pressure. Rarely is the answer to send in the Church as ambassadors of Christ.
I remember in the lead up to the war in Iraq, reading a newspaper article that pushed the idea what if instead of sending 800 missiles to Iraq in the first two days (the Shock and Awe phase) we sent 800 missionaries. I remember reading the article, laughing at its absurdity, and then returning to my original opinion that "real" force was necessary. Something about this article has always stuck with me. Do I really think so little of God and the Christian message that I think its power is absurd? Am I so brain washed by the idea that physical force is the only way to change things that I dismiss the power of the God that created the Universe? We need to return from boasting in the power of chariots, horses, jets, and missiles to boasting in the name of the Lord.
There is without a doubt a place for the government in these large world affairs but there is also a place for the Church. While sending Christians into war zones may be very dangerous, the Christian life never claimed to be safe.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Failure of Excommunication
This past week HBO aired Alexandra Pelosi’s latest documentary, The Trials of Ted Haggard. As this saga is once again brought to the public eye, Believers are forced to find a way to reconcile the actions of Haggard and his church with the principles that we espouse. No where, that I have seen, has someone been able to articulate as well thought out response as Mark Galli has done in his article Holy Laughter for Christianity Today (I highly recommend this piece; not only because it is thought-provoking and well-reasoned, but because he accurately describes what it is about this story that we all should recognize: the fact that we are all fallen creatures).
The tragedy of Ted Haggard does not revolve around his inability to practice what he preached, nor does it center on his sexual sin. Rather, the deepest heartbreak in this incident is the fact that his own church was not able to demonstrate the Gospel to a world that was looking on. Rather than embracing Haggard and showing him the grace that we all have found in Christ, he and his family were shipped out of town and told never to return.
His church’s response is absurd, yet, at the same time it is to be expected. We should not be shocked that they would want to sweep their “problem” under the rug and forget about it as soon as possible, because that is precisely the reaction that we all have with our own sin. Life is messy, and when one’s biggest failures are made known its messiness is all the more evident. We need to learn to embrace the work that Christ does through our mess, and in so doing, give the world a clearer glimpse of God’s attributes amidst our fallenness. We should all pray for Ted Haggard and his family, but let us also pray for the Body as a whole. That through this incident we will all learn how to better address the sin in us as individuals, and as a corporate body.
The tragedy of Ted Haggard does not revolve around his inability to practice what he preached, nor does it center on his sexual sin. Rather, the deepest heartbreak in this incident is the fact that his own church was not able to demonstrate the Gospel to a world that was looking on. Rather than embracing Haggard and showing him the grace that we all have found in Christ, he and his family were shipped out of town and told never to return.
His church’s response is absurd, yet, at the same time it is to be expected. We should not be shocked that they would want to sweep their “problem” under the rug and forget about it as soon as possible, because that is precisely the reaction that we all have with our own sin. Life is messy, and when one’s biggest failures are made known its messiness is all the more evident. We need to learn to embrace the work that Christ does through our mess, and in so doing, give the world a clearer glimpse of God’s attributes amidst our fallenness. We should all pray for Ted Haggard and his family, but let us also pray for the Body as a whole. That through this incident we will all learn how to better address the sin in us as individuals, and as a corporate body.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Searching for the Center
The recent forced resignation of Rich Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals has revealed a number of tensions within the Evangelical community. In addition to the internal struggles within the NAE as to what their particular future holds, there is also the battle for the future of Evangelicalism as a whole. On one side of the proverbial aisle, Jim Wallis and other leftists are gleefully declaring the death of the religious right. At the same time, the powerhouses of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are gearing up for a rallying of their conservative base, in an attempt to consolidate their power. While the usual suspects of the religious right and left seek to control the face of Evangelicalism, there is an alternative to the politics of old that is gaining momentum: the Evangelical center.
The Evangelical center is rapidly coming into prominence. Numerous books and articles have been written detailing the importance of finding an alternative to the left/right dichotomy that is so engrained in our culture. Even politicians who have long capitalized from the pitting of one side against the other are now realizing that there are in fact a great number of people who would label themselves centrist or moderate instead of hard right or left. The reasons for this sudden rise in centrist politics, or more specifically, Evangelical centrist politics, are several. First, there is a general consensus that people have been growing tired of business as usual when it comes to the contentious subject matter of politics. This is only increased by the fact that business as usual has been, as of late, a rather bad sort of business. The economy taking a dive has only highlighted voters’ desire for something new. In this past election cycle practically every candidate on the ballot emphasized the need for “change.” Secondly, and more specifically for our purposes, the rise of the Evangelical center is coming after several decades of the Evangelical world being dominated by figures on the right. Deservedly or not, many of these figures have garnered a tainted image, and a lot of Evangelicals wish to distance themselves from some of their fiery rhetoric and blind partisanship. At the same time, most Evangelicals do not like how distant the left is, recognizing that they would merely be trading one party’s ideology and its problems for another.
Because of all these factors there are many people searching for the center in Evangelical politics, but by many accounts, the center is proving to be incredibly hard to find. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all American politics is firmly entrenched in a two-party system. This means that in order for someone to have any manner of influence whatsoever, he or she must find a place in one of the two parties, which of course is not conducive to a centrist approach. This in turn has led to most of the country being raised in either Republican or Democrat homes. When one has grown up identifying with a party and ideology it is very difficult to break from that type of partisan thinking. This means that even when someone does attempt to find the center, they are coming at it from either the left or the right, which causes others who are trying to find the center from the opposite side of the aisle to feel put off by the liberal or conservative tendencies of their fellow centrists. Finally, the center is hard to find because there is no one organization with which centrists can identify. So instead of there being a strong group around which centrists can rally, we are left with a loose nebulous of an idea, rather than the strong parapet of an established leader.
Yet, despite all these obstacles, it cannot be emphasized enough the importance of finding the Evangelical center, for there is so much at stake. The secondary title of David Gushee’s recent book is, The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, and I don’t think there is a better way to put it. As Christians our first and foremost responsibility must always be to share the good news of the Gospel. The success or failure of a political action can only be measured in how closely it represents our God to a fallen world. But with the hyper-partisanship that so many Evangelicals engage in, this witness is badly damaged. Not only can one make a strong biblical argument for a centrist approach to politics, but finding the center will allow us to distance ourselves from the bad implications of the current two-party system, implications which, sadly, all too often we find ourselves defending. Finally, finding the center will allow us to not be beholden to a party’s leader, but to the Head of the Church. The world needs to know where our allegiance truly lies. A biblical approach to politics will go a long way towards correcting our misplaced loyalty.
The Evangelical center is rapidly coming into prominence. Numerous books and articles have been written detailing the importance of finding an alternative to the left/right dichotomy that is so engrained in our culture. Even politicians who have long capitalized from the pitting of one side against the other are now realizing that there are in fact a great number of people who would label themselves centrist or moderate instead of hard right or left. The reasons for this sudden rise in centrist politics, or more specifically, Evangelical centrist politics, are several. First, there is a general consensus that people have been growing tired of business as usual when it comes to the contentious subject matter of politics. This is only increased by the fact that business as usual has been, as of late, a rather bad sort of business. The economy taking a dive has only highlighted voters’ desire for something new. In this past election cycle practically every candidate on the ballot emphasized the need for “change.” Secondly, and more specifically for our purposes, the rise of the Evangelical center is coming after several decades of the Evangelical world being dominated by figures on the right. Deservedly or not, many of these figures have garnered a tainted image, and a lot of Evangelicals wish to distance themselves from some of their fiery rhetoric and blind partisanship. At the same time, most Evangelicals do not like how distant the left is, recognizing that they would merely be trading one party’s ideology and its problems for another.
Because of all these factors there are many people searching for the center in Evangelical politics, but by many accounts, the center is proving to be incredibly hard to find. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all American politics is firmly entrenched in a two-party system. This means that in order for someone to have any manner of influence whatsoever, he or she must find a place in one of the two parties, which of course is not conducive to a centrist approach. This in turn has led to most of the country being raised in either Republican or Democrat homes. When one has grown up identifying with a party and ideology it is very difficult to break from that type of partisan thinking. This means that even when someone does attempt to find the center, they are coming at it from either the left or the right, which causes others who are trying to find the center from the opposite side of the aisle to feel put off by the liberal or conservative tendencies of their fellow centrists. Finally, the center is hard to find because there is no one organization with which centrists can identify. So instead of there being a strong group around which centrists can rally, we are left with a loose nebulous of an idea, rather than the strong parapet of an established leader.
Yet, despite all these obstacles, it cannot be emphasized enough the importance of finding the Evangelical center, for there is so much at stake. The secondary title of David Gushee’s recent book is, The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, and I don’t think there is a better way to put it. As Christians our first and foremost responsibility must always be to share the good news of the Gospel. The success or failure of a political action can only be measured in how closely it represents our God to a fallen world. But with the hyper-partisanship that so many Evangelicals engage in, this witness is badly damaged. Not only can one make a strong biblical argument for a centrist approach to politics, but finding the center will allow us to distance ourselves from the bad implications of the current two-party system, implications which, sadly, all too often we find ourselves defending. Finally, finding the center will allow us to not be beholden to a party’s leader, but to the Head of the Church. The world needs to know where our allegiance truly lies. A biblical approach to politics will go a long way towards correcting our misplaced loyalty.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Devotional Thought: The Beauty of Sacrifice
During this past holiday season I had the occasion to spend some thirty-two hours in the car. I used a great portion of this time to listen to the audio version of my favorite work of fiction: A Tale of Two Cities. In this captivating novel, Charles Dickens describes the tumult that surrounded the French Revolution and how it effected his collection of fictional characters. I see the golden theme of this story to be the power of love, but the part that I am always mesmerized by is the final scene, in which the dull and selfish “jackal” Sydney Carton gives his life to save the noble Charles Darnay. In one of the most moving pieces of literature ever penned, the reader witnesses as Sydney Carton fades into history, but his words live forever on, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”
Now that I know how the story ends, I am always struck by how I long for the tragedy of Carton’s death to be avoided. Every time I see the plot unfold I wish that maybe, just maybe, this time it will come out different. But the beauty of A Tale of Two Cities is found in how it ends. If it were not for this powerful ending scene, it doubtlessly would be just another interesting story. As much as I long for Carton to be able to escape his demise, I know that he must die, for it is in that death that the story truly takes life.
My desire to see Carton’s fate changed reminds me of another tragic death in history. Only this time it is not a wretch such as Carton who is making the sacrifice, but the Spotless Lamb of God. Every time I read through one of the Gospels a strange part of me desperately wants Pilate to change his mind, to see the error of his ways and release Jesus. But this too I know is not what happened. Jesus could not be released, because that is not why He came, and that is precisely the beauty of the Gospel. His sacrificial death paved the way for our redemption; you, me, even Sydney Carton.
I think it is normal to have a part of you wish that the Gospel narrative had turned out another way, because buried within that desire is the recognition that it was us who sent Him there. A Tale of Two Cities ends with the powerful death of Sydney Carton, but thanks be to God that that is not where the Gospels end. The Crucifixion is powerful, but the Resurrection is absolutely glorious. So the next time you read the Gospel account of Christ’s Passion, spend just a moment contemplating why it is we wish the story would take a different turn, but after that moment spend every waking second you have basking in the glory of the way the story actually ends.
Now that I know how the story ends, I am always struck by how I long for the tragedy of Carton’s death to be avoided. Every time I see the plot unfold I wish that maybe, just maybe, this time it will come out different. But the beauty of A Tale of Two Cities is found in how it ends. If it were not for this powerful ending scene, it doubtlessly would be just another interesting story. As much as I long for Carton to be able to escape his demise, I know that he must die, for it is in that death that the story truly takes life.
My desire to see Carton’s fate changed reminds me of another tragic death in history. Only this time it is not a wretch such as Carton who is making the sacrifice, but the Spotless Lamb of God. Every time I read through one of the Gospels a strange part of me desperately wants Pilate to change his mind, to see the error of his ways and release Jesus. But this too I know is not what happened. Jesus could not be released, because that is not why He came, and that is precisely the beauty of the Gospel. His sacrificial death paved the way for our redemption; you, me, even Sydney Carton.
I think it is normal to have a part of you wish that the Gospel narrative had turned out another way, because buried within that desire is the recognition that it was us who sent Him there. A Tale of Two Cities ends with the powerful death of Sydney Carton, but thanks be to God that that is not where the Gospels end. The Crucifixion is powerful, but the Resurrection is absolutely glorious. So the next time you read the Gospel account of Christ’s Passion, spend just a moment contemplating why it is we wish the story would take a different turn, but after that moment spend every waking second you have basking in the glory of the way the story actually ends.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Book Review: The Future of Faith in American Politics, by David P. Gushee
Dr. David Gushee has made an immense contribution to the world of Evangelical politics with the publication of his most recent book, The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. Gushee not only provides an in-depth look at the current Evangelical political spectrum, but he also clearly articulates a vision for an emerging “Evangelical Center,” a moderate approach to politics that more fully embraces the whole of biblical counsel, not merely a partisan outlook on political life.
In the first half of his work, Gushee details the major players, organizations and worldviews that constitute what he sees as a distinct Evangelical Right, Left and Center. On the Right he chronicles the rise of such influential organizations as Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, among others. Gushee agrees with the way in which the Right is able to speak out on abortion and the sanctity of marriage, but faults them for at times having too narrow of an issue base, and at other times for merely adopting the Republican Party platform wholeheartedly.
The Evangelical Left consists mainly of the personalities of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo and the organizations that they have built around them, but there are many other organizations that embody a liberal approach to politics as well. While the Left, and especially Wallis, tend to view themselves as a mediator between the Secular Left and the Evangelical Right, Gushee rightly points out that most of the ire of those on the Left is directed at the Right. As is to be expected, Gushee praises the Left for being able to widen the agenda of the Evangelical world, especially in the realm of social justice and their reliance on Jesus and His message in the Sermon on the Mount. However, they can fall vulnerable to losing their self-proclaimed prophetic roll when they refuse to speak out on issues that make them feel uncomfortable, most notably homosexuality and abortion.
The thrust of Gushee’s argument comes in his description and advocacy for the Evangelical Center. He notes the many different venues from which the Center is emerging, the more prominent of which would be the National Association of Evangelicals, Christianity Today, activist Ron Sider, and mega-church pastors such as Rick Warren and Joel Hunter. The hallmark of the Center is their ability to hold to the traditional Evangelical stances on the issues of abortion and protecting marriage, but also being able to include a broader scope of concerns that includes poverty, the environment, torture, and racism just to name a few.
Gushee takes a much different approach in the second half of his book, using it to articulate the centrist position on a few key issues, including: torture, the environment, marriage and war. While at times it could be argued that Gushee is approaching the subject with a more leftward leaning stance than centrist, all in all he does a good job of promoting both a biblical argument and innovative solutions. At the very least, Gushee should be respected for attempting to strike the delicate balance that the Center should hold, even if at times he comes across as a little more liberal than centrist.
The Future of Faith in American Politics is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the current state of Evangelical politics, but more importantly, Gushee does a wonderful job of showing what the future of Evangelical political engagement will be. Even if one does not agree with all the conclusions Gushee comes to, it is important to make the same efforts he does, putting the Word of God at the forefront of our political positions and attempting to break free of the partisan structure that so often captivates our political ideologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
