I would find it amusing if it were not so sad to watch the public posturing and positioning of fellow Christians as they seek to enlist God on their side in political squabbles. The so-called "religious right" has been doing this for decades seeking to force conformity to a particular moral code on unregenerate people and doing it in the name of "restoring America", as if America had ever been a specially or particularly moral nation to begin with. That same group has also been one of the most supportive of war and capital punishment but hey I am sure God wanted us to smite those people anyway.
Of course the religious right is not unique in their attempts to co-opt the Gospel. One need simply look at the chest beating triumphalism in a recent article in The Atlantic, The Rise of the Christian Left in America that purports to prove that "progressive" or liberal Christianity is sweeping the land
Lisa Sharon Harper, director of mobilizing for Sojourners, a
progressive Christian organization, says shifts are due to young people
choosing to identify with Jesus and his teachings as opposed to a
particular political party. Harper believes the GOP is being pulled to
the far right by extremists on issues like abortion, thus forgetting and
alienating those whom Jesus affirmed and advocated for: poor people,
ethnic minorities, and women.
"I think the focus on the person of Jesus is birthing a younger
generation inspired by [Jesus' Sermon on the Mount]," she says. "Their
political agenda is shaped by Jesus' call to feed the hungry, make sure
the thirsty have clean water, make sure all have access to healthcare, transform America into a welcoming place for immigrants,
fix our inequitable penal system, and end abject poverty abroad and in
the forgotten corners of our urban and rural communities."
Now I have read all of the New Testament on more than one occasion. I have looked at many passages and themes quite closely. I don't recall Jesus saying anything about "access to healthcare" or about government income confiscation and redistribution. Of course I would expect nothing less from Sojourners, a mirror image of all the terrible exegesis and practice of the Religious Right, an organization where every left wing political cause can be dressed up by pseudo-Christian clothes to make it sound pious. As Russell Moore is quoted in the same article it isn't like so-called "progressive" Christianity is thriving based on religious attitudes when you look at actual religious behavior. So called mainline Protestant denominations have been dying a slow death for years and that shows no sign of abating. Predictably there are several rebuttals online to the findings and perceived implications of the Atlatic article including Rod Dreher's piece The Dying (No, Really) Of Liberal Protestantism. The world groans under the weight of sin all around us and the two largest and most powerful factions in the church are engaged in a public war of words amounting to "We're not dying, you are! No we aren't, you are! Liar!"
What is really happening and likewise what is largely being completely misinterpreted by both Left and Right is that Christians and many others are checking out of the whole religious system on a massive but completely predictable scale. While those invested in perpetuating the system try to spin this as people abandoning the faith, what is really happening is two-fold. First many religious but unregenerate people simply see no compelling reason to keep showing up for religious events. I don't blame them. Second many Christians are likewise finding very little to keep them showing up to a weekly performance in support of a system that often seems mostly interested in perpetuating itself.
I am not sure if people are just willfully blind or if they are so caught up in our traditions that they cannot see but what is happening all around us is obvious. The religious world that we have grown fat and comfortable in is dying and quickly fading from the scene. That is nothing to lament. Let those who wish to fight over the corpse of our religious culture do so. Let God's people be about the business of His Son.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Hey. What's Up?
Obviously haven't been blogging much. Blogging is a habit and one that you can get out of and then it becomes easy to just not do anything. Lots of stuff crossing my mind, just nothing I have been interested in enough to blog about.
While I have not been blogging, I have been reading a fair amount. Mostly light fiction, nothing terribly meaty. I just recently reread the original Dune book and have the next one in the series from the library. I read the series when I was young and seem to recall not liking the rest of the series after the first book very much, I guess we will find out. I have also been reading a sci fi series called The Lost Fleet that I have really been enjoying. Unlike most sci fi that happens in space, the Lost Fleet series embraces the reality of space battles in the vastness of space rather than head to head instant fights. Getting from point A to point B can take hours or days, going too fast makes it impossible to hit anything, etc. It is pretty well written with an interesting premise and a "realistic" setting, such as sci fi goes!
So right now I am reading a couple of new books I got from the library. The first is a brand new book by Radley Balko, a libertarian author, titled Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. As the title indicates it is a look at the increasing militarization of the police force adopting tactics and weapons from the military and especially focusing on the rise of SWAT teams and over the top raid techniques, raids that often are at the wrong address. More and more we are seeing a morphing of the military and the civilian police force, something that would have deeply alarmed the "founding fathers" and should also alarm regular citizens. One need
Another book I am getting ready to start is Karlstadt's Battle with Luther, a look at the conflict between Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt. Karlstadt was best known for a more radical approach to the Reformation in contrast to Luther's more incremental approach to reformation. That might seem a bit jarring given that Luther is often considered the first Reformer but after the Reformation began there were many Christians who were less willing to retain some of the aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and demanded more immediate, radical change. Karlstadt was one of those early leders, someone who is often portrayed as a wild eyed radical but I think his was an important, if overlooked, voice in the earliest days of the Reformation.
So that is what is up with me, hoping to get back to more regular blogging but I have said that before.
While I have not been blogging, I have been reading a fair amount. Mostly light fiction, nothing terribly meaty. I just recently reread the original Dune book and have the next one in the series from the library. I read the series when I was young and seem to recall not liking the rest of the series after the first book very much, I guess we will find out. I have also been reading a sci fi series called The Lost Fleet that I have really been enjoying. Unlike most sci fi that happens in space, the Lost Fleet series embraces the reality of space battles in the vastness of space rather than head to head instant fights. Getting from point A to point B can take hours or days, going too fast makes it impossible to hit anything, etc. It is pretty well written with an interesting premise and a "realistic" setting, such as sci fi goes!
So right now I am reading a couple of new books I got from the library. The first is a brand new book by Radley Balko, a libertarian author, titled Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. As the title indicates it is a look at the increasing militarization of the police force adopting tactics and weapons from the military and especially focusing on the rise of SWAT teams and over the top raid techniques, raids that often are at the wrong address. More and more we are seeing a morphing of the military and the civilian police force, something that would have deeply alarmed the "founding fathers" and should also alarm regular citizens. One need
Another book I am getting ready to start is Karlstadt's Battle with Luther, a look at the conflict between Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt. Karlstadt was best known for a more radical approach to the Reformation in contrast to Luther's more incremental approach to reformation. That might seem a bit jarring given that Luther is often considered the first Reformer but after the Reformation began there were many Christians who were less willing to retain some of the aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice and demanded more immediate, radical change. Karlstadt was one of those early leders, someone who is often portrayed as a wild eyed radical but I think his was an important, if overlooked, voice in the earliest days of the Reformation.
So that is what is up with me, hoping to get back to more regular blogging but I have said that before.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Thoughts on the trial of George Zimmerman
Like many Americans I watched the news and social media closely after the George Zimmerman verdict was announced. The reaction on social media especially was fascinating if somewhat predictable.
Was the verdict the “right” one? I think as far as the judicial system goes it was. As a very casual observer I saw nothing come to light from the prosecution to prove their case and much of what was presented was at least as helpful to the defense as it was to the prosecution. I am glad that the feared violence at the result was muted, perhaps because many people realized the weakness of the case against Mr. Zimmerman. Of course this is 2013 and that means that even when a jury of his peers acquits Mr. Zimmerman there are plenty of voices calling for another trial on the basis of “civil rights violations”, lack of evidence of racial animus and the clear specter of double jeopardy notwithstanding.
We are entering a dangerous era, a time when people accused of certain crimes will face both the traditional justice system and then in certain high profile cases the court of public opinion and political pressure. I think it goes without saying that, right or wrong, this case never would have come to trial had it not been for the national outcry and media coverage. If Mr. Zimmerman had been black no one would have heard of this case outside of Florida. But he is not and his identification as a heretofore rarely heard of “white hispanic” means that the media circus is not anywhere close to being over.
After laying all of that out there I fully recognize that my perspective on this event is far different than that of other Americans. I have never been pulled over without cause. I have always been treated with at least a modicum of respect. I don’t by and large see police as people to be feared unless I am speeding. For many of my fellow Americans that is not the case. Many have been discriminated against and dealt with the omnipresent reality of prejudice all of their lives. No one looks at me with suspicion because of my skin color. Even as a young person who got into more than my share of mischief I always got the benefit of the doubt. Many Americans have a completely different experience. The reality of my upbringing is the lens through which I view these events, just as other people see this entire ugly situation through their own lens. Even in this day and age it is very difficult to look at something like the killing of Trayvon Martin objectively.
So how should the church look to this avoidable tragdy and respond (if at all)?
First each and every human being was born dead in sins and trespass. Not to use a sweeping generalization but tragedies like this are an outworking of the actions of sinners in a creation groaning under the weight of sin. If anything we should be thankful that God uses Caesar to put limits on the acting out of human depravity. Perhaps I am cynical or jaded but I harbor no fairy tale illusions of human nature left unchecked. There is a reason God has instituted earthly secular rulers and that reason is to be a check on otherwise unrestrained human depravity. People are not basically good, they are basically lost and outside of cultural barriers and various upbringings are prone to all sorts of selfish mischief.
Second this event should be a reminder to us of the very real racial and ethnic divisions in America that are part of the very fabric of our country. There is usually very little constructive dialogue between religious leaders who seek to exploit our racial wounds for their own gain and those religious leaders who seem oblivious to it amidst their all white local church interspersed with the occasional adopted child that is Asian, black or Latino. We cannot pretend that this division is not there or that it is OK, not when the church is in many ways more divided by race than almost any other institution of American life. It is something we have to deal with, if the adopted people of God from every tribe, nation and tongue cannot stand to be in the same building as others who are different from them on Sunday morning, what does that say about how valid our faith truly is?
Third we see on full display the results of a confused gender narrative in America, a narrative where young men do not have appropriate same gender role models, whether that be a father or some other adult man. Knowing very little of the case it still can be ascertained that the culture that Trayvon Martin seemed to be consumed in is one where manhood is found in violence and misogyny. It is a well-known culture and easy to denounce but for many young men there is little alternative to this culture other than a childhood spent being the target of others who exhibit their masculinity in caricatured and often violent ways. Like many other young black men this culture is at least partly complicit in his death, a tragic everyday event in our culture that gets little media attention because young black men killing other young black men is not something the news media and various professional George Zimmerman strikes me a man with little understanding of what being a man means (see this excellent essay by Daniel Flynn writing for the American Spectator titled Two Males, No Men). He apparently sought to fill this gap by seeking out “manly” pursuits and on that fateful night two men with no understanding of masculinity came together and one is dead.
As many have said, there are no winners here. This wasn’t a victory for good old fashioned American values. It was a weak man being stupid and a confused young man responding that led to a violent clash and a dead 17 year old. One hopes that as a nation and as the church we can learn from this but sadly history does not give me much hope. How I long for the day when 17 year old young men are no longer shot to death but until that day we must look forward to our hope in Christ and tell others why we have that hope. We can and we must do nothing else.
Was the verdict the “right” one? I think as far as the judicial system goes it was. As a very casual observer I saw nothing come to light from the prosecution to prove their case and much of what was presented was at least as helpful to the defense as it was to the prosecution. I am glad that the feared violence at the result was muted, perhaps because many people realized the weakness of the case against Mr. Zimmerman. Of course this is 2013 and that means that even when a jury of his peers acquits Mr. Zimmerman there are plenty of voices calling for another trial on the basis of “civil rights violations”, lack of evidence of racial animus and the clear specter of double jeopardy notwithstanding.
We are entering a dangerous era, a time when people accused of certain crimes will face both the traditional justice system and then in certain high profile cases the court of public opinion and political pressure. I think it goes without saying that, right or wrong, this case never would have come to trial had it not been for the national outcry and media coverage. If Mr. Zimmerman had been black no one would have heard of this case outside of Florida. But he is not and his identification as a heretofore rarely heard of “white hispanic” means that the media circus is not anywhere close to being over.
After laying all of that out there I fully recognize that my perspective on this event is far different than that of other Americans. I have never been pulled over without cause. I have always been treated with at least a modicum of respect. I don’t by and large see police as people to be feared unless I am speeding. For many of my fellow Americans that is not the case. Many have been discriminated against and dealt with the omnipresent reality of prejudice all of their lives. No one looks at me with suspicion because of my skin color. Even as a young person who got into more than my share of mischief I always got the benefit of the doubt. Many Americans have a completely different experience. The reality of my upbringing is the lens through which I view these events, just as other people see this entire ugly situation through their own lens. Even in this day and age it is very difficult to look at something like the killing of Trayvon Martin objectively.
So how should the church look to this avoidable tragdy and respond (if at all)?
First each and every human being was born dead in sins and trespass. Not to use a sweeping generalization but tragedies like this are an outworking of the actions of sinners in a creation groaning under the weight of sin. If anything we should be thankful that God uses Caesar to put limits on the acting out of human depravity. Perhaps I am cynical or jaded but I harbor no fairy tale illusions of human nature left unchecked. There is a reason God has instituted earthly secular rulers and that reason is to be a check on otherwise unrestrained human depravity. People are not basically good, they are basically lost and outside of cultural barriers and various upbringings are prone to all sorts of selfish mischief.
Second this event should be a reminder to us of the very real racial and ethnic divisions in America that are part of the very fabric of our country. There is usually very little constructive dialogue between religious leaders who seek to exploit our racial wounds for their own gain and those religious leaders who seem oblivious to it amidst their all white local church interspersed with the occasional adopted child that is Asian, black or Latino. We cannot pretend that this division is not there or that it is OK, not when the church is in many ways more divided by race than almost any other institution of American life. It is something we have to deal with, if the adopted people of God from every tribe, nation and tongue cannot stand to be in the same building as others who are different from them on Sunday morning, what does that say about how valid our faith truly is?
Third we see on full display the results of a confused gender narrative in America, a narrative where young men do not have appropriate same gender role models, whether that be a father or some other adult man. Knowing very little of the case it still can be ascertained that the culture that Trayvon Martin seemed to be consumed in is one where manhood is found in violence and misogyny. It is a well-known culture and easy to denounce but for many young men there is little alternative to this culture other than a childhood spent being the target of others who exhibit their masculinity in caricatured and often violent ways. Like many other young black men this culture is at least partly complicit in his death, a tragic everyday event in our culture that gets little media attention because young black men killing other young black men is not something the news media and various professional George Zimmerman strikes me a man with little understanding of what being a man means (see this excellent essay by Daniel Flynn writing for the American Spectator titled Two Males, No Men). He apparently sought to fill this gap by seeking out “manly” pursuits and on that fateful night two men with no understanding of masculinity came together and one is dead.
As many have said, there are no winners here. This wasn’t a victory for good old fashioned American values. It was a weak man being stupid and a confused young man responding that led to a violent clash and a dead 17 year old. One hopes that as a nation and as the church we can learn from this but sadly history does not give me much hope. How I long for the day when 17 year old young men are no longer shot to death but until that day we must look forward to our hope in Christ and tell others why we have that hope. We can and we must do nothing else.
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
Is Islam Our Greatest Challenge?
That assertion is the basis for Albert Mohler's recent post, Islam—The Great Challenge to Christian Evangelism of Our Time. In his essay Dr. Mohler makes some very helpful statements, especially his refutation of those who criticizes President Obama for stating that...
One of the great strengths of the United States is . . . we have a very large Christian population—we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.
That is one of the few public utterances by President Obama that I agree with wholeheartedly even though many Christians undoubtedly took great umbrage to his statement. What caught my interest was the title and premise of his essay, the notion that Islam is the greatest challenge to our evangelistic mission in this era.
Is that true? Is Islam the greatest challenge to our evangelistic mission and efforts? That certainly is the popular narrative. Islam, a religion that to a great many people is synonymous with the dread "other" and the threat of Islamist terrorism and instability in the Middle East, is the convenient enemy of the day and gives us a tangible opponent. Certainly from a civilization standpoint, Islam is a grave threat although the reason it is a threat has more to do with our self-driven cultural disintegration. But from a Great Commission standpoint is Islam our greatest challenge?
In a word, no.
Not when the vast majority of Christians are neither equipped nor encouraged in a tangible way to make disciples, preferring instead to make going to church as convenient and comfortable as possible.
Not when professing, sincere Christians ally themselves with groups that deny the Gospel with the excuse that they share certain cultural moral positions in common.
Not when churches invest untold millions on buildings and staff to cater to the needs and whims of church attenders.
Not when Christians see our enemies as people to be feared, controlled and even killed to protect a certain economic and socio-political lifestyle.
No, the greatest challenge to Christian evangelism today is not Islam. It is not even a new challenge. The greatest challenge is us. The church. God's people. In the immortal words of that sage and prophet Pogo: We have met the enemy and he is us.
But while it is easy and perhaps perversely satisfying to despair, a trap I fall into over and over, it is also true that God's chosen tool is His church, His people. Flawed, prone to wander, often distracted, a foolish people preaching a foolish message about a foolish cross. God has indeed chosen the weak and foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). While we are not only not up to the task but often are our own worst enemy, our message is inextricably linked to the sovereign power of our Creator God. If by a mere word He can speak the universe into existence He certainly can use a flawed sinner such as I to accomplish His eternal purpose in calling, regenerating, saving and redeeming a people for His own possession.
We need to worry a lot less about Islam and a lot more about ourselves but we should also not spend all of our time wringing our hands and instead putting those hands to work, each and every one of us, in our foolish and weak service on behalf of our glorious and holy Lord.
One of the great strengths of the United States is . . . we have a very large Christian population—we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation.
That is one of the few public utterances by President Obama that I agree with wholeheartedly even though many Christians undoubtedly took great umbrage to his statement. What caught my interest was the title and premise of his essay, the notion that Islam is the greatest challenge to our evangelistic mission in this era.
Is that true? Is Islam the greatest challenge to our evangelistic mission and efforts? That certainly is the popular narrative. Islam, a religion that to a great many people is synonymous with the dread "other" and the threat of Islamist terrorism and instability in the Middle East, is the convenient enemy of the day and gives us a tangible opponent. Certainly from a civilization standpoint, Islam is a grave threat although the reason it is a threat has more to do with our self-driven cultural disintegration. But from a Great Commission standpoint is Islam our greatest challenge?
In a word, no.
Not when the vast majority of Christians are neither equipped nor encouraged in a tangible way to make disciples, preferring instead to make going to church as convenient and comfortable as possible.
Not when professing, sincere Christians ally themselves with groups that deny the Gospel with the excuse that they share certain cultural moral positions in common.
Not when churches invest untold millions on buildings and staff to cater to the needs and whims of church attenders.
Not when Christians see our enemies as people to be feared, controlled and even killed to protect a certain economic and socio-political lifestyle.
But while it is easy and perhaps perversely satisfying to despair, a trap I fall into over and over, it is also true that God's chosen tool is His church, His people. Flawed, prone to wander, often distracted, a foolish people preaching a foolish message about a foolish cross. God has indeed chosen the weak and foolish things of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27). While we are not only not up to the task but often are our own worst enemy, our message is inextricably linked to the sovereign power of our Creator God. If by a mere word He can speak the universe into existence He certainly can use a flawed sinner such as I to accomplish His eternal purpose in calling, regenerating, saving and redeeming a people for His own possession.
We need to worry a lot less about Islam and a lot more about ourselves but we should also not spend all of our time wringing our hands and instead putting those hands to work, each and every one of us, in our foolish and weak service on behalf of our glorious and holy Lord.
Thursday, July 04, 2013
Happy violation of Romans 13 Day!
My annual repost of A nation born of rebellion against God ....
----
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
With these words, the Declaration of Independence begins to list the grievances suffered under the despotic rule of King George over the English colonies in America. After a lengthy list of grievances, the Declaration declares that the colonies are no longer under the rule of England but are instead free and independent.
Powerful words. Solemn words. Words that, at least until recently, were taught to all schoolchildren and words that are part of our American lore. I am in awe of the power and eloquence of the Declaration and the subsequent Constitution that at one time was the law of the land in America. So that is great, we all agree that America is swell. So what is the point? Here is where I am going with this: Are these statements in the Declaration of Independence the founding words of a Christian nation, a country founded on "Judeo-Christian" values?
Simply put: No.
Why in the world would I say that?
Because America was birthed by an ungodly act of rebellion against authority.
Yikes! Stay with me here. This is a long one but I think it is important and thought provoking.
This post is not intended to bash America. I would not choose to live anywhere else in the world unless I was led to do so in God's providence. I love my country, in fact I love my country more than may be healthy as a Christian. I am also not saying that the founding fathers were wrong or that the end result is bad. Clearly America has been a force for more good than ill in the world. This statement is intended as a wake-up call to the church. Evangelicals must remember that being an evangelical Christian must of necessity take priority over being an American. I hear lots of lip-service to that effect but practically speaking our American upbringing impacts our doctrine and practice in some troubling ways. There are no special secular nations, even ones where the founding is full of religious overtones. I think this is important because there is such a blurring of the distinction between the church and America that it sometimes seems as if we are evangelists for American culture more than witnesses of the risen Christ. So if you will, please indulge me for a few minutes to explain why I would make that assertion.
The core issue here is one of submission. Submission gets a bad rap in the church in America because it is either tip-toed around or it is used as a club. Americans don't like to submit to anyone for any reason. The Founding Fathers decided that at some point they no longer wished to submit to King George, to pay his taxes without representation. I think most historians would agree that King George was a poor ruler. So it is little wonder that the colonies eventually revolted. The question we are pondering here is a dramatically different one: Is our submission to authority based on the worthiness of the one in authority? That is an important question because we are called on to submit all over the place in the Bible, a subject we looked at yesterday when the church gathered.
Let's take a look at what the Bible says about submission to authorities and it says a lot.
The first place I want to look is at the third chapter of Paul’s letter to Titus.
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. (Titus 3:1)
Paul is somewhat vague here. He exhorts Titus to remind Christians to be submissive to authorities. Who these rulers and authorities are doesn’t get much clarification but I certainly think that Paul is at least implying governing officials. The following sections of Scripture reinforce this idea quite powerfully.
Next we have a powerful statement from the lips of Christ Himself. Pay careful attention here.
He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11)
Here is Christ, mere hours away from His death on the cross, telling Pontius Pilate that he has no authority (including the authority to condemn Christ to die) except that which he has received “from above”, i.e. from God. Stop and think about what Christ is saying here. Pontius Pilate received his authority from Caesar. So by proxy Caesar has been granted the authority by God to put Jesus Christ to death. I can’t overemphasize this point that the most unjust and tyrannical government ever faced by Christians was given its authority directly from God and it used that authority to crucify Christ and persecute the church for the next three centuries. Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula make King George look like Mr. Rogers in comparison. Ponder that as we move forward.
Next, a look at what Peter wrote regarding this issue. I think this is important as well because this is not a “Paul-only” doctrine. It is something found in the words of Christ and Peter as well as Paul. Just once in Scripture should be sufficient but for purposes of staking a position I think it adds even more weight when there are multiple sources.
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)
Please note a few things here. Be subject to every human institution, emperor and governors. Not to be subject to only the just rulers or those you voted for. Remember again as a frame of reference that when Peter says “emperor” he must be referring to Caesar and when he refers to “governor” that likely refers to men like Pilate. Verse 17 is especially telling; we are to honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God and honor the emperor. Honor Caesar? Absolutely.
Next up is Romans 13, the seminal passage on human governing authorities.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13: 1-7)
There is no authority other than those God has instituted. That would obviously include the Roman empire and of course the good ole United States of America. Wouldn’t it similarly include Nazi Germany? The Stalinist Soviet Union? Castro’s Cuba? North Korea? England under the reign of King George? Lichtenstein! All of the above. So Paul is saying that by resisting the authorities placed over us, we resist God and bring judgment upon ourselves. We are to submit and pay taxes, whether we consider them just or not.
Look at what precedes Romans 13, keeping in mind that the chapter breaks are not in the original. What Paul wrote right before this passage is vital to understanding Romans 13: 1-7.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12: 14-21)
That is important to remember. Christians in Rome would be facing persecution just as Paul himself, a frequent guest in prison cells, was subjected to. In the face of such injustice, the natural response as an American is to overthrow the scoundrels, the whole refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots thing. Paul is saying just the opposite and we must consider the end of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13 as one continuous thought. Is the government unjust? God will judge that nation. Are the rulers despotic? God is the one who will avenge their injustice, either immediately (see the death of Herod in Acts 12: 20-23) or at the Judgment seat. “Don’t tread on me” is not a concept that would be understood by Paul.
What is the overarching message here? It strikes me that God is sovereign over all nations, not just Western democracies but all nations, and that God will judge those nations. We all understand this and accept this, at least in theory. Submission is an easy topic to talk about but when you apply it as a practical matter, it gets messy and sometimes flies in the face of certain ideals that we hold dear. This issue is one that is easily turned from “Scripture says” to “Well, I think”.
So that brings me back to my original point. Was the founding of America a “Christian” action? I have to say “No”. No matter that the lofty ideals espoused by the Founders sound pleasing to our ears or that we can argue that no secular nation on earth is a better one. The notion that America was once a “Christian nation” and needs to return to that state is demonstrably false because the very founding of America was done as an act of rebellion against the very authorities that God had ordained.
Am I missing something here? Is there anything in the New Testament that would lead a follower of Jesus Christ to think that we are called to overthrow unjust rulers? Should we pray for our leaders? Well certainly we should and that is perfectly Biblical. Should we take up arms to overthrow them? Absolutely not, not even if they force high taxes on us or unjust laws. Not even if they persecute the church and not even if they put Christians to death. God will avenge, not us and we are never called to return evil for evil, even when we are sure that our cause is right. We shouldn’t turn to George Washington and Patrick Henry to form our beliefs regarding human government. Our model for how we should relate to the government is found in Scripture, in Paul and Peter and most especially in Jesus Christ.
----
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
With these words, the Declaration of Independence begins to list the grievances suffered under the despotic rule of King George over the English colonies in America. After a lengthy list of grievances, the Declaration declares that the colonies are no longer under the rule of England but are instead free and independent.
Powerful words. Solemn words. Words that, at least until recently, were taught to all schoolchildren and words that are part of our American lore. I am in awe of the power and eloquence of the Declaration and the subsequent Constitution that at one time was the law of the land in America. So that is great, we all agree that America is swell. So what is the point? Here is where I am going with this: Are these statements in the Declaration of Independence the founding words of a Christian nation, a country founded on "Judeo-Christian" values?
Simply put: No.
Why in the world would I say that?
Because America was birthed by an ungodly act of rebellion against authority.
Yikes! Stay with me here. This is a long one but I think it is important and thought provoking.
This post is not intended to bash America. I would not choose to live anywhere else in the world unless I was led to do so in God's providence. I love my country, in fact I love my country more than may be healthy as a Christian. I am also not saying that the founding fathers were wrong or that the end result is bad. Clearly America has been a force for more good than ill in the world. This statement is intended as a wake-up call to the church. Evangelicals must remember that being an evangelical Christian must of necessity take priority over being an American. I hear lots of lip-service to that effect but practically speaking our American upbringing impacts our doctrine and practice in some troubling ways. There are no special secular nations, even ones where the founding is full of religious overtones. I think this is important because there is such a blurring of the distinction between the church and America that it sometimes seems as if we are evangelists for American culture more than witnesses of the risen Christ. So if you will, please indulge me for a few minutes to explain why I would make that assertion.
The core issue here is one of submission. Submission gets a bad rap in the church in America because it is either tip-toed around or it is used as a club. Americans don't like to submit to anyone for any reason. The Founding Fathers decided that at some point they no longer wished to submit to King George, to pay his taxes without representation. I think most historians would agree that King George was a poor ruler. So it is little wonder that the colonies eventually revolted. The question we are pondering here is a dramatically different one: Is our submission to authority based on the worthiness of the one in authority? That is an important question because we are called on to submit all over the place in the Bible, a subject we looked at yesterday when the church gathered.
Let's take a look at what the Bible says about submission to authorities and it says a lot.
The first place I want to look is at the third chapter of Paul’s letter to Titus.
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. (Titus 3:1)
Paul is somewhat vague here. He exhorts Titus to remind Christians to be submissive to authorities. Who these rulers and authorities are doesn’t get much clarification but I certainly think that Paul is at least implying governing officials. The following sections of Scripture reinforce this idea quite powerfully.
Next we have a powerful statement from the lips of Christ Himself. Pay careful attention here.
He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11)
Here is Christ, mere hours away from His death on the cross, telling Pontius Pilate that he has no authority (including the authority to condemn Christ to die) except that which he has received “from above”, i.e. from God. Stop and think about what Christ is saying here. Pontius Pilate received his authority from Caesar. So by proxy Caesar has been granted the authority by God to put Jesus Christ to death. I can’t overemphasize this point that the most unjust and tyrannical government ever faced by Christians was given its authority directly from God and it used that authority to crucify Christ and persecute the church for the next three centuries. Roman Emperors like Nero and Caligula make King George look like Mr. Rogers in comparison. Ponder that as we move forward.
Next, a look at what Peter wrote regarding this issue. I think this is important as well because this is not a “Paul-only” doctrine. It is something found in the words of Christ and Peter as well as Paul. Just once in Scripture should be sufficient but for purposes of staking a position I think it adds even more weight when there are multiple sources.
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)
Please note a few things here. Be subject to every human institution, emperor and governors. Not to be subject to only the just rulers or those you voted for. Remember again as a frame of reference that when Peter says “emperor” he must be referring to Caesar and when he refers to “governor” that likely refers to men like Pilate. Verse 17 is especially telling; we are to honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God and honor the emperor. Honor Caesar? Absolutely.
Next up is Romans 13, the seminal passage on human governing authorities.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13: 1-7)
There is no authority other than those God has instituted. That would obviously include the Roman empire and of course the good ole United States of America. Wouldn’t it similarly include Nazi Germany? The Stalinist Soviet Union? Castro’s Cuba? North Korea? England under the reign of King George? Lichtenstein! All of the above. So Paul is saying that by resisting the authorities placed over us, we resist God and bring judgment upon ourselves. We are to submit and pay taxes, whether we consider them just or not.
Look at what precedes Romans 13, keeping in mind that the chapter breaks are not in the original. What Paul wrote right before this passage is vital to understanding Romans 13: 1-7.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12: 14-21)
That is important to remember. Christians in Rome would be facing persecution just as Paul himself, a frequent guest in prison cells, was subjected to. In the face of such injustice, the natural response as an American is to overthrow the scoundrels, the whole refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots thing. Paul is saying just the opposite and we must consider the end of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 13 as one continuous thought. Is the government unjust? God will judge that nation. Are the rulers despotic? God is the one who will avenge their injustice, either immediately (see the death of Herod in Acts 12: 20-23) or at the Judgment seat. “Don’t tread on me” is not a concept that would be understood by Paul.
What is the overarching message here? It strikes me that God is sovereign over all nations, not just Western democracies but all nations, and that God will judge those nations. We all understand this and accept this, at least in theory. Submission is an easy topic to talk about but when you apply it as a practical matter, it gets messy and sometimes flies in the face of certain ideals that we hold dear. This issue is one that is easily turned from “Scripture says” to “Well, I think”.
So that brings me back to my original point. Was the founding of America a “Christian” action? I have to say “No”. No matter that the lofty ideals espoused by the Founders sound pleasing to our ears or that we can argue that no secular nation on earth is a better one. The notion that America was once a “Christian nation” and needs to return to that state is demonstrably false because the very founding of America was done as an act of rebellion against the very authorities that God had ordained.
Am I missing something here? Is there anything in the New Testament that would lead a follower of Jesus Christ to think that we are called to overthrow unjust rulers? Should we pray for our leaders? Well certainly we should and that is perfectly Biblical. Should we take up arms to overthrow them? Absolutely not, not even if they force high taxes on us or unjust laws. Not even if they persecute the church and not even if they put Christians to death. God will avenge, not us and we are never called to return evil for evil, even when we are sure that our cause is right. We shouldn’t turn to George Washington and Patrick Henry to form our beliefs regarding human government. Our model for how we should relate to the government is found in Scripture, in Paul and Peter and most especially in Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Repost: Home Cookin'
A few years ago I penned this short piece on the importance of home grown elders, in other words the raising up of men within the local body to be trained and serve as elders rather than parachuting them in from the outside (or treating them like Mail Order Bride Pastors), That blog post was inspired by something Dave Black wrote and he has done it again in his entry on June 28th...
It's a wonderful thing to put down roots. We love where we live in Southside Virginia and feel part of the community. One of the things I marvel at, however, is the constant turnover of pastors in our area. Typically a pastor will remain in a church for only a handful of years before moving on. Very few put down any roots in the community.
Contrast this with the New Testament pattern. In the early church we find local men leading local churches. They came from within the local church and were committed to that church. Thus the link between the church and the ministry was maintained. However, in our modern system, where the "ministry" is considered a profession, men seek for themselves, or are sent by authority, to occupy this or that post without any regard to the link which is thus broken. The result is that pastors often look upon churches simply as places that offer them opportunities to exercise their ministry gifts or else as steps up the ladder of employment. Seminarians often have to leave their local churches for seminary training and then rarely return to their own congregations for ministry.
That is right on the money. I get that people move and that is just a reality of life but it is also true that many pastors/elders who make a profession out of ministry move for reasons of money or perhaps prestige. That sometimes is the right thing to do for your family but it is rarely the right thing to do in ministry. It takes time to get to know people and you can't learn much about someone based on a few sample sermons, a resume and a couple of interviews. I am firmly of the belief that for an elder to be Biblically recognized he must be someone known to the church and that calling (or worse hiring) a man to be an elder based on extra-biblical qualifications and then hoping he turns out to have the qualities to be exhibited by an elder is a recipe for disaster, a recipe that has been demonstrated over and over again. Anyway, without further ado here is a reposting of my thoughts on home cookin' and elders!
------
I was looking over Dave Black’s page and I read through an interesting post called Returning Biblical Education to the Local Church. He brings up something I have mulled over for some time: the inherent problem with hiring men from outside of the local body to lead that local body. That is not the primary thrust of his post but it really got me thinking afresh and asking the question: Why do we seek men who are strangers to come to our local body and lead us? Would we not be better served with men who led us because they came from us? Is a professional, prepackaged minister a better and more importantly a more Biblical man to be an elder? Dave obviously doesn’t think so and neither do I…
“Clergy” becomes a whole way of living, an ecclesiastical subculture. The church, however, predates the seminary and will outlast it. The book of Acts reminds us that the earliest church leaders were homegrown nobodies. They were not parachuted in from the outside with all of the proper credentials. They were already full participants in their congregations – they had homes, they had jobs, and they had solid reputations. If at all possible, I think we too would do well to train people for leadership in our local churches, equipping them for evangelism and other ministries, thus complementing the work of our seminaries and Bible colleges. The early church knew that leadership is best learned by on-the-job training, not by sending our most promising leaders off to sit behind a desk.
I think this phenomena of professional ministers is a product in large part of two factors. First, we are a country that by and large draws its identity from Europe and with her state sponsored churches, professional clergy is part of the fabric of the society. Second, and more importantly, we are Americans. We live in a prepackaged, processed, microwave age. Sure home cooked meals from scratch taste better and are better for you, but it is such a hassle! I can spend an hour or two cooking up a nice meal for my family (and even that requires pre-cut meat, canned veggies, boxed side dishes) or I can get some pizzas. In my family we get pizzas or something similar pretty often and in families where both spouses work it is even more common. We want it quick, easy and disposable.
The church seems to think the same way. Training and raising a man up within the local body who can grow in knowledge and maturity until he is ready to lead as an elder takes a long time and is hard work. It may not always work out, he may move, he may lack the aptitude for it, he may turn out to not be a very good elder. It is a whole lot easier and faster to find someone who already is “qualified”, i.e. has a seminary degree, who we can interview and “call” to ministry. Of course he will probably have to move and so to entice him we need to pay him. If he were already a part of the congregation, he would have a job and a home and ties to the community. He would know and be known by the local body because he is a part of that body. They would know him and his wife and his kids, and that would make it possible to know if he meets the qualifications for an elder listed in the Bible instead of meeting the resume credentials that are often the entry level for being considered to be a pastor. It makes more sense and it is more faithful to the Bible to raise leaders up internally but that just takes too long. So instead, church after church hires strangers to come in to lead and love people they have likely never met. It only adds to the separation between the clergy and the laity to have a paid professional come on the scene. Hard to believe with that great set-up that so many men leave the ministry, that churches have such high turnover in pastors and the men who stay are often frustrated and burned-out. When you view the pastor as a paid professional, someone hired and brought in from the outside, why not get rid of them? Paid, professional clergy are employees and as such they are disposable. A church can always find someone else to pay to lead them. On the flip side, when ministry is your job you can understand why men leave church A with 100 members for church B with 250 members. If you are from within the congregation and not getting paid, why would you leave? It is not a job, it is truly a calling.
Just because we live in a quick, easy and disposable society doesn’t mean that is how the church should operate. It is certainly harder, more time consuming and more sacrificial to raise up leaders in the church but I believe (and I think the Bible supports) the idea that a primary responsibility of the local body is in the training and support of men from within that body to lead that body. Seminary may be a part of that training, but it is only one part of an integrated development of leaders, not an end in and of itself. Hiring pastors like an old western gunslinger to come in and clean up the town before moving on is an injustice to the local body, to those men and their families. We need to take the time to look around the cupboards, find the ingredients and whip up some home grown elders.
It's a wonderful thing to put down roots. We love where we live in Southside Virginia and feel part of the community. One of the things I marvel at, however, is the constant turnover of pastors in our area. Typically a pastor will remain in a church for only a handful of years before moving on. Very few put down any roots in the community.
Contrast this with the New Testament pattern. In the early church we find local men leading local churches. They came from within the local church and were committed to that church. Thus the link between the church and the ministry was maintained. However, in our modern system, where the "ministry" is considered a profession, men seek for themselves, or are sent by authority, to occupy this or that post without any regard to the link which is thus broken. The result is that pastors often look upon churches simply as places that offer them opportunities to exercise their ministry gifts or else as steps up the ladder of employment. Seminarians often have to leave their local churches for seminary training and then rarely return to their own congregations for ministry.
That is right on the money. I get that people move and that is just a reality of life but it is also true that many pastors/elders who make a profession out of ministry move for reasons of money or perhaps prestige. That sometimes is the right thing to do for your family but it is rarely the right thing to do in ministry. It takes time to get to know people and you can't learn much about someone based on a few sample sermons, a resume and a couple of interviews. I am firmly of the belief that for an elder to be Biblically recognized he must be someone known to the church and that calling (or worse hiring) a man to be an elder based on extra-biblical qualifications and then hoping he turns out to have the qualities to be exhibited by an elder is a recipe for disaster, a recipe that has been demonstrated over and over again. Anyway, without further ado here is a reposting of my thoughts on home cookin' and elders!
------
I was looking over Dave Black’s page and I read through an interesting post called Returning Biblical Education to the Local Church. He brings up something I have mulled over for some time: the inherent problem with hiring men from outside of the local body to lead that local body. That is not the primary thrust of his post but it really got me thinking afresh and asking the question: Why do we seek men who are strangers to come to our local body and lead us? Would we not be better served with men who led us because they came from us? Is a professional, prepackaged minister a better and more importantly a more Biblical man to be an elder? Dave obviously doesn’t think so and neither do I…“Clergy” becomes a whole way of living, an ecclesiastical subculture. The church, however, predates the seminary and will outlast it. The book of Acts reminds us that the earliest church leaders were homegrown nobodies. They were not parachuted in from the outside with all of the proper credentials. They were already full participants in their congregations – they had homes, they had jobs, and they had solid reputations. If at all possible, I think we too would do well to train people for leadership in our local churches, equipping them for evangelism and other ministries, thus complementing the work of our seminaries and Bible colleges. The early church knew that leadership is best learned by on-the-job training, not by sending our most promising leaders off to sit behind a desk.
I think this phenomena of professional ministers is a product in large part of two factors. First, we are a country that by and large draws its identity from Europe and with her state sponsored churches, professional clergy is part of the fabric of the society. Second, and more importantly, we are Americans. We live in a prepackaged, processed, microwave age. Sure home cooked meals from scratch taste better and are better for you, but it is such a hassle! I can spend an hour or two cooking up a nice meal for my family (and even that requires pre-cut meat, canned veggies, boxed side dishes) or I can get some pizzas. In my family we get pizzas or something similar pretty often and in families where both spouses work it is even more common. We want it quick, easy and disposable.
The church seems to think the same way. Training and raising a man up within the local body who can grow in knowledge and maturity until he is ready to lead as an elder takes a long time and is hard work. It may not always work out, he may move, he may lack the aptitude for it, he may turn out to not be a very good elder. It is a whole lot easier and faster to find someone who already is “qualified”, i.e. has a seminary degree, who we can interview and “call” to ministry. Of course he will probably have to move and so to entice him we need to pay him. If he were already a part of the congregation, he would have a job and a home and ties to the community. He would know and be known by the local body because he is a part of that body. They would know him and his wife and his kids, and that would make it possible to know if he meets the qualifications for an elder listed in the Bible instead of meeting the resume credentials that are often the entry level for being considered to be a pastor. It makes more sense and it is more faithful to the Bible to raise leaders up internally but that just takes too long. So instead, church after church hires strangers to come in to lead and love people they have likely never met. It only adds to the separation between the clergy and the laity to have a paid professional come on the scene. Hard to believe with that great set-up that so many men leave the ministry, that churches have such high turnover in pastors and the men who stay are often frustrated and burned-out. When you view the pastor as a paid professional, someone hired and brought in from the outside, why not get rid of them? Paid, professional clergy are employees and as such they are disposable. A church can always find someone else to pay to lead them. On the flip side, when ministry is your job you can understand why men leave church A with 100 members for church B with 250 members. If you are from within the congregation and not getting paid, why would you leave? It is not a job, it is truly a calling.
Just because we live in a quick, easy and disposable society doesn’t mean that is how the church should operate. It is certainly harder, more time consuming and more sacrificial to raise up leaders in the church but I believe (and I think the Bible supports) the idea that a primary responsibility of the local body is in the training and support of men from within that body to lead that body. Seminary may be a part of that training, but it is only one part of an integrated development of leaders, not an end in and of itself. Hiring pastors like an old western gunslinger to come in and clean up the town before moving on is an injustice to the local body, to those men and their families. We need to take the time to look around the cupboards, find the ingredients and whip up some home grown elders.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
If you want to dance with Caesar, remember that Caesar calls the tune
The sky is falling! The world is coming to an end!
Well not really but I imagine that is what “my” side of the social media world is saying today in light of the Supreme Court decisions that bolstered “gay marriage”. Today is a day that it is probably best that I am cut off a bit from social media.
On the purely secular situation, this is yet another gross overreach of federal power but that is hardly a surprise. The idea of a Federal government that is as deeply encroached as ours is and involved in virtually every aspect of our lives from birth to death would be anathema to those who designed our Constitution. Of course in fairness so would the idea of women voting but I digress. Telling the people of one state that the executive branch can override their duly and legally passed legislation like Proposition 8 by refusing to defend that same legally enacted law in court make a mockery of the separation of powers at the state level in much the same way that the Supreme Court intervening in this case to throw something out that it really has no standing to determine in the first place is also a mockery of both separation of powers and the principals of federalism. A Federal government that subsidizes child care through public education to providing funding and loans for college to requiring insurers to cover adults up to age 26 on their parent’s insurance to seizing an enormous proportion of wages in the form of taxes before generously giving a portion back in the form of various incentivizing tax breaks to providing medical care now and in old age along with an income stipend would see no issue with dominating what was once a supremely local issue, namely marriage between a man and woman.
From the perspective of the church, I think this is yet again an example of the church being unequalled yoked with the state. As I have written so often that I am even boring myself with the repetition, the church made this mess a long time ago by seeking out Caesar’s approval and blessing of marriages conducted in the church. If you want Caesar’s gold, you have to do as Caesar says.
The church should never have gotten so cozy with the state when it comes to marriage. We thought it was fine and even dare I say to our advantage to cozy up to the state when the state sort of defined marriage more or less biblically and also showered us with tax breaks for married couples and religious organizations alike but it was inevitable that as the prevailing morality of the world and this nation in particular have changed (and not for the better), so too would our most cherished institutions. Marriage in our culture is subject to legal definition by Caesar even though the actual definition and purpose of marriage is part of God’s eternal decree, a decree not subject to ruling by the courts of men or the winds of popular opinion. So when the culture says marriage means something that it doesnn't we only have ourselves to blame.
Someday perhaps we will learn our lesson and wise up.
Well not really but I imagine that is what “my” side of the social media world is saying today in light of the Supreme Court decisions that bolstered “gay marriage”. Today is a day that it is probably best that I am cut off a bit from social media.
On the purely secular situation, this is yet another gross overreach of federal power but that is hardly a surprise. The idea of a Federal government that is as deeply encroached as ours is and involved in virtually every aspect of our lives from birth to death would be anathema to those who designed our Constitution. Of course in fairness so would the idea of women voting but I digress. Telling the people of one state that the executive branch can override their duly and legally passed legislation like Proposition 8 by refusing to defend that same legally enacted law in court make a mockery of the separation of powers at the state level in much the same way that the Supreme Court intervening in this case to throw something out that it really has no standing to determine in the first place is also a mockery of both separation of powers and the principals of federalism. A Federal government that subsidizes child care through public education to providing funding and loans for college to requiring insurers to cover adults up to age 26 on their parent’s insurance to seizing an enormous proportion of wages in the form of taxes before generously giving a portion back in the form of various incentivizing tax breaks to providing medical care now and in old age along with an income stipend would see no issue with dominating what was once a supremely local issue, namely marriage between a man and woman.
From the perspective of the church, I think this is yet again an example of the church being unequalled yoked with the state. As I have written so often that I am even boring myself with the repetition, the church made this mess a long time ago by seeking out Caesar’s approval and blessing of marriages conducted in the church. If you want Caesar’s gold, you have to do as Caesar says.
The church should never have gotten so cozy with the state when it comes to marriage. We thought it was fine and even dare I say to our advantage to cozy up to the state when the state sort of defined marriage more or less biblically and also showered us with tax breaks for married couples and religious organizations alike but it was inevitable that as the prevailing morality of the world and this nation in particular have changed (and not for the better), so too would our most cherished institutions. Marriage in our culture is subject to legal definition by Caesar even though the actual definition and purpose of marriage is part of God’s eternal decree, a decree not subject to ruling by the courts of men or the winds of popular opinion. So when the culture says marriage means something that it doesnn't we only have ourselves to blame.
Someday perhaps we will learn our lesson and wise up.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Lots on my mind, not much to say
I haven't really posted anything for a couple of weeks. It isn't like I don't have anything to say or that I am not thinking about anything. Just everything I am thinking about writing seems like a broken record. I don't have anything fresh or innovative or even terribly interesting to say. Maybe as the week wears on something will catch my eye.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Hey! Over Here! Remember Us?!
It sometimes seems that based on the blogosphere, social media and bookstores that Anabaptism is a largely "progressive" or dare I say "liberal" movement. The perspective that is presented and the conversations being engaged seem somewhat narrowly focused especially on certain issues. The buzzwords, doctrinal positions that the contemporary Anabaptist writers take (and just as importantly
the positions that they oppose) and the non-Anabaptist writers that they reference all speak to an image that is overwhelmingly "progressive" or at least superficially contrary to what is known in Anabaptism as "traditional" or "conservative". Many progressive writers with Anabaptist sympathies claim the mantle of Anabaptism for all sort of positions that more traditional Anabaptists or the historical Anabaptists would find completely foreign. That doesn't mean that they are wrong to hold those positions or that the traditional/historical Anabaptists were always right but it does make for a pretty confusing dialogue, especially for "outsiders" like me. That is why, while I am not a giant fan of labels because I find that they tend to divide rather than clarify, I do think that the "neo-Anabaptist" label is a helpful one in distinguishing between traditional or historic Anabaptist groups and the neo-Anabaptists as a distinguishing mark.
It certainly seems that a lot of the neo-Anabaptist thinkers and writers come from outside of the traditional Anabaptist movements, tend to drive the conversation leftward and are a gateway to neo-Anabaptism for a lot of Christians. Perhaps the neo-Anabaptists were sent a Youtube link with a talk by Bruxy Cavey or they are reading Scot McKnight and he mentions Anabaptism, sparking their interest. What tends to be missing are a lot of references to historical Anabaptism.
Unlike some other contemporary streams within the church, primarily those coming from the magisterial Reformation, the neo-Anabaptist stream seems somewhat a-historical in the sense that their identity is distinct from, and in some ways a reaction against, the traditional, "historical" Anabaptist movement. For example, in the Reformed wing of the church especially the neo-Reformed or "young, restless and reformed" types are deeply connected with the historical roots and voraciously read and refer back to men like Calvin, the Puritans and guys like Whitfield. Neo-Anabaptists, even Mennonites, are more likely to quote Stuart Murray or Scot McKnight than Menno Simons or Balthasar Hubmaier.
My own experience in Anabaptism has been far more varied. While I appreciate my "leftward" Anabaptist brethren (recognizing how inadequate and loaded that sort of term is!) and have often been challenged by them on various issues via social media, my "real life" experience with Anabaptism has been far more traditional than progressive. Gender relations, issues of human sexuality, questions like a literal Adam and hell, these are issues that the Anabaptists I am familiar with are far more likely to hold to a conservative or fundamentalist line than the neo-Anabaptists.
I have said multiple times before that the division in Anabaptism over "conservative" versus "progressive" has left both sides poorer. There are a huge number of "conservative" Anabaptists that barely get mentioned among the neo-Anabaptist thinkers. For example, one of the largest of the "original" Anabaptist groups are the Amish and estimates peg their population at almost a quarter of a million. There are tens of thousands of Hutterites and Bruderhof in almost 500 colonies (I did find out just today that there are several Hutterite blogs out there, who knew?!). There are tens or hundreds of thousands of conservative Mennonites living in South America as well as Africa and Asia and and of course there are likewise tens of thousands of various conservative Mennonites in North America. Where we live there tends to be a variety of "conservative" Anabaptists with essentially no "progressive" or neo-Anabaptist groups that I am aware of, which leads to a strange dichotomy where "real life" Anabaptism looks one way and my online "virtual" Anabaptist circles look completely different and rarely overlap.
I assume a lot of this seems to be linked to many of the most conservative Anabaptist groups being leery of technology and not terribly interested in writing books (nor were the original Anabaptists who were more concerned about avoiding torture and murder from Catholic and Reformer alike). Likewise many new "converts" or at least sympathetically minded newer adherents that are more likely to be active on social media, blogs, Youtube, etc. tend to be leftward, drawn by the traditional peace church nature of Anabaptism and perhaps finding in Anabaptism what they want to see rather than what is there. In fairness, the more "traditional" Anabaptists I know fear the encroachment of "liberalism" more than almost anything else. I remember a friend responding to the question of which kind of Mennonite their church was with "the Biblical kind". It was partly tongue in cheek but he was also kind of serious, implying that non-"conservative" Anabaptist groups were unbiblical.
The Anabaptists were and are a pretty diverse group and have a lot to teach us on a lot of topics. Let's not make the mistake of pigeonholing them into a contemporary box and in doing so missing the rich history that they have along with the new applications to discover, even when their traditions or beliefs run counter to neo-Anabaptism or when some of the ideas of neo-Anabaptism don't sound "conservative" enough.
It certainly seems that a lot of the neo-Anabaptist thinkers and writers come from outside of the traditional Anabaptist movements, tend to drive the conversation leftward and are a gateway to neo-Anabaptism for a lot of Christians. Perhaps the neo-Anabaptists were sent a Youtube link with a talk by Bruxy Cavey or they are reading Scot McKnight and he mentions Anabaptism, sparking their interest. What tends to be missing are a lot of references to historical Anabaptism.
Unlike some other contemporary streams within the church, primarily those coming from the magisterial Reformation, the neo-Anabaptist stream seems somewhat a-historical in the sense that their identity is distinct from, and in some ways a reaction against, the traditional, "historical" Anabaptist movement. For example, in the Reformed wing of the church especially the neo-Reformed or "young, restless and reformed" types are deeply connected with the historical roots and voraciously read and refer back to men like Calvin, the Puritans and guys like Whitfield. Neo-Anabaptists, even Mennonites, are more likely to quote Stuart Murray or Scot McKnight than Menno Simons or Balthasar Hubmaier.
My own experience in Anabaptism has been far more varied. While I appreciate my "leftward" Anabaptist brethren (recognizing how inadequate and loaded that sort of term is!) and have often been challenged by them on various issues via social media, my "real life" experience with Anabaptism has been far more traditional than progressive. Gender relations, issues of human sexuality, questions like a literal Adam and hell, these are issues that the Anabaptists I am familiar with are far more likely to hold to a conservative or fundamentalist line than the neo-Anabaptists.
I have said multiple times before that the division in Anabaptism over "conservative" versus "progressive" has left both sides poorer. There are a huge number of "conservative" Anabaptists that barely get mentioned among the neo-Anabaptist thinkers. For example, one of the largest of the "original" Anabaptist groups are the Amish and estimates peg their population at almost a quarter of a million. There are tens of thousands of Hutterites and Bruderhof in almost 500 colonies (I did find out just today that there are several Hutterite blogs out there, who knew?!). There are tens or hundreds of thousands of conservative Mennonites living in South America as well as Africa and Asia and and of course there are likewise tens of thousands of various conservative Mennonites in North America. Where we live there tends to be a variety of "conservative" Anabaptists with essentially no "progressive" or neo-Anabaptist groups that I am aware of, which leads to a strange dichotomy where "real life" Anabaptism looks one way and my online "virtual" Anabaptist circles look completely different and rarely overlap.
I assume a lot of this seems to be linked to many of the most conservative Anabaptist groups being leery of technology and not terribly interested in writing books (nor were the original Anabaptists who were more concerned about avoiding torture and murder from Catholic and Reformer alike). Likewise many new "converts" or at least sympathetically minded newer adherents that are more likely to be active on social media, blogs, Youtube, etc. tend to be leftward, drawn by the traditional peace church nature of Anabaptism and perhaps finding in Anabaptism what they want to see rather than what is there. In fairness, the more "traditional" Anabaptists I know fear the encroachment of "liberalism" more than almost anything else. I remember a friend responding to the question of which kind of Mennonite their church was with "the Biblical kind". It was partly tongue in cheek but he was also kind of serious, implying that non-"conservative" Anabaptist groups were unbiblical.
The Anabaptists were and are a pretty diverse group and have a lot to teach us on a lot of topics. Let's not make the mistake of pigeonholing them into a contemporary box and in doing so missing the rich history that they have along with the new applications to discover, even when their traditions or beliefs run counter to neo-Anabaptism or when some of the ideas of neo-Anabaptism don't sound "conservative" enough.
Monday, June 03, 2013
Sunday, June 02, 2013
On Loss and Scale
John Mureiko wrote a post this weekend, Makes Your Stomach Ache, that really spoke to me. John writes of the personal sense of loss he experienced at the devastating loss they suffered in their small vineyard. John said:
I know it may sound silly, but you truly do grow an emotional attachment to your plants, and also your livestock. It really can be a painful experience to see them sicken and ultimately die after hours and hours of labor and care.
I get that, even as new as I am to the smaller scale farming world.
When a farmer who has 5000 acres of corn planted by machine, cultivated and sprayed by machine and harvested by machine loses 100 corn plants he either doesn't notice or he files a claim for crop insurance. When a factory farm with 10,000 hogs loses half a dozen piglets it is an acceptable loss. When a man with a small operation who knows all of his animals and every plant loses one, he knows it and feels it because he is personally invested in it. You remember planting it or seeing it born. We keep a journal in our home and record when our animals are bred or eggs go into the incubator so we know how it feels when a dog gets into your baby chicks after the wind blows the barn door open and slaughters dozens and dozens, wiping out that years batch. We know what it is like to have a baby lamb rejected by mom that was just never quite right but lived in our living room for two weeks until it finally succumbed. We know what it is like to wait for months in eager anticipation for the birth of a calf only to watch in growing dismay as it becomes apparent that the birth is not going the way you hoped and saving the cow only by the heroic and messy effort of my wife to deliver the stillborn calf. These losses are painful and real, something you can't quite experience the same way as the farm gets bigger and the animals become numbers on ear tags, turning them from pigs and calves and chicks into units of production that convert x pounds of feed to y units of meat. Of course you also cannot miss the real joy of watching a lamb grow into an adult sheep and having lambs of her own or a chick that becomes a broody hen with chicks of her own hiding under her wings or enjoying the fruit of your labor with a home grown turkey for Thanksgiving or bacon from a hog your raised on your own!
As I often do, when I think of farming I also think of the church. How similar they are and this notion of the intimacy of small scale farming versus the impersonal nature of industrial agriculture is very much like the difference between small, intimate fellowships of believers versus massive event driven "church" where x units of worship convert into y units of religious output. That is not to say that all small farms are perfect, there are many that are half-hearted and even cruel just as there are small fellowships that are anything but intimate and far from faithful. Nevertheless you cannot replicate the personal investment of a small farm with a massive agribusiness enterprise and you cannot replicate authentic interpersonal community with a staged religious event no matter how polished.
Anyway, read John's post and let me know if you see the connection I am trying to draw or if I am overreaching yet again.
I know it may sound silly, but you truly do grow an emotional attachment to your plants, and also your livestock. It really can be a painful experience to see them sicken and ultimately die after hours and hours of labor and care.
I get that, even as new as I am to the smaller scale farming world.
When a farmer who has 5000 acres of corn planted by machine, cultivated and sprayed by machine and harvested by machine loses 100 corn plants he either doesn't notice or he files a claim for crop insurance. When a factory farm with 10,000 hogs loses half a dozen piglets it is an acceptable loss. When a man with a small operation who knows all of his animals and every plant loses one, he knows it and feels it because he is personally invested in it. You remember planting it or seeing it born. We keep a journal in our home and record when our animals are bred or eggs go into the incubator so we know how it feels when a dog gets into your baby chicks after the wind blows the barn door open and slaughters dozens and dozens, wiping out that years batch. We know what it is like to have a baby lamb rejected by mom that was just never quite right but lived in our living room for two weeks until it finally succumbed. We know what it is like to wait for months in eager anticipation for the birth of a calf only to watch in growing dismay as it becomes apparent that the birth is not going the way you hoped and saving the cow only by the heroic and messy effort of my wife to deliver the stillborn calf. These losses are painful and real, something you can't quite experience the same way as the farm gets bigger and the animals become numbers on ear tags, turning them from pigs and calves and chicks into units of production that convert x pounds of feed to y units of meat. Of course you also cannot miss the real joy of watching a lamb grow into an adult sheep and having lambs of her own or a chick that becomes a broody hen with chicks of her own hiding under her wings or enjoying the fruit of your labor with a home grown turkey for Thanksgiving or bacon from a hog your raised on your own!
As I often do, when I think of farming I also think of the church. How similar they are and this notion of the intimacy of small scale farming versus the impersonal nature of industrial agriculture is very much like the difference between small, intimate fellowships of believers versus massive event driven "church" where x units of worship convert into y units of religious output. That is not to say that all small farms are perfect, there are many that are half-hearted and even cruel just as there are small fellowships that are anything but intimate and far from faithful. Nevertheless you cannot replicate the personal investment of a small farm with a massive agribusiness enterprise and you cannot replicate authentic interpersonal community with a staged religious event no matter how polished.
Anyway, read John's post and let me know if you see the connection I am trying to draw or if I am overreaching yet again.
The Second Amendment Is The Eleventh Commandment?
At the outset:
- I own guns. Quite a few of them.
- I recognize the right of American citizens to own firearms without the permission of the government based on the Second Amendment and I likewise see most national attempts to restrict firearm ownership to be based more in citizen control than gun control.
- I am all in favor of kicking the UN to the curb and sending them somewhere else to make empty speeches, coddle dictators and waste money.
OK. Now let me begin by saying that elected representative he may be but Congressman Steve Stockman from Texas is either not extraordinarily bright or he is maliciously deceptive. On his web page he published this statement (emphasis mine):
WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas 36) has signed on to a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry demanding they not sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
“The right to keep and bear arms is granted by God and protecting from government aggression by the Constitution. It is not subject to the whims of global totalitarians massed in New York City,” said Stockman. “I oppose any UN treaty touching the right to keep and bear arms. It’s beyond time for the United States to withdraw from the UN.”
The right to keep and bear arms is granted by God?
Egad.
I must have missed that part of the New Covenant. Let me see. Remembering our sins no more. Writing His law on our hearts. Oh yeah, there it is: guaranteeing the right for citizens of a secular nation that wouldn't even exist until 1700 years after the closing of the canon to own firearms.
I can understand why some people want to limit gun ownership when people like this are the voice of gun owners.
I don't even have it in me to write anything else snarky about this. I will just let it speak for itself.
- I own guns. Quite a few of them.
- I recognize the right of American citizens to own firearms without the permission of the government based on the Second Amendment and I likewise see most national attempts to restrict firearm ownership to be based more in citizen control than gun control.
- I am all in favor of kicking the UN to the curb and sending them somewhere else to make empty speeches, coddle dictators and waste money.
OK. Now let me begin by saying that elected representative he may be but Congressman Steve Stockman from Texas is either not extraordinarily bright or he is maliciously deceptive. On his web page he published this statement (emphasis mine):
WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas 36) has signed on to a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry demanding they not sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
“The right to keep and bear arms is granted by God and protecting from government aggression by the Constitution. It is not subject to the whims of global totalitarians massed in New York City,” said Stockman. “I oppose any UN treaty touching the right to keep and bear arms. It’s beyond time for the United States to withdraw from the UN.”
The right to keep and bear arms is granted by God?
Egad.
I must have missed that part of the New Covenant. Let me see. Remembering our sins no more. Writing His law on our hearts. Oh yeah, there it is: guaranteeing the right for citizens of a secular nation that wouldn't even exist until 1700 years after the closing of the canon to own firearms.
I can understand why some people want to limit gun ownership when people like this are the voice of gun owners.
I don't even have it in me to write anything else snarky about this. I will just let it speak for itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)