Wait A Second, Which Woman Is Trump Again?

I posted about this on Facebook and I am surprised that very few people know about it. Maybe we are so numb to foolishness coming from Christian public figures that we stopped paying attention a long time ago. Anyway, on Thursday morning last week I was driving around and had NPR on. That in itself is noteworthy. I used to always listen to Morning Edition on my way to work and All Things Considered on my way home. It was clearly deeply liberal but if you knew that ahead of time you could still get some edification out of their in-depth stories. Not anymore. You really are pressed to find a story that is not a) claiming "climate change" is the root cause of every problem in the world, b) breathlessly praising homosexuality or c) some iteration of "Black Lives Matter" propaganda. A really good NOT story includes all three. But I was out in the middle of nowhere Kentucky so I was listening to Morning Edition and the story that stuck with me was: Ted Cruz Delegate Will Loyally Favor Trump; Falwell On Why He Backs Trump. The second half was an interview with Jerry Falwell, Jr. who is President of Liberty University. Liberty is, according to their webpage, the largest Christian university in the world and the largest private, not for profit university in America. They boast 14,500 residential students and a whopping 95,000 online students. Their seminary is huge especially their online presence. I took several semesters of classes from the seminary, the Rawlings School of Divinity (it wasn't called that at the time) and they were pretty good. I am setting the table here to make the point that Jerry Falwell, Jr. is the head of a major center of influence for the church, especially the conservative Evangelical wing of the church in America. He is also an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump. What he said during the interview was so obviously wrong that my jaw literally dropped.

During his interview with Steve Inskeep from NPR, after accusing Russell Moore of being a closet liberal because he doesn't support Trump which is funny because Trump holds essentially no classically conservative political position except for a couple that he put on for the election like he put on his dorky "Make America Great Again" hats, Inskeep asked the obvious question about Trump's well documented and often flaunted immoral behavior, behavior which would have presumably gotten him kicked out of Falwell's school on multiple occasions. Here is the exchange:

INSKEEP: Is his personal life or any candidate's personal life relevant to you? 

FALWELL, JR.: Well, I think Jesus said we're all sinners. When they ask that question, I always talk about the story of the woman at the well who had had five husbands and she was living with somebody she wasn't married to, and they wanted to stone her. And Jesus said he's - he who is without sin cast the first stone. I just see how Donald Trump treats other people, and I'm impressed by that.

Anyone with even a basic level of familiarity with the Gospels knows something is wrong here. Falwell is talking about two different events in the Gospel as if they were the same event. He uses enough detail to conclude that he is drawing from both but he doesn't seem to realize they are different accounts. I imagine he had this response to the inevitable question from Inskeep ready and still he totally confused the two. As a refresher, the woman at the well with five husbands comes from John, chapter 4, specifically John 4:7-30. This is a Samaritan woman Jesus is speaking to. Four chapters later, in John 8:1-11, Jesus brings him a woman, I assume a Jew, who was caught in the act of adultery and the Pharisees wanted to trap Him in how to deal with her. This account is pretty controversial in terms of whether it should be included in John's Gospel or not. Regardless, we have two events with two very different sets of circumstances. The only commonality was that both stories dealt with women engaged in sin. It is also instructive to note that with the woman about to be stoned, Jesus said to her to go and sin no more, not go and sin some more and then run for President.

I might expect and excuse someone who was a young Christian and had not had the chance to study the Bible like he should that made this mistake. The President of a Seminary, a 54 year old man who grew up in the household of Jerry Falwell and undoubtedly was at church multiple times a week for more than half a century, a man who oversees the education of over 100,000 students who trust that Liberty is an evangelical school? Please. This was more than just a slip on a small detail, this is the statement of someone who apparently doesn't know that what he described as one event is what the Bible records as two distinct and very different events in the ministry of Jesus. You might think I am nitpicking or being overly harsh but if anything I am being too soft on this.

It is bad enough that someone with the public platform and influence over not just the tens of thousands of students at Liberty but potentially millions more who are taught by clergy and missionaries trained at Liberty, not to mention getting on national news broadcasts on a regular basis, is using his influence to shill for a deplorable individual that is the antithesis of every quality the Bible tells us to emulate. To do that while butchering a Biblical example that makes little sense anyway and making a fool of himself while he is at it is inexcusable. Mr. Falwell might be better served and might serve the student body of Liberty better if he spent less time singing the praises of Donald Trump and more time reading the Bible.

So THAT is who Mark Burns is

In my prior post I mentioned I had no idea who Mark Burns, excuse me, Pastor Mark Burns was. As an aside, there are few things I find more revolting and indicative of someone who is probably not called to be an elder than constantly referring to yourself as "Pastor So and So". Anyway, Mr. Burns gave the benediction last night at the opening night of the GOP convention....



Beg your pardon "pastor". Hillary Clinton is not the enemy of the church. She is an unbeliever and her policy proposals are consistently, 100% the exact opposite of what we should be doing as a nation but she is not our enemy. The Bible tells us over and over that Satan is the enemy of the church. Certainly Hillary Clinton may be influenced by our enemy when she advocates so enthusiastically for infanticide but even if she is, she is but a tool. She might be the political enemy of the Republican Party but this guy who gets up and crows about his title as "pastor" and talks about Donald Trump believing in Jesus Christ in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary seems to think that enemies of the Republican Party are of course also enemies of the church. If you are speaking with the presumed authority of being an elder in the church and people can't be sure if you are speaking as a Christian or as a Republican, something is wrong.

As Paul writes, we have a real enemy to fight:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12)

The mission of the church is not to make more Republicans or to win secular elections. Our mission is to preach the Gospel and proclaim the Kingdom of God. We are in far more danger from those within the church who are false teachers and wolves among the sheep than we are from unbelieving politicians, even unbelieving politicians like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The outcome of this election does matter because it will have a huge impact on the everyday lives of regular people but let's not turn this into a holy war because there isn't anyone running from the two major parties that is a Christian or represents Christian values.

What Will Monday Bring?

In a few hours Iowans will begin the rather confusing process of caucusing which is not a primary but sort of has the same result. This is a once-every-four-years tradition and the position of Iowa as the first state to cast votes for the Presidential nomination is jealously guarded, just as New Hampshire guards their status as the first in the nation primary. I have been trying really hard to stay away from politics but it is a constant siren call to me, having an academic background in political science and coming from a hyper-aware political family. What makes this Monday so compelling is that it offers the possibility of some very strange results. There is a chance, a far more realistic one than I would have believed six months ago, that socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and....and....well whatever you call Donald Trump will win the day for their respective parties. This prospect terrifies both parties.

What both parties are either stubbornly ignorant of or willfully disregarding of is the reason that two people well outside of the established boundaries of either party are poised to upset the political apple cart like nothing we have seen for a very long time. In my sage opinion what we are seeing is a slow dawning of understanding among the American people that we are on the precipice of some calamitous. Whether it is the looming juggernaut of the national debt, the transition from well paying middle class jobs to low income service industry jobs, the threat (real or imagined) from ISIS and sharia law coming to America, whatever, Americans are scared and on the edge of something quite dangerous. I think the Sanders candidacy is pretty easy to understand. Hillary Clinton is one of the least likable people on the public stage. Ever. Many people loathe her and even among her tepid supporters her candidacy is based on having a uterus (It is time for a woman president, even if she is a criminal and pathological liar!). So sure, Democrats are looking for someone who at least believes what they say, even if those beliefs will be poison in the election. There is an element of impatience with the fulfilling of the liberal agenda, which President Obama in spite of his pen has been unable to move as much as they want thanks to a Republican congress and that little thing known as the Constitution, but I think most of it is a weariness of being lied to and the prospect of having a champion liar as their nominee in the general election.

On the Republican side it is a little more complex. While Sanders generally holds positions that the Democrat base holds, only a little more extreme, Donald Trump doesn't really seem interested in the traditional Republican ideals. He is not a Republican in any meaningful sense of the term and he is far from a conservative and what is more he doesn't seem to care. What compounds this is that there are lots of actual Republicans and conservatives from Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to more establishment types like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush to choose from. In spite of a highly competitive and broad field, someone who has been completely absent from the conservative movement is all of a sudden poised to win the Iowa caucuses, garnering support from working class voters, evangelicals, disenchanted conservative, all across the board. What appeal would someone who is an admitted serial adulterer, divorcing and remarrying when he gets bored, someone who is clearly not a fellow believer, have for evangelical voters? What do they think they are going to get from him? The real secret to the Donald Trump candidacy is that people are not voting for him so much as they are using their support to make a point to the Republican leadership.

The point is that we don't trust the Republican party. Donald Trump is nothing more than a stick in the eye of the GOP powers that have been telling middle class conservatives, especially evangelicals, for decades that they need to dutifully rally around whoever they are told to rally around and this time it will be different! Every election cycle it is the same thing. Politicians pander to the Republican base, again especially to evangelical voters and working class social conservatives. What is increasingly apparent is that the powers that be in the GOP don't much care for the very people that they absolutely rely on to win elections. Let's be real, there are only so many wealthy people to go around and a lot of them vote for liberals so any Republican who wants to win an election needs people who have, for most of my lifetime, been voting for people who do nothing that they promised to do. In spite of that necessity the GOP has for years convinced the rank and file to march to the polls, contribute time and money and feed our children into the endless appetite for soldiers to fight in various wars that accomplish nothing but the enriching of a small circles of powerful people. So long as the military-industrial complex is fed a never ending river of taxpayer money, bodies in caskets and limbs of our young people there will never be a need or desire by those who start the wars to stop starting them.

Tonight should be interesting, most especially because it is almost certain that the national leadership of both parties is going to completely misconstrue the results. Unless Marco Rubio pulls an upset, the number 1 and number 2 placers for the GOP are going to be the candidates the national party hates. Change is a'brewin' and it is going to be interesting.

Speaking Of Being Unequally Yoked

Heading into the first Republican 17 ring circus debate there is this news story: Which presidential candidate leads among evangelicals? Right now, it’s Donald Trump.

What does The Donald have to say that would account for that sizable lead over the next closest choice for evangelicals? Perhaps it is his depth of theological knowledge which makes Mitt Romney seem almost orthodox:

Trump saw his campaign take off after broadly denouncing Mexicans who cross the border illegally, calling them rapists and drug dealers. He also drew attention for saying Sen. John McCain is not a war hero. In the same Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, where he made those comments, Trump was questioned about whether he asks God for forgiveness. 

 “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “If I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”

Trump said he participates in Holy Communion.

“When I drink my little wine — which is about the only wine I drink — and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed,” he said, according to CNN. “I think in terms of ‘let’s go on and let’s make it right.’ ”

Or maybe they just like his hair.

I hope that is it.

At least he is honest and is saying what a lot of people believe, which is why America is such a fertile mission field if we but have the courage to tell people that the above has no relationship to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

:facepalm:

Brace Yourself

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is announcing what everyone has known for a long time, namely that he is running for President in 2016. If I am going to vote at all in the next cycle, Senator Paul is about the only one I would vote for. His libertarian message is a welcome breath of fresh(er) air amid the twin statist parties of Big Government Via Income Redistribution and Big Government Via Endless War And Military Spending. No one else in either party is talking about the issues of liberty he does and being one of the few to question American interventionist foreign policy is enough to set him apart.

Of course running for President often changes a man's political positions so we will see and I still place zero trust in politicians to actually do what  they say but you never know. I do know this, many in the pro-war Republican establishment hate and fear Senator Paul and will do everything in their power to keep him from the nomination, even if that means handing the White House to Hillary Clinton. Never underestimate the lust for power.

This being 2016 I of course had to make a meme to celebrate this moment.

Gentlemen, Start Your Pandering!

Just like that, we are off!

The first of many Republicans announced  their run for the White House today, with the award for being the first to officially announce going to Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Cruz seems like an OK guy, reasonable conservative in some areas and best of all he has been dubbed " absolutely unfit to be running for office" by noted authority on being unfit to be running for office, the well known intellectual heavyweight Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, of the train-wreck we know as California. I can think of no higher praise than being chastened by the addled Governor of California.

Anyway, Senator Cruz of Texas decided to announce his candidacy not in his home state of Texas. Not in D.C. Not in the early primary states like Iowa or New Hampshire. Rather he went to Liberty University, the world's largest "Christian" college that has hosted such luminaries Gospel denying, God blaspheming heretics as Glenn Beck. Cruz sounded the expected note to the captive audience (attendance was apparently mandatory for students):

In choosing to stage his announcement at Liberty University, a Baptist school founded in 1971 founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Cruz — who is also Baptist — signaled that he will cast himself as a principled social conservative and align himself with the evangelical voters who play a critical role in the early primary states. He marbled his speech with references to God, and told the story of his father, who left the family home when Cruz was three years old but later returned, having found redemption through Jesus.

“There are people who wonder if faith is real,” Cruz said. “I can tell you in my life it isn’t without a shadow of a doubt.”

“I believe God isn’t done with America yet,” he said later.

I agree with the Senator but I would say that God isn't done with any nation on earth yet, and none are more or less in His focus than any other. Someday the Son will reign on the new earth and the nations as we know them will have ceased to exist. Until that eschatalogical fulfillment we are left with citizens of the Kingdom of God living and witnessing to the kingdom of Caesar. 

Expect this to be a theme among a number of candidates in the upcoming primary elections. When speaking to a presumably Christian audience they will invoke God, country, guns, the war on terror and apple pie, although not necessarily in that order to raucous applause. You can also be sure that God, or at least invocations of that word, will be largely absent when speaking to the Chamber of Commerce or other more secular groups. Thus it goes on election cycle after election cycle as religious Americans of all stripes get patted on the head and given a little bit of lip-service to cement their unwavering support, just like black voters are treated by the Democrats.

I don't question Senator Cruz's sincerity or his faith. He is simply following the prescribed formula for GOP primary success. Perhaps someday we will see the majority of believers ceasing to fall for this charade year after year, but obviously not this year. We are in dire need of prophetic voices within the church who will call for a position of powerlessness and weakness rather than a vain and polluting thirst for political power. Not voices who substitute the Religious Right for the even more delusional Religious Left but rather for voices that reject both as attempts to yoke the Kingdom of God with the kingdom of man. Those voices are out there and even in the cacophony of "God Bless America" and roaring crowds, their voices are being heard. 

What of you Christian? Will you continue to follow the vain and doomed path of power or will you take the downward path of Christ? 

The Conclusive Case For An Anabaptist View Of Government In Less Than Two Minutes

Behold Mike Huckabee:


That makes my brain ache. The only thing worse than the nonsense Huckabee is saying is the knowing, pious hums of affirmation coming from the host (no idea who that guy and his wife are). I am declaring an edict that any Christian who does the eyes closed, head nodding, "mmmhhhmmm" when someone else is talking is subject to immediate excommunication.

When we make the church about politics and politics about the church we should expect to receive mockery. Not the sort of mockery we expect because of the foolishness of the cross (1 Cor 1:18) but rather the sort of well-deserved mockery that this kind of garbage draws. I have no reason to doubt that Mike Huckabee is a brother in Christ. I wish another brother would take him aside and tell him that this sort of stuff is doing nothing to advance the cause of Christ.

As an aside, is this what the Republican party is going into 2016 with? Mike Huckabee. Mitt "Third Time Is the Charm!" "The Human Weather-vane" Romney. Jeb "Also Third Time's The Charm" Bush Version 3.0. Sarah Palin. If that is the plan, to pick from whichever candidate emerges from the GOP clown car as the anointed one to slay the Hillary dragon, they can do so without my support and without my vote (which they aren't getting regardless nor is anyone else). America is 17 trillion in debt and heading full speed over a fiscal cliff that will make pre-World War II Germany look like a model of fiscal discipline and people are serious about Mike Huckabee? I guess he would be a better President than the current President but that is true of just about anyone you picked up off the streets.

It Is Time For The Abuse To End

As a follow-up to my post, Had Enough Yet?, regarding the latest betrayal of pro-lifers by the Republican Party, I wanted to talk through this a little more. I am still seeing some pretty serious backlash across social media and it is refreshing in spite of the infuriating actions of the Republican majority. 

Christians are in an abusive relationship with the Republican party, a relationship where the GOP takes and takes and heaps abuse on us and we still keep coming back convinced that they actually like us when in fact I think a lot of establishment Republicans either sneer at us behind our backs or find us repulsive chumps that are tolerated for our votes. I am not alone in that opinion. 

The redundantly named Eric Erickson writing for RedState opines in his elegantly titled essay, The Pro-Life Movement Must Stop BeingWhores of the Republican Party, that pro-lifers are to the Republican party what black voters are to the Democrats, a reliable voting block that has nowhere else to go:

In short, the pro-life movement must stop being the whores of the GOP. The Republican Leadership knows the pro-life movement is in its pocket. They have nowhere else to go. They have no one else to vote for. As much as Republicans look at black voters and tut-tut that they are being taken advantage of by a Democratic Party that knows black voters will not go anywhere, the Republicans are doing precisely the same to pro-life voters.

I actually think the better comparison is that Christians are to the Republican party what working class union folks are to Democrats, a reliable voting block that shows up to vote and contribute funds but gets nothing in return. I was just talking to my eldest son about this today. Contemporary Democrats are mostly concerned with taking money away from people who work to bribe those that don't and pandering to sexual deviants and illegal immigrants even though that not only does nothing to help working class Americans, it often is at odds with their economic self-interest and their own personal values. Likewise Christians and other pro-life religious groups (mormons, Catholics, etc.) vote overwhelmingly for the GOP but in return get lip-service about abortion and policies that mostly are aimed at the richest Americans (many of whom are ironically Democrats) or otherwise are at odds with Christian principles. 

What!? I have to be joking, right?! Of course Republican policies are Christian principles! Like for example:

- Pre-emptive wars of aggression! Ok maybe that is not a good example.

- Lower taxes! While that is a good social policy it isn't really an issue that Christ spoke about. He told us to render unto Caesar, not to lobby Caesar for tax breaks.

- Insistence on working for a living, see 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12! Well in context that is speaking about people in the church and is not speaking to broader social policy (which I agree is a dehumanizing policy and bad for the economy and for those who receive the aid). Ironically we are incredibly intolerant of the welfare recipient that may or may not be part of the church but we not only tolerate but celebrate clergy in our midst who take money from the church gathered from the work of others. 

You get my point.

Eric goes on to say, and I hope actual conservatives are listening, that:

We will remain conservative in the primary, but now we must say we will generally be Republican in the general. There must come a time, however, when we are willing to blow up a Republican in a general election and make an example of them for betraying our first principles.

That time is now.

This site must now commit itself to defeating Republicans in general elections, even if it means a Democrat will get elected, should those Republicans betray the first principles of our party. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)  must be first on that list. If she is not beaten in a primary, the fight must continue in the general election.

Pro-life voters must do the same. Our shared agenda will never advance if they keep serving as agents of the GOP. National Right to Life, among others, must stop working so hard to give seals of approval to the GOP and must start fighting the GOP. The pro-life cause must stop being a job protection racket for otherwise failed political consultants and must be a child protection effort willing to fight those failed political consultants and the politicians they back.

It is clear the GOP thinks the pro-life cause can be taken for granted and its voters will come home every election because of the Supreme Court, the Mexico City policy, etc. But it must be a two way street. The pro-life cause must stop acting like the Republican Party’s whore and must, instead, show New Testament grace to the world and Old Testament vengeance to politicians.

If you pay attention to politics and especially pro-life politics, that statement is staggering.

I am less than convinced that trying to bludgeon the GOP into obedience or forming a third-party will get the job done. The coercive power of the state is universally corruptive to the Kingdom. What we really need to do is completely divorce the church from all forms of statism, refusing to be patsies for any secular political movement and instead taking the way of the cross as our marching orders, trading in the sword of the state and the ballot box in return for the towel and the basin of servant-hood and humility. Nevertheless it is always encouraging to see an abuse victim seeing he light and leaving their abuser.

Had Enough Yet?

Many of my fellow Christians who are also politically conservative see abortion as a non-negotiable issue. It is not hard to understand. Unborn children epitomize the concept of "the least of us". They are the most vulnerable, most powerless in our society and have served as a political football for decades.

For those of my political and faith persuasion our concern for the unborn means that we are expected and obligated to show up in droves on election day to vote for Republicans. No matter how incompetent or odious the GOP candidate might be, the alternative is almost certainly an avowedly  pro-abortion Democrat, someone who is somewhere on the spectrum between reluctantly supporting abortion and wildly enthusiastic about abortion as a secular sacrament.

So understandably many Christians were cheered by the rather lopsided win for Republicans in the elections last fall. Perhaps a new era was dawning and the GOP would finally actually respond to our faithful support by making substantive policy changes to protect the unborn.

Nope.

Today the GOP House of Representatives, with an overwhelming majority largely sent to Congress by people like me, botched and failed to advance a very popular bill preventing abortion after 20 weeks. This should have been an easy bill to pass but it was completely bungled (assuming it wasn't callously sabotaged by the GOP, something that seems pretty likely).

The social media backlash has been swift, angry and exhibits a sense of being fed-up. Ross Douthat tweeted:

The idea that GOP is a party of moneyed interests posing as a culturally conservative party is, um, not always without empirical support.
— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) January 22, 2015

Mollie Hemmingway wrote a scathing piece, Why Everyone Should Be Terrified By The GOP’s Abortion Bill Debacle, including video from two female Republican supporting the bill when it didn't matter before helping to block it today.

Here is a poorly kept secret. The GOP establishment leadership doesn't really care about abortion except as a flashy, emotional issue that drivs voters to the polls. What they mostly care about is keeping their moneyed donors happy. Rod Dreher had this to say "Once again, social conservatives are useful idiots for the Koch Party." Pretty much.

It might be time to divorce the Republican party and to disavow these vain attempts at soft theonomy and realize that we are getting played as chumps by politicians. We are making very little progress in actual protection of the unborn while at the same time being unequally yoked with the party of preemptive war and capital punishment.

The historical Anabaptists look wiser every day.

Why the Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession Is An Important Document For The Church Today

The Anabaptists were known for many things but one thing that they were not known for is the writing of voluminous tomes on theology and extensive confessions of faith. Apparently it is hard to do that when you are on the run, in hiding and being murdered by your fellow "Christians" with such regularity. One rare exception to this rule occured in 1527 with the adoption of the Schleitheim Confession. It is worth noting that one of the primary figures involved in this was Michael Sattler who was subsequently arrested shortly after the Confession was adopted and murdered by Roman Catholic authorities in a most gruesome manner....

 ". . . Michael Sattler ... shall be committed to the executioner. The latter shall take him to the square and there first cut out his tongue, then forge him fast to a wagon and there with glowing iron tongs twice tear pieces from his body, then on the way to the site of the execution five times more as above and then burn his body to powder as an arch-heretic."

Remember that those who condemned him and tortured him to death in this way were allegedly Christians.

While Sattler died for the faith, he did providentially leave behind his work on the Schleitheim Confession. One area I want to look at briefly is the section concerning the use of the sword and the reasoning therein as to why Christians should not serve as "magistrates", roughly analogous to serving as elected officials in our system of government.

Finally it will be observed that it is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate because of these points: The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian's is according to the Spirit; their houses and dwelling remain in this world, but the Christian's are in heaven; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian's citizenship is in heaven; the weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christian's weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God. In brief, as in the mind of God toward us, so shall the mind of the members of the body of Christ be through Him in all things, that there may be no schism in the body through which it would be destroyed. For every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed. Now since Christ is as it is written of Him, His members must also be the same, that His body may remain complete and united to its own advancement and upbuilding.

The essence of the argument, a sound one I believe, is that the means and methods of the world are of the flesh while the means and method of the Kingdom is of the Spirit and incompatible. As such it is impossible for a Christian to faithfully serve a magistrate as it requires us to employ the methods of the flesh when we are to walk in the Spirit. In our culture this seems an awfully strange teaching to be sure. We love the halls of power, the uniform and the gun, the American flag waving next to the "Christian flag" on the dais of our church. The Anabaptists recognized, correctly, that our calling as followers of the Prince of Peace, the sheep of the Good Shepherd, makes it incompatible for us to seek to serve Caesar and the King at the same time, an unequal yoking that has always been disastrous for the church, from Constantine to the perverse state-church in Europe for a millennium to the wars of religion between states all the way to the ill-advised quasi-religious war waged by President George W. Bush on Iraq.

This came to mind for me recently when reading about the latest GOP politician seeking to invoke religious language in support of a secular political campaign, Jindal for POTUS (Preacher of the US). The author Rod Dreher quotes the announcement of a "group meditation", whatever that is, hosted by Louisina Governor Bobby Jindal, a man with well know Presidential aspirations:

Gov. Bobby Jindal will host a mass prayer rally on the LSU campus in January called “The Response,” sponsored by the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based out of Mississippi.

American Family is covering the cost of the event, scheduled for 10:30 a.m.-4 p.m. on Jan. 24 at the Maravich Assembly Center. The mass meeting is billed as a group meditation — a response, if you will — to the multiple crises facing the country.

“What we really need in these United States is a spiritual revival. … It is time to turn back to God,” said Jindal in a video invitation to The Response. “It’s time to light the spark that starts the spiritual revival that will put these United States of America back on the right path.”

It is worth noting here, as Dreher does, that Jindal is a Roman Catholic but the language he uses seems specifically designed to appeal to an evangelical audience. I am sure that is just coincidental.

Perhaps as some have suggested Jindal is sincere in his hope for revival. I am skeptical and not just for his motivations but also because revival implies that there is something to revive and the mythical "Christian nation" of days of yore is just that, a myth. You can't turn a nation that consists of, and has always consisted of, a mix of believers and unbelievers (in a ratio that I suspect is heavily skewed toward the unbelieving column) back to something it never was in the first place. I am going to quote Dreher at length because what he writes echoes what I have long suspected and have been saying (emphasis mine):

Here’s the thing. I bet there’s not much distance between Bobby Jindal and me about the need for a spiritual revival in America. I bet we share the same moral views about most things. But I find it exasperating that once again, a Republican politician is conflating his own political ambitions with the Gospel, and once again, a prominent Religious Right organization is conflating the Gospel with the ambitions of a Republican politician.

Jindal’s people are saying that this will not be a political rally, but one that focuses solely on matters of the spirit. Nonsense. Anything involving the governor of a state, especially one who is widely believed to be planning a run for the White House, is political. And we have the Rick Perry precedent. It seems that Jindal is trying to become the standard-bearer of the Evangelical-fundamentalist wing of the GOP. I don’t think Jindal has, well, a prayer of being the GOP nominee, but he’s angling for the No. 2 slot on the ticket. If he can deliver the Religious Right bloc, that’s something.

I am not an Evangelical, nor am I a fundamentalist, but I am a religious and social conservative who certainly would like to have a president who shared my beliefs and concerns. But one of the biggest mistakes we Christian conservatives make is thinking that electing politicians who share our views is going to straighten the country out. How many times do we have to learn this lesson? It doesn’t work, and only serves to make the world think that the Body of Christ is the Republican Party at prayer. I’m not all that worried about religion corrupting politics (and any liberals who are ought to first pluck the log of liberal religious political activism out of their own eyes), because religious believers, progressive and conservative alike, have a right to bring their faith to the public square.

I’m worried about politics corrupting religion, which has been a particular problem on the Right. I’m worried about politics corrupting the way American society sees the Christian faith, but I’m more worried about politics corrupting the way American Christians see our faith. Bobby Jindal is not helping. Ronald Reagan didn’t die for our sins, and though we should hope and pray for righteous leaders, no president of the United States can take away the sin of the world.

The crux of the matter is this: it is impossible for someone to be simultaneously calling for revival while at the same time holding secular political office without seeming to be using the faithful to advance his own personal agenda. In fact the cynic in me assumes that this is less a serious call for revival and more a crass political move designed to sucker the faithful, or at least the religious, into voting for him. This cynical manipulation is quite apparent to the world and whether we admit it or not it negatively impacts our witness as the church in the same way that our opulent buildings and shyster televangelists do. I would dare say that our overly politicized religious system is one of the great impediments to the Gospel proclamation in this society. Even when we are "right" on a political or economic issue, our insistence on trying to "baptize" that issue makes both our secular argument and our sacred witness weaker to the intended audience.

Well that isn't our problem, that is the pagans problem! This is America, we have rights! Actually it is our problem and it is a problem that we have been dealing with for quite some time. We want to have worldly power and influence and reach people for the Gospel but the reality is that when we make our politics and our faith indistinguishable we destroy our credibility. We cannot serve two masters and we must not be unequally yoked. The calling of the Kingdom is all-compassing and has no room for split loyalties. Anything that is a stumbling block to the Gospel is a hindrance to be avoided.

We are heading for a major political clash in 2016 and the game is afoot. Politicians are already jockeying for position on both sides, with Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee for the Democrats with far left candidates like Elizabeth Warren testing the waters as well and on the GOP side a cast of thousands trying to find that niche that will get them the nomination, if not the Presidency (Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney 2.0? Seriously?). You can be sure that the next six months are going to see an unprecedented push to get the "evangelical vote", with many a political figure invoking language designed to convey that they are "one of us", even when they are (like Mitt Romney) most definitely not "one of us" if by "us" we mean Christians. This is a time for healthy cynicism and a time to remember that our calling is not to seize the reins of power but to preach from the margins in a position of weakness. It is also a time to look back and remember our brethren who recognized and rejected the seductive pull of earthly power and chose instead the way of the cross, choosing the towel and basin over the sword.

What Would Brigham Young Think This Morning?

In the election yesterday we saw the first ever black female was elected to the Congress as a Republican. Mia Love, will represent Utah's 4th congressional district. Her parents fled from Haiti to escape Papa Doc and here is their daughter being elected to the Congress. It is in many ways a quintessential American story and I am pretty happy to see this take place. Here is the hitch. Take a look at the family photo below.

Great looking family! Except that Ms. Love was elected in what is certainly a hugely mormon district. As it happens, those same mormons are all required to recognize Brigham Young as a prophet of God, a prophet on par with any of the prophets of the Old Testament and as such when he spoke he did so on behalf of God. Brigham would not be happy to see his current day followers electing a black woman in a mixed race marriage to represent them in Congress. In fact he would probably be wondering why she had not been put to death or at least her husband Jason Love. You see Brigham didn't much care for blacks, calling them the descendants of Cain and their dark skin the sign of the curse God placed on Cain. They were barred from being "priests" in the mormon church. When it came to the idea of mixed marriages he was even more of a mad dog, calling for the execution of the parties involved....

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, 10:110).

Notice the emphatic "this will always be so". Doesn't leave much wiggle room, does it? Subsequent "prophets" of the so-called "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" reinforced that blacks were an inferior people and unworthy in both the "pre-existence" and to hold the mormon "priesthood", at least until it became politically inexpedient like polygamy and God suddenly changed His mind. Funny how that works. "This will always be so...until it becomes too uncomfortable in the culture".

Now it is true that many alleged Christians held to pretty ugly racist positions back in the day, and some still do. The difference is that I can say they were completely wrong. Mormons don't have that same ability because to question the statement of a prophet on a matter of doctrine is to call into question the entire system. This is the difference between the Christian faith based on the revealed Word of God and the mormon religion and other cults based on the whims and declarations of men.

While I am sure Brigham Young would be irate this morning, I wish Ms. Love and her beautiful family the very best and hope that she honorably serves in Congress. I hope even more fervently that she and her fellow adherents to mormonism have their hearts changed and that they turn from the false religion of mormonism and into saving faith in Jesus Christ. That is my hope and my prayer for Ms. Love, her family and all of those trapped in the cult of mormonism.

Some Thoughts on Election Day and the American Church

I am and always have been a political junkie. I majored in political science in school with a minor in history and for me and my family politics is a passion, one we purport to hate but really kinda love. Today of course is the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November and that means election day. I wanted to share a few thoughts for this almost sacred day in the life of America and the church that has been called to this land.

First, THIS is not helpful. When I got up this morning and logged into Facebook I saw this status from Albert Mohler (also induced the comment I made in response on my timeline).

Now as I said I almost always agree with or at least respect what Dr. Mohler has to say. Not this time. That statement is about as Biblically valid as the nonsense propagated by prosperity preachers. In fact it is a pretty fair example of the thinking that pervades the American religious culture where Christians in America are a little too heavily identified as Americans who happen to be Christian rather than Christians who happen to live in America. Like I said, that is an incredibly unhelpful and frankly ignorant statement.

Second, I think a lot of my fellow believers are excited at the prospect of the GOP retaking control of the Senate but I would caution us as a people against expecting too much or placing too much hope at the feet of politicians. I expect the Senate to change hands tonight and I also expect business to go on as usual in America with slight modifications. Debt will still pile up. Money will be taken from some and given to others by force. Military spending will rage on unchecked and wars to justify that spending will continue to be conjured up. In other words, very little will change.

Third, while most Christians are voting, many are not. I respect that and still am on the fence with this issue. I wrote a while back some thoughts on this topic in a post Why Worry About Things That Don't Matter? In that post I wrote:

All things being equal, a society with a free exchange of ideas is better than one without. A society with an opportunity based economic system is better than one with a false outcome based system. A nation where children are not murdered in the womb is better than one where they are. A nation that incentivizes and protects marriage with a mother and father is better than one that waters down marital relationships to an unlimited number of permutations that all demand equal recognition no matter how harmful they are. A peaceful nation state that restrains her own powers both domestically and abroad is a freer and better neighbor than one that treats all of her citizens as potential criminals and interferes over and over in conflicts that are none of her business. I believe that a people who individually, voluntarily and collectively work together to aid the poor, the widow and the orphan is preferable to one that confiscates from some to give to others and where individuals subcontract mercy work to the state or the religious institution. I believe it is profoundly immoral to bankrupt future generations with an enormous debt burden because of the greed, selfishness and incompetence of past and present generations. There are lots more but you get the idea. Just because something doesn't have eternal consequences doesn't mean it ought to be ignored. Feeding a poor person or visiting a widow doesn't make one a believer but that doesn't mean it is unimportant.

That is why I still vote but do so hopefully with open eyes and a recognition that this is not the Gospel.

Fourth, I will be voting for Libertarians where I can and Republicans where that is not an option. The GOP has been in the hands of statist defenders of the status quo for too long and it is high time they were disabused of the notion that about half of the people in this country are going to keep supporting their generally harmful policies. Being a little less liberal than the Democrats isn't getting it done and with the rise of men like Rand Paul and Justin Amash that is becoming a reality that frightens people like Lindsay Graham and John McCain. That is a good thing.

Whatever you do today, whether you vote or choose not to, let the Scriptures and Holy Spirit be your guide, not the American culture or the talking heads.

Why worry about things that don't matter?

Time for a little pushback.

I have been thinking more about the whole flap over Duck Dynasty and the implications for the church. I often find that once the initial furor dies down it is helpful to think through the issues when the "heat of battle" is not quite so hot. I used to be pretty fervent about the culture wars and while it may not seem like it, especially if we are friends on Facebook or you follow me on Twitter, but I don't care nearly as much as I used to about politics and economics. There is not a "Christian" system of worldly governance or economics and our mission transcends and supersedes those sorts of concerns. Winning the culture wars wouldn't make a single new disciple of Christ (see Eric Carpenter's post on this topic, What If Conservatives Actually Won The Culture War?). I also believe in a God who is sovereign over all things, from the smallest detail to the rebirth of a sinner dead in their trespasses. That raises a question in my mind and certainly others: why care at all about these apparently irrelevant issues like economics and politics?

I care, probably more than I should, because believe it or not I care about people, even people I don't know and who aren't even born yet. Ideas and policies have consequences. I believe as firmly as I believe anything outside of the Gospel that some ideas are harmful to people, ideas like institutionalizing children, policies like the creation of a state replacement for family and especially fathers, notions like unborn children being reduced to an dehumanizing term like "choice". Not every transgression amounts to persecution but just because it isn't persecution doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

All things being equal, a society with a free exchange of ideas is better than one without. A society with an opportunity based economic system is better than one with a false outcome based system. A nation where children are not murdered in the womb is better than one where they are. A nation that incentivizes and protects marriage with a mother and father is better than one that waters down marital relationships to an unlimited number of permutations that all demand equal recognition no matter how harmful they are. A peaceful nation state that restrains her own powers both domestically and abroad is a freer and better neighbor than one that treats all of her citizens as potential criminals and interferes over and over in conflicts that are none of her business. I believe that a people who individually, voluntarily and collectively work together to aid the poor, the widow and the orphan is preferable to one that confiscates from some to give to others and where individuals subcontract mercy work to the state or the religious institution. I believe it is profoundly immoral to bankrupt future generations with an enormous debt burden because of the greed, selfishness and incompetence of past and present generations. There are lots more but you get the idea. Just because something doesn't have eternal consequences doesn't mean it ought to be ignored. Feeding a poor person or visiting a widow doesn't make one a believer but that doesn't mean it is unimportant.

Free market economics is not the Gospel (nor are income redistribution schemes). Likewise our individualistic, "I earned it, it is my money and I will do with as I want with it" attitude is cause for concern and correction in the church. Nevertheless I honestly believe that a freer society with freer markets where people have the opportunity to take risks and be rewarded for enterprise and initiative is better for all people than a centrally controlled economy. The economic history of the world bears this out.

Here is the point I am trying to make. I can believe the above positions and even advocate for them at the same time I serve God and proclaim His Son. Granted there needs to be a prioritization because my calling as an ambassador of the King trumps every other concern. The Gospel proclamation is our highest and only eternally relevant task. Free markets are not the Gospel. Traditional marriage is not the Gospel. Even protecting unborn children is not the Gospel. That doesn't make them irrelevant or value neutral. All across the political spectrum, left and right equally, the church has tried to link the Gospel with their political cause but that error and abuse doesn't lead to a shoulder shrugging attitude of "who cares?". Because I care about people I care about issues that make their lives better or make their lives worse.

So please don't dismiss as petty any issue or position that is not directly Gospel related. Not everyone, or even very many people, will respond to the Gospel's offer of unmerited favor that forgives sins. That reality doesn't mean that we sit in our Kingdom bunkers and watch the world collapse in misery and despair. Nor does the opposite hold true, as some seem to suggest, that winning political victories and achieving cultural dominance is our most pressing concern. In this area, as in so many others, balance is of the utmost importance.

All Life Is Precious And God Is Always In Control Even When The Circumstances Are Awful

Here I go again with a quasi-political post but this has me all wound up. In the otherwise boring world of Indiana politics, a comment last night by GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock has the media all a-twitter. Here is what he said in response to a question about abortion and exceptions in the case of rape…

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

Gasp!

Now of course in this political environment those pretty obvious words have been twisted, even unfortunately by some people who claim to be Christians. Our illustrious State Democratic Chairman, Dan Parker wasted no time in saying:

"As a pro-life Catholic, I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape," Parker said in a statement. "Victims of rape are victims of an extremely violent act, and mine is not a violent God."

Set aside the idea of “my God” here. Mr. Parker, a supposed pro-life leader in a political party that has made being pro-abortion a litmus test, is guilty of bearing false witness, something that his church frowns on. Only someone who is borderline illiterate or masterfully dishonest would hear those words and come to Mr. Parker’s conclusion. I am hoping that people in Indiana are less susceptible to the sort of “gotcha” politics being wielded here by Indiana and national Democrats. I was probably going to vote for Richard Mourdock anyway, although I am considering Libertarian Andrew Horning, but now I am definitely going to vote for Mourdock. For someone who claims to be pro-life to seek to score cheap political points that come at the expense of the lives of unborn children is unconscionable. Perhaps Mr. Parker should read the genealogy in Matthew where the lineage of Jesus through Joseph the husband of Mary includes Solomon, a man conceived by the terrible sin of David. You think maybe that even in the midst of David's sin God was at work?

As I have stated before, if you say you are pro-life then that should extend to all unborn children regardless of the circumstances of their conception (a notion clearly lost on “pro-life” Dan Parker). Let me be uncharacteristically blunt:

Aborting an unborn child conceived as the result of a rape is punishing an innocent for the crime of another.

Here is a prime example of the muddled way that religious Americans view abortion. Is God only in control when pregnancy happens to a middle class Caucasian married couple that has already started painting the nursery and opened a 529 account? What about when the terrified teen girl comes into the crisis pregnancy center where I volunteer? Should we tell her that God doesn’t care about her or her child because she drank too much at a party and got pregnant? Should we tell the woman living in a motel to abort her child because the dad ran off and she doesn’t have much financial support? You can’t call children a blessing when the stars are all aligned and then turn around and support the dismemberment and murder of a child based on the criminal act of another.

Turning abortion into a mainly political argument has led to ridiculous discussions like “under what circumstances of conception does a child forfeit her right to life?” and statements like those from Dan Parker that are simply beyond the pale, using an issue of human life to try to undermine a political campaign and retain control of the U.S. Senate. We have brought this on ourselves and it is high time for Christians to stop relying on the ballot box to overcome the evil of abortion. I guarantee that there are opportunities for each and every Christian in America to give or volunteer at a life affirming ministry in their own home town. We need to quit relying on politicians to do what God has called us to do as salt and light in the world. Abortion is a barbaric, pagan practice and the only cure is the sin atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Only the blood of the Lamb can save the innocent blood of the unborn.

Mitt and Billy

I have been mulling over what, if anything, to say about the kerfuffle over Billy Graham's meeting with Mitt Romney, his subsequent endorsement of Romney and the highly controversial removal of mormonism from the list of cults on the webpage of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Many of my fellow believers who are former mormons or on the front lines of mormon evangelism were rightly outraged by this and then today I read something that drove me to write this post.

Apparently the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal, using funds donated for this stated purpose "building the kingdom of God and bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ" to buy an ad to advocate for someone who is diametrically opposed to that mission in every possible way. In part the ad reads:

"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election may be my last," Graham says in the ad. "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."


How exactly can we take seriously a statement like that? A man who belongs to and has been a leader in a religious cult that denies every crucial doctrine in the Bible and perverts the Gospel cannot in any sense of the word be said to "base their decisions on biblical principles". The Bible says nothing about gay marriage. The Bible says nothing about abortion being wrong but preemptive war being OK. The Bible does say an awful lot about being wary of wolves seeking to devour the sheep, wolves who externally look like sheep but are only interested in destroying God's sheep.

I don't pretend to know Billy Graham's motivation here nor do I discount his decades of service to the Kingdom preaching the Gospel night after night to more people than I have talked to in my entire life about any topic. I do know this much. This action is yet another example of the extent to which American Christians are willing to set aside any sense of discernment to win a political victory. I also know that Christians who know nothing about mormonism look to Billy Graham as a trusted leader in the church and that leadership is a responsibility that transcends political pragmatism.

Watchbloggers like the Pyromaniacs would jump all over Billy Graham for this under normal circumstances but instead we are treated to a six part series about why they are voting for Mitt Romney. If Graham had met with Thomas Monson and then removed mormonism from the BGEA webpage as a cult, you can be sure that the boys would have something caustic and ugly to say. But not when it comes to defeating Barack Obama! These same fellows blew a gasket about other Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration which calls for unity among Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians in working toward ending abortion. One thing all three of those groups share is a belief in orthodox trinitarian doctrine and that is something that Mitt Romney explicitly denies. Just don't point that out or you will get an earful of self-righteous bleating.

Listen to me carefully:

Defeating Barack Obama in this election is not the highest priority of the church.

Did you catch that? In fact it isn't even in the ten top. Dare I say not anywhere on our priority list at all as the church.

The apostle John spoke to this very issue in his second epistle:

A lovely visit with a wolf

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11)

I wonder what John would have to say about the most recognizable figure in the church warmly greeting and endorsing someone that John called "the deceiver and the antichrist" because this election is so important to the church.

If you want to vote for Romney in the certain to be dashed hope that he will do great things like ending abortion, that is fine. Not my choice, not by a long shot. Obama is a horrible President and Romney probably would be a less horrible President and I don't feel obligated to vote for one over the other. Just don't blur the bright line between the Biblical Gospel and the perversion of mormonism to make evangelicals feel better about casting their vote for him. America will some day be gone and no one will care who won the 2012 election but those who spend an eternity in hell thanks to the lies of mormonism most certainly will care.

Pastor Romney

I studiously avoided the Presidential debate last night. I am not very interested in listening to two guys lie to me. Plus we were at the pregnancy resource center ministering which is a far more valuable;e use of my time. Anyway we got home and my wife turned on the TV and since all we get is broadcast TV of course the very end of the debate was on. I was in the other room but I could hear them. Romney said something that made my ears perk up. This is from the CNN transcript of the second debate (Emphasis added)

My - my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I - I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.

If I call myself Pastor maybe they will forget I am a mormon?

THAT got my attention. Mitt Romney, in case you missed it, is a mormon. He served in the Stake Presidency in Massachusetts and also as a "bishop" in his ward. This is important to note. As a mormon I never once heard a single reference to any mormon leader as "pastor". In fact pastor was more often a pejorative term. I would never have called the bishop of any ward we were in "pastor" nor would we have called the stake president by that title.

So why would Mitt Romney call himself a "pastor" when he never would have referred to himself as a "pastor" when he was in leadership and none of the people he led would have called him that either? Maybe saying "I served as a bishop and stake president" sounds too weird and alien to evangelical voters ears? Perhaps using those terms would remind evangelical voters that he is part of a religion that historically called orthodox Christianity heretical and an abomination in God's eyes?

Make no mistake. Mitt Romney is quite literally trying to become a wolf among the sheep and his job is made easier because the sheep have no idea what wolves look like. So many Christians think that Mitt Romney "shares our values" because he claims to be pro-life (at least when it comes to abortion). As a Christian, I can think of very few values that I would think Mitt Romney has in common with me because my values are formed by my faith in Christ, a faith that Mitt Romney does not share and in fact actively rejects. He talks about God but the "god" he worships is one of many in a polytheistic pantheon and is not the God we read of in the Bible. He says that we are all "children of the same God" but he means that literally in the sense of being offspring from a procreative act.

I am not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney. I will not be but not because he is a mormon. I think and President Obama are two peas in the pod and neither of them would know the truth if it was tattooed on their foreheads. What I am saying is that because of the perverse marriage between politics and what we understand as the church many Christians are getting the impression that we share more in common with Mitt Romney, a pagan blasphemer, because he is "conservative" than we do with a "liberal" follower of Christ.

If you vote, and you are under no religious obligation to do so no matter what some blowhards say, do so based on your conscience and with your eyes wide open. Mitt Romney is not "one of us" and he does not share "our values" and neither does President Obama. Just watch how Romney speaks and pay attention to the words he uses because it is clear to me that he is trying to deceive the elect by making himself out to be something he is not.

Voting Is Our Duty As Christians! Or Is It?

Robert Martin writing at his blog, Abnormal Anabaptist, tells us Why I am not voting for a president this year. That a Christian in America would not vote is borderline blasphemy but I think he makes some great points. I especially found his fourth point to be powerful: My energy is better spent elsewhere. An enormous amount of the resources, time and money of Christians are spent on political issues when we really should be spending that time, money and effort on, well you know, the things Jesus said we should be doing. As a political junkie I found Robert's post thought-provoking and more than a little troubling. 

When you think about it, what exactly are we choosing?

On one hand we have a pagan blasphemer who promises to spend even more money building even more warships and investing in a primarily aggressive military, someone who embodies the pursuit of wealth and embraces individualism. None of those are kingdom values and are in fact the very opposite, no matter how popular they are among evangelicals.

On the other hand we have a man who seems enamored with infanticide and collectivism, advocating for the seizing by force of one man's possessions to give to another. Oh yeah, and in spite of his "Nobel Peace Prize" he doesn't seem to blink when it comes to using drones to assassinate people, even if those people are American citizens.

Neither candidate is exhibiting much in the way of Kingdom values and while I have no real reason other than vague platitudes to think that the current President is a Christian, the person looking for replace him is definitely not. Both embrace a number of positions that are antithetical to the Gospel and the Kingdom. One opposes abortion (at least he does currently) but supports preemptive wars of aggression, one claims to care about "social justice" but thinks that doesn't count for unborn children.

So why must we vote? Because it is our "civic duty"? That sounds nice but has no Scriptural support. I can't think of a single valid reason to vote for Obama. The only real Kingdom value that Romney is supposed to represent is being "pro-life". That may be true, given that he is a human weather vane that blows whichever way the political winds send him, but Romney is unlikely to do anything substantive to end abortion. At best he will appoint a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to make their own abortion laws. That would be laudable for a couple of reasons, both because Roe v Wade was such a terrible, unconstitutional ruling and of course because it would allow states to outlaw or severely restrict abortion. It would not end abortion in America and there simply is no political will in this country to do so. If we outlaw abortion in my home state of Indiana women will drive to Illinois where it certainly will remain unrestricted. Abortion clinics will pop up along the borders of restrictive states. That doesn't mean I don't want Roe v Wade overturned, I certainly do, but I am trying to remain realistic. Abortion is ultimately not a legislative issue, it is a sin issue and like "gay marriage" and other hot button sin issues the solution is not the laws of man, it is the cross of Christ. Perhaps we have placed to much of our faith in the political process to solve a problem that is so much deeper than one Supreme Court decision?

The question of voting brings me back to a post from last month, Render But How Much, a look at whether submitting to the ruling authorities and rendering unto Caesar extends to being an active participant in the government. Invariably when the church gets too cozy with the state, it makes the church less representative of Christ and more representative with the state and never the other way around. I will almost certainly be voting this year but it might well be the last election I do so. At least for President I will probably vote for a third party because I frankly cannot vote for Romney with a clear conscience and I wouldn't even consider voting for Obama. Our political choices do have consequences but compared to the monumental task that we are called to as Christians we really need to focus a lot less on the machinations of politicians and a lot more on the lost, the poor, the widow and the orphan right around us.

An Evangelical-less Election, What Will We Do?!

American evangelicals, a group I find less and less in common with each day, find themselves in a pickle. 

Did I mention that your church is the Whore of Babylon?

With the choice of Rep. Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate Evangelicals find themselves in an interesting situation. Choosing between a ticket featuring a Roman Catholic (Ryan) and a proud member of a cult (Romney) versus a ticket of another Roman Catholic (Biden) and someone who was a long time member of a liberal black liberation theology "church" (Obama). What is not found anywhere on stage is anyone who would hold to anything resembling Evangelicalism at all. In contrast to the years when tickets featured Baptists like Clinton, Gore and Carter, Episcopalians like George H.W. Bush and Methodists George W. Bush and Dick Cheney this year gives Evangelicals no one of a comparable faith tradition.Interesting factoid, Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Huh.

I think it puts many Evangelicals in a predicament. There is not a guy running that they would share a church pew with on Sunday. With no one running that many of us would consider "going to church with", who is "our guy"?

Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe we can see this election for what it is, a secular fight over secular issues. Important issues perhaps but not issues that are Gospel related. Sure one ticket is far more pro-life when it comes to abortion but that same ticket is far more pro-war as well (although the current administration seems to have found the power of the commander in chief to it's liking). This election cannot be framed like the Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry elections of siding with God's guy. That is a good thing.

Anyone who knows me knows that I consider political issues to be important. I find that many policies that purport to "help the poor" and save the middle-class are in fact a means to control people and trap generations of families in permanent poverty. I also see many of the "security" related issues to be little more than a pseudo-conservative means of spending money and keeping power while waving the flag of patriotism and invoking a variety of bogeymen to frighten voters into unlimited military spending that eventually goes to preemptive wars, hardly a "Christian" position.

All of that aside, I think we are entering a period of time when a candidate being religious is going to mean less and less to an increasing proportion of the voting population. I am hopeful that this will help sever the ties between "the church" and Caesar. Time will tell but I know that we are in the midst of a unique political race that is going to change the way we view politics. I am hopeful that the change will be for the best.

Strange Bedfellows Indeed

For most of the history of "the church", and I hesitate to even use that term, there have been two major religious forces contending with one another under the auspices of "Christianity". Both of them have in turn used violence and manipulation to gain ascendency over the other and then persecute and repress those who oppose them. This cycle has repeated so often and for so long that it really has become a more or less accepted part of Western culture. The entanglement of pseudo-Christian religious nationalism with the actual church has served to make the two virtually indistinguishable to people inside the church as well as on the outside and our witness has indisputably suffered for it.

This state of affairs has lingered for centuries, mostly in the West and especially in Europe, leading to countless wars and even today largely responsible for the current geo-political situation in Europe. Now we find both camps in the ironic position of neither being in power which has both of these once warring factions that happily persecuted each other with impunity now banding together to cry "persecution!" and rally for religious liberty as if demanding our right to "religious liberty" is something that the church should be concerned with. Given that the church was birthed under one of the most despotic reigns of persecution in history and never once seemed concerned with fighting for religious liberty, it seems odd that threats against the same should now be the rallying cry that is unifying the church. Not the Gospel. Not Christ. No, the great unifier is inexplicably a political squabble over health insurance mandates. It would be a lot more amusing if it were not so tragic.

Please don't misunderstand. I am a proponent of liberty and freedom and I try to be engaged in the political process to what is undoubtedly an unhealthy extent. However I am coming to understand that political and economic liberty is not a Kingdom priority and the pursuit of it has probably been mostly a hindrance to the mission of the church, distracting us from what we are called to do and be amidst the world.

With this in mind it was with interest that I read an interview with Robert A. Sirico of the Acton Institute, Getting Religion Back into Our Economic Lives. Mr. Sirico is a Roman Catholic cleric and an eloquent writer and he was speaking with National Review about his new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy, a book that makes the case that "the link between economic liberty and public morality is not tenuous; it is clear and direct." Mr. Sirico seems to be channeling the thoughts of John Adams who argued that the republican form of government and the free enterprise system are only suitable for a "moral" people. I found a great deal to disagree with Mr. Sirico on in this interview.

It bears repeating that this is not an indictment of the average Christian, Catholic or Protestant, that for whatever reason was born or converted into a religious system. Virtually every brother and sister in the faith and co-laborer in the work of the Kingdom is part of some sort of religious group. It is an indictment of those who manipulate and murder in the name of faith to enrich themselves or to gain power and wealth. There are countless examples, great and small, of this manipulation throughout history from Judas and his fake concern for the poor to modern "prosperity preachers" that fleece the flock to line their own pockets. We can be certain that as November approaches in America we will see politicians of all stripes appealing to the Almighty to "bless America", invoking Biblical language in support of their political cause and rallying powerful and influential religious leaders to their side to smite the heathen on the other side.

This was my response I posted in the comment section to the interview...

The Roman Catholic church is an ironic Johnny-come-lately to the cause of religious liberty having spent centuries of her existence repressing dissenting views by intimidation, violence and murder and then more centuries manipulating geo-politics in Europe and elsewhere that led to war and countless deaths to retain her alleged “authority”. To respond to the inevitable comments that statement is not “anti-Catholic bigotry”, it is demonstrably a historic fact. Pretending that it didn’t happen or worse that it was justifiable doesn’t change the facts of history.

This line was especially rich…

“LOPEZ: How is government-run health care uncompassionate?

FR. SIRICO: As in most institutions dominated by politics and bureaucracy, a gap grows between those being served and the ones doing the “serving.” This is especially the case when the bureaucracy is far away from the need and the principle of subsidiarity is ignored. The latter do not know the former and it is difficult to have real compassion without personal relationships. Human beings are lost sight of in politics and bureaucracy.”

...coming as it does from a staunch defender of an incredibly political bureaucracy where a man claims to be the vicar of Christ and demands recognition of his alleged authority over untold millions of people he has never met.

So-called economic and religious liberty has created some strange bedfellows indeed. Opposing forces that happily repressed one another and killed one another in the name of Christ when they were in power now find themselves banding together in the face of being out of power and rapidly diminishing influence. How the once mighty have fallen. Unfortunately rather than finding common ground for the sake of the Gospel and shedding the religious traditions that were created as means of obtaining and retaining control, they are finding common ground in the pursuit of personal property, wealth and economic security.

Civic religion is a great way to create a false sense of public morality that makes a people easier to rule but it has little to do with Christianity. Christianity is not a faith that is focused on wealth accumulation, religious liberty, economic and physical security and individual rights. It is a faith that expects to be persecuted and to suffer, a faith that thrives amidst the worst environments, a faith where others are always more important than self. In other words the very antithesis of American civic religion. The best thing that can happen to the church in America is to see the complete and utter collapse of any vestige of civic religion. Perhaps then we can get back to going about doing the work of the Good Shepherd.

This entire system of civic religion has been, as I wrote, a great boon to those who rule over populations. A people who adhere to a religious based moral system are easier to govern (i.e. control) but that does not mean that those religious systems are reflective of authentic Christianity. We had better figure out the difference before it is too late. Perhaps it already is.

Gay "marriage", North Carolina and knee-jerk progressivism

The latest cause célèbre among the "progressive" wing of the church is apparently normalization of homosexuality. After the free and open election in North Carolina amending the state constitution to reject homosexual "marriage"  the Pavlovian response from the usual crew, Rachel Held Evans and others, is as predictable as it is silly. Appealing to the need to reach the lost we are told that we must not only reach out but affirm the lifestyle of those engaged in what the Bible describes as a destructive sin. Somehow we are supposed to believe that embracing this lifestyle is a winning evangelistic strategy. "Go and sin no more" has been replaced with "Go and sin some more".

No one is more vocal about keeping the church out of politics than I am. I don't necessarily support from a "Christian" standpoint trying to legislate morality although I do agree that there is a compelling state interest in not subsidizing homosexual unions because of the slippery slope it puts us on. However,  I don't really think this has much to do with avoiding political entanglements as much as it does with trying to appeal to and appease the world in order to fit in and be accepted. We want the "get out of hell" card (for those few who still believe in a literal hell) but we also want the friendship of the world. Railing against North Carolina (a state in the south no less!),  "progressives" can moan and rend their garments online and then pat one another on the back for being so loving and sophisticated unlike those gap toothed, bib overall wearing fundamentalists.

The North Carolina law, duly and legally passed by the citizens of that state, doesn't tell people how to live or who they can or cannot engage in sexual activity with or who they live with or go to brunch with. It merely says that North Carolina, like 29 other states and counting, does not afford legal recognition to those relationships just as it doesn't recognize polygamous relationships or casual dating relationships or heterosexual roommates or any of the countless permutations of human relationships other than marriage. If your employer wants to offer health insurance to your homosexual "partner", as my employer does, that is their prerogative. If you want to name your homosexual boyfriend or girlfriend as the beneficiary for your life insurance or 401k or name them in your will, you certainly can. You just don't get the right to demand that tax payers subsidize your relationship.

Of course banning "gay marriage" doesn't save a single sinner but then again telling someone that their sin is swell with God and that He doesn't care if they flaunt their sin isn't going to save anyone either. We need to show love to the lost and that includes telling them what the Bible has to say about sin, that it is abhorrent to God and leads to destruction and that the only way that changes is to repent, i.e. turn from sin, and follow Christ.

As the church we should not be consumed with legal action as a substitute for the hard work of evangelism and justice. Nor should we reinterpret Biblical love to include embracing sin. The Bible gives us clear direction and copious examples of how we balance this but there are too many religious people on the Right and the Left who obviously don't really believe what the Bible has to say except when it can be twisted to support their agenda. The "leaders" in the church who are engaged in this sort of behavior need to be publicly rebuked.