Politics and the Christian Left Fringe:

Straight AheadWhile it can be argued that Christian evangelicals are too closely identified with the Republican party and the politics of the right, it can hardly be denied that mainline Protestant denominations are playing the same dangerous game by identifying almost entirely with the politics of the left-wing fringe. This has been brought home to me numerous times. Several years ago, I attended the annual meeting of the Maine Conference of the United Church of Christ while serving as a minister of that denomination in the state of Maine. The head of the UCC gave a keynote address at that conference in which he attacked our policy in Iraq and almost seemed to equate President George W. Bush with Hitler and the German Nazis of the 1930's. Well, now we have a fresh example of just how far the religious left will go to look ridiculous. The Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, affiliated with the PC(USA), has published a book by David Ray Griffin which seriously puts forward the theory that our own government, under the direction of President George W. Bush, was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The head of the PPC, Davis Perkins, actually defends the decision, saying that Griffin's theory deserves serious reflection on the part of Christians. I wonder if Griffin and Perkins also believe that Bush and his minions deliberately flooded New Orleans in order to drive poor black people and other less fortunates from their homes, as some have also charged in the African-American community. Such irresponsibility by a seemingly respectable religious publisher is, of course, inexcusable, and brings discredit to a once-honorable denomination. But that's not the worst of it. At a time when membership losses are monumental and divisiveness is rampant, what does this say about the priorities of denominational leaders, who have yet to denounce the publication of this book by an affiliated arm of the denomination? The very people who have ridiculed the "Religious Right" for cozying up to the Republicans are now going to be equally ridiculed for making friends with terrorists and undermining the security of a nation.

Politics and Christian Evangelicals:

In recent years, Christian evangelicals have become strongly identified with certain political stances and even political parties.  This is healthy neither for politics nor the church.  It has not always been true, either, though the church has often been vocal regarding certain issues.

 

When I was a student in college and seminary, many of my friends who considered themselves evangelical still held political views that were decidedly liberal.  It was partially for that reason that I began referring to myself as a traditionalist, and not an evangelical--though my theology is decidedly evangelical.  (It is interesting how the term "evangelical" has so many different connotations for different people all the way from charismatic and contemporary worship to social conservatism  and even political liberalism.   Sometimes, the term can be more confusing than descriptive.)

 

With the nomination of Ronald Reagan for President by the Republican party in 1980 and the beginning of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority," Christian evangelicals increasingly began to be identified with conservative political stands and partisan politics.  With the 2000 and 2004 Presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, this identification reached a new zenith. My concern about this development has nothing to do with the issues as such.  In most cases, as should already be apparent to readers of this blog, my personal political views would usually be characterized as conservative.

 

The church is, or ought to be, primarily a spiritual institution.  For decades, those of us in mainline Protestant denominations have had to endure the spectacle of judicatories taking positions and passing resolutions on controversial issues.  This always troubled me--not least because I usually disagreed with the positions these bodies were espousing.  There was, however, a deeper reason.  Even as a teen-ager, I disliked seeing church bureaucrats using religious language and privilege to promote a decidedly political agenda.  To cloak a political position with the language of piety and sanctimony seemed very dishonest to me and even self-righteous.  As I continued my studies, of course, I realized that the Westminster Confession, then the sole theological standard of the mainline Presbyterian bodies, stated quite clearly that the church was not to take political stands on issues except in cases of national emergency or when requested for its opinion by the civil powers--a scenario which seemed highly unlikely to me then and now.  

 

This reluctance of the Westminster divines to get involved in affairs of state was based firmly on biblical examples in the New Testament.  Jesus and His disciples did not get involved in the intrigues of the Roman Empire; and the apostle Paul specifically warned Timothy not to get entangled in the affairs of the world. Of course, in the Old Testament, God's people were a political entity--being, as they were, for much of that period, a theocracy.  This situation no longer exists, and the biblical witness takes account of this.

 

During the time I spent in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I still spoke out against the positions taken by that body on political issues--even though in the EPC, I usually agreed with the stands being taken.  It made no difference to me that I was more sympathetic to the positions of the EPC.  

 

So today, I dislike the heavy involvement of certain churches and ministries in the politics of the nation.  I find it hypocritical, however, for certain liberal pastors and religion commentators to criticize evangelical groups and pastors for doing the same thing that liberals have been doing for decades.  These left-of-center pundits act like this is a brand-new thing in the life of the church, although many of them were doing the same thing during the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war years, and the Watergate era.  

 

I do not preach on issues.  I will indicate certain applications of biblical Christian principles that might have some applications relating to political matters; but I will rarely preach an entire sermon around a current political concern.  I have, on a few instances, given part of a sermon over to some current issue if our General Assembly has taken an action which I feel requires a theological and biblical response and which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I feel compelled to reject or affirm.  I have not, for instance, preached a sermon on abortion or any foreign policy involvements of the United States.  And although my sermon "Big God or Big Government," based on 2 Samuel 8, relates to a principle which I believe is a part of a biblical Christian worldview, I do not address specific partisan issues in that sermon.

 

I think many Christians are under the impression that if they can just get the "right people" elected, most of the problems of our nation will disappear.  This is an illusion. I love politics and elections.  When I was called to the ministry, I had narrowed my vocational choices down either to the ministry or law and politics.  When the church becomes consumed with politics, however, it is compromising its basic mission.  And the job of evangelical Christians is to spread the gospel, to be evangelical about bringing people to faith in Jesus Christ--not bringing them to faith in the Republican party!

  

Christianity and Liberalism:

Straight AheadChristianity and political liberalism are logically incompatible. To those who don't know me, this may seem like a shocking statement, but this conclusion seems inevitable for several reasons. Political liberalism fails in the very area of accountability. Political liberalism fails to allow a person to face the consequences of his own actions. It assumes an attitude of victimization. If somebody doesn't have enough to eat, it must be the fault of the rich, the evil businessman, or bad parents. Even when, in rare instances, the political liberal does allow the individual to assume responsibility for his own mistakes, it's the job of the rest of us to see that the person doesn't really have to face the full consequences of these actions. That's what the welfare state has largely come to symbolize today. The Protestant Reformation, on the other hand, emphasized a strong work ethic, and based that emphasis on a biblical worldview. Political liberalism is incompatible with Christianity for another reason. It lauds "Big Government." The Christian, on the other hand, knows that man is sinful. It is dangerous to concentrate too much power in the hands of government because there is no check on that power. While the Christian realizes that it is not good for too much power to reside in any one area of society, he would far prefer business to become big and government small. At least, that way, the government can serve as a check on the abuses by business whereas there is no outside power to serve as a check on abuses by government. This is also why Christians should much prefer more power to reside in state or provincial government and less in the national capital; and more power to reside in legislatures who are accountable to the electorate, and less in the hands of regulatory agencies who are not accountable to the voters. (See 2 Samuel 8. I preach a sermon entitled, "Big God or Big Government.") In our modern obsession with an ever-increasing role for government, we have largely substituted an over-reaching central government for the honor and worship of God. The third reason that I say Christianity and political liberalism are incompatible is that while Christianity recognizes our responsibility to provide for the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves, it also understands and upholds private property rights. The political liberal thinks he's being very compassionate when he sponsors or supports legislation to take money away from one group, filter it through various agencies, and give part of it to another group. This attempt at providing a "level playing field," also known as the redistribution of wealth, is not true Christian compassion. It is simply confiscation by the government, a legalized form of theft. How am I displaying compassion when I simply force one person or group to give part of their wealth to another--especially when I take it from them by coersion, using various forms of taxation? No, if I am truly compassionate along the lines of the biblical model and the example of Christ, I give of my own substance without inflicting my brand of compassion on someone else. I could give more reasons why political liberalism and Christianity are not good mates, and you can probably add more to this list. I am what I am politically because I am what I am theologically. Does this mean that I don't care about the needs of what we used to call the "worthy poor?" Not at all. Does this mean that I feel no discomfort with the present identification of evangelicals with the Republican Party? No. In fact, I am quite uncomfortable with this alliance. I will have more to say about these and other issues in later entries.

Taking Responsibility:

Actions have consequences.  Decisions we make will have certain outcomes.  These are undeniable truths; but some people seem to live in a dream world and believe that society or government or somebody has the job of negating this basic rule of human interaction.

 

I am in contact with many people--through email, by telephone, through this blog, and in person.  All too many of these people--many of them good friends of mine--have had to endure horrifying childhoods and are living even now in situations that sadden and concern me greatly.  Most of these people, however, have come to realize that as adults, they are responsible for their lives.  Now, of course, I am not speaking in such absolute terms as to rule out the dimension of God's ultimate control over our lives.  God alone is sovereign.  What I am saying is that most people, by the time they become mature adults, realize that it does no good to blame their failures on their past.  We are responsible for the decisions we make, for our actions, for our thoughts, for our responses, our mistakes, our judgments--good and bad.  Even those adults who think this a harsh approach to take toward others or toward certain groups, recognize that, on the individual level, they must take responsibility for their own lives. 

Christianity makes us accountable.  We are accountable to God.  Now, there may be perfectly good reasons for the mistakes we make, the instances of failure in our lives, the times we made poor decisions.  But good reasons don't excuse bad choices.  I say this even for myself.  I have made bad decisions, done stupid things, made wrong choices.  And guess what!  I don't hold you, or the government, or my parents, or my blindness responsible for any of that!  This has implications for religion and theology.  It also has implications for politics and government.  That's part of what I plan to write about in the next few entries.  Stay tuned.

 

Ephesians 4:1-16, July 31-August 6, Year B; Toward a Mature Church:

In this passage, Paul encourages the church in Ephesus to cultivate genuine Christian love, to live together in unity, to grow in maturity of doctrine--all to the purpose of moving toward a mature church.

 

In Ephesians 4:1-6, he tells the Ephesian Christians to walk worthy of their calling.  He is moving from the doctrinal aspect of Christianity which he emphasized in Ephesians 1-3 to the practical, though the two inevitably overlap.  This prisoner for the gospel pleads with the Ephesians--and, with the church everywhere and in all ages--to live in a certain way. Profitable time can be spent considering exactly what is meant by words like humility, meekness, and patience.  Unity is a kind of oneness that results in peace; but exactly what kind of unity is the apostle encouraging?  What must each of us do to apply these doctrines?  We are to live in the light of what we believe in a way that brings glory to Christ and credit to the church.  We must remember that humility was not always considered a virtue in ancient civilizations.  We must see ourselves as God sees us, realizing that we're not the center of the universe--yet, thankful for God's love.  He knows us as we really are--and still loves us! 

 

My wife and I once saw a big dog who was constantly being harassed by a little puppy.  Yet, the big dog did not retaliate, but withstood the annoyance patiently.  (We can learn a lot from a dog.  But then, few people are more partial to our barking friends than I am.  Jus don't try to make this a statement about governments and politics.) 

 

In Ephesians 4:4-6, we learn something of the basis of Christian unity according to Paul.  Christian unity must be under the Headship of Christ.  There is one Holy Spirit.  There is one Hope--a world redeemed.  There is one Lord and Master.  There is one faith, which is trust in Christ.  There is one baptism and public confession.  There is one God and Father.  What does this say about our artificial attempts to force some kind of structural unity or uniformity on a diverse church?

 

In Ephesians 4:7-16, Paul speaks of the gifts to the church and the purpose of those gifts.  He tells of the Incarnation, Ascension, and Triumph of Christ.  He reminds us that there are gifts given to every Christian.  He delineates the gifts and the offices God has given to the church.  Again, we would do well to consider the function of each of these in the life of the church today.  In what sense, if any, do we still have apostles?  What is the work of an evangelist?  It is all to lead to the equipping of the saints.  The work is not all to be done by those who are called to full-time Christian ministry.  They are simply to equip the saints for the work of the church.  We are each to seek our spiritual gifts.

 

All of this is leading to a mature church, not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.  We are to become spiritual adults.  Christ desires that we grow in truth and love.  Remember that, as Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, just because a need exists, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're the one to meet it.  We are to follow God's particular calling for our lives, not to be sidetracked, not to have our energy dissipated by "chasing rabbits," as it were. We can certainly pray for those needs to be met, for those people to be raised up whom God intends to do other work in the vineyard.  

 

This passage also helps us reflect on the purpose of creeds and confessions as we seek to know the truth God has given us.  While it is true that we who believe in Christ are all children of God, we are not to remain babes in Christ, but become mature, moving on to solid food.  We should be able to communicate,  to our modern world, with clarity and conviction, what we believe about Christ. And we should regularly be asking, as Paul himself did, "Lord, what would you have me to do?"--Daniel.

       

Blogger Problems:

If some of you thought you saw messages on my blog earlier today that you had perhaps seen before or that are no longer there, you weren't dreaming.  I had emailed a couple of messages a few days ago that were never posted.  Consequently, I entered them from the blog itself; so they're still there.  You just have to look on down in the blog for them and maybe go to the July, 2006, archives.

 

I now know that if I'm patient enough, technology will catch up with reality.  I may address some of these subjects again, but not by reposting the same entry!  Thanks for your patience, your faithfulness in checking in, and your comments.--Daniel. 

Straight ahead!  See my blog at:   www.noblindbluff.blogspot.com

Why do We Do This?

Straight AheadI was talking to my parents on the phone Saturday afternoon. The subject of blogs and blogging came up, and my father asked me a very logical and interesting question. "Why do people spend so much time on blogs?" he wanted to know. And later, more pointedly, he asked, "Why do you do it?" Now, my parents don't own a computer. I think my mother would thoroughly enjoy having one, and learning to use it, but they don't have one. My father, however, does know about blogs and what they are. I must admit that when he asked me that question, I was totally unprepared with a cogent, witty, compelling answer! So when a question like this comes up, what does a man do? Well, of course, he asks his wife! Keep in mind that my wife doesn't use the computer, either! She doesn't know anything about a computer except how to read the screen! But she does know her husband. So after getting off the phone with my parents, I asked Lydia. "I've got an interesting question for you," I told her. "Ok," she said. What is it?" "Why do people do blogs?" I asked, "Or, more to the point, why do *I do blogs?" Interestingly, she had a good answer to the question much quicker than I did. "Well, some people do it to boost their ego!" "Oh," I said, in stunned disbelief, "surely that wouldn't have anything to do with why I do it." Well, we talked about it for a while, turning it over in our minds, laughing, serious, pondering. I have always enjoyed writing. And blogging is certainly proving to be one way to get around roadblocks of media, the usual difficulties in publishing books, and the trials of running a newspaper or radio station. It's a good way to share my thoughts with friends and hopefully a lot of folks who may become friends and possibly reach out to many people I'll never know in person. But the question still kind of hangs out there. Why do we do this? I'm not sure I completely know the answer myself; but then, maybe we don't need to know. Maybe we just enjoy it! Ego boost? Nah, couldn't be that.