Right, Left or Jesus

Russell Moore had a piece on his blog recently that looked at where American Christianity has been since World War 2, and where it is heading today. While many evangelicals will readily point to liberal Christianity as having abandoned the Gospel for social engineering, they have ignored the plank in their own eye. Moore has this interesting comment:

“On the one hand, the tactics of the old social gospel liberals have been inherited, ironically enough, by the Religious Right. Once again, in many quarters, a political program has replaced the gospel. Just listen to Christian talk radio for an hour and see where the emphasis is.”

via Moore to the Point – The Evangelical Uneasy Conscience Faces the Future.

Maybe both the Christian Left and the Christian Right should examine their aims to see if their square with the mission of Jesus.

Politics And Pandering To The Faithful

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. – Matthew 6:1 ESV

I don’t like being patronized. Yet it seems like every political candidate of every stripe goes out of their way to “practice their faith” before men. This election season has been particularly bad in regards to this. At least one candidate started his campaign with a tent revival like prayer meeting complete with preachers. Others have signed a pledge to live out Biblical values in their marriage even though it’s arguable whether they have ever lived that way as demonstrated by their string of marriages wrecked by adultery.

Some of these folks may actually have a real faith practice that drives their life. However, when they trot it out at every opportunity and use it to try and win over voters it loses it’s legitimacy and becomes more of a shtick. The sad part is that when they do this they are in effect communicating that they think we are stupid enough to fall for it. And when we fall for it we confirm our stupidity to them.

What does it say about our faith that we let ourselves be used for crass political purposes? Are we really so desperate to have our faith validated by politics that we’ll think this kind of pandering is acceptable?

Was Iraq Really Worth The Cost?

After nearly nine years, 4,500 American dead, 32,000 wounded and more than $800 billion, U.S. officials prepared Thursday to formally shut down the war in Iraq — a conflict that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said was worth the price in blood and money, as it set Iraq on a path to democracy.

via Panetta To Formally Shut Down U.S. War In Iraq : NPR.

I once heard it said “how ironic it is that fat old men in Washington are so eager to send young men out to do the dying for them”.

I don’t think it was worth the cost.

What Are “Values Voters” To Do This Election?

Interesting quote from Pastor Robert Jeffress on the field of GOP candidates and the evangelical Christian voter:

“I think there’s now an evangelical tri-lemma,” says Jeffress, who still backs Perry but doesn’t have illusions about his current electoral oomph. “Do you vote for a Mormon who’s had one wife, a Catholic who’s had three wives, or an Evangelical who may have had an entire harem?”

via Newt Gingrich and evangelicals: They could never support him, right? Wrong. – Slate Magazine.

Politicians And Religious Tribalism

USA Today had an interesting commentary by David Gushee recently about the role of religion, specifically Christianity in politics. The whole piece was worth reading but in it they had this that I thought was worth noting:

This version of Christian politics is inherently corrupting to Christian faith, ethics and witness. It encourages politicians to take God’s name in vain, and to do so routinely. (That would be a violation of the Ten Commandments, if Christians still cared about such things.) It tempts church leaders to abuse their offices and abandon their core vocations as they entangle themselves with politics. It confuses the message of Christianity with that of the politician of the moment. It damages the moral witness of Christians in culture. It makes it harder for millions to even consider the claims of historic Christian faith. It drives many away from God altogether.

This kind of Christian politics is also corrupting of American politics. When a significant minority of the body politic votes mainly on the basis of what amounts to religious tribalism, it encourages everyone else to do the same thing. But tribal politics is toxic. It has destroyed nations from Yugoslavia to Lebanon. And it does nothing to bring to office leaders with the skills to actually solve our everyday problems. We need effective leaders, not religious symbols.

What may prove to be interesting this year is the fact that one of the leading GOP candidates for president is someone from a religion that many evangelical Christians consider to be heretical. What if he is the best qualified to lead, should Christians support someone less qualified but who might more closely align with their religious tribe?

This dovetails nicely with a comment my Pastor Dave Jefferys made at the Vista Community Church this Sunday when he said that government/politics was “not the answer to all our problems”. Government does have an important God ordained role in society. But history is rife with examples of thoroughly un-Biblical governments and political leaders that were used to further God’s purpose.

Maybe we need to keep in mind Jesus’ admonishment to

“Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” – Luke 20:25 ESV

Pat Robertson Is Just Plain Evil

I normally don’t pay much attention to televangelist Pat Robertson of 700 Club fame. However, just when you don’t think he could stoop to more be more of an ass, he proves to be a far bigger ass than you previously thought possible.

The statement that got my dander up this time was this bit quoted in a Yahoo News story:

During the portion of the show where the one-time Republican presidential candidate takes questions from viewers, Robertson was asked what advice a man should give to a friend who began seeing another woman after his wife started suffering from the incurable neurological disorder.

I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her,” Robertson said.

I’m sure this comment from Robertson is very reassuring to his wife.

Fortunately, there are real Christian leaders that can point out just how totally wrong Robertson is. Dr. Russell Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Over at his blog, he had one of the most well written repudiation of Robertson and his ilk that I think I have ever seen or could have hoped for. The whole thing is worth the read, but this bit is outstanding:

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.

If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.

I find the politicization of faith in this country as espoused by Robertson and other caricatures to be so troubling, and so un-Christlike that it has almost caused me to walk away from the faith on more that one occasion. To use a quote often attributed to Ghandi:

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

What could be more un-Christlike that to tell someone that it’s OK to break your vow “to love, honor and cherish in sickness and in health” because their spouse’s sickness is “kind of” like being dead?

Of course, sometimes when people age and start to get dementia, they say outlandish things that often don’t make sense. I wonder if Mrs. Robertson will use this as an excuse to take her husband’s advice?

More On The Evangelical Culture War And The Decline Of The Church

I recently posted that I was having serious concerns that evangelical Christianity’s embrace of politics and the culture war, was having a negative effect on the Gospel. In a recent post over at internetmonk.com they comment on a recent book making a similar assertion. The book details the decline in church attendance among young people and the potential reasons for this shift. Chaplain Mike comments about the book saying:

What lies behind this shift? The research supporting the findings of American Grace led its authors to conclude that the “culture war” approach and conservative political agenda of evangelicalism over the past 30 years has turned young people off and prompted them to walk away from church. And the one issue that has been particularly troublesome for them is the church’s attitude toward homosexuality.

Now I am not going to argue that homosexuality is God’s ideal for men and women. I think the Bible speaks pretty clearly on that. But I also think in general evangelical Christians are so unloving and un-Christlike in their treatment of homosexuals that I can see why young people would walk away from a religion that treats others that way.

The more important bit I think we should take away from this is that even if evangelicals win the culture war battle, they are going to do so at the great cost of losing the war for men’s souls. That’s a war we can’t afford to lose.

I Am A Political Agnostic

I have become convinced that politics are detrimental to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because of this, I am formally declaring my political agnosticism. Before you ready the torches and pitchforks, let me explain.

First off, what does agnostic mean? Dictionary.com gives this definition:

ag·nos·tic   [ag-nos-tik]
-noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
-adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

In my case, I am not doubting the existence of God, but instead am asserting uncertainty about the claims to ultimate knowledge by politicians and their ilk. Try as they might to convince me that they hold the keys to happiness and well being in the world, I remain unconvinced. I wholeheartedly agree with Pastor Mark Driscoll who recently said:

No functional savior in the form of a politician can save us.

Yet, is spite of this, Christians seem to be more engaged with the political process then ever. A recent story over at NPR posited that Tea Party members are more likely to be regular churchgoers and identify themselves as conservative Christians. Unless you live under a rock, it’s hard not to notice that a significant amount of money and effort is being expended by Christians to influence the ballot box.

While in and of itself, this is not a bad thing, I have real concerns about some of the implications of this effort. Steve Monsma has a piece over at the Q Blog where he comments on a recent nationally syndicated op-ed piece by an evangelical Christian who stated that Fidel Castro’s Cuba is abandoning communism while US President Obama is taking our county into socialism/communism. Steve writes of this assertion:

More than nonsense, it is destructive of what Christians can and should be offering the American people this election season. And young Christians—who increasingly are supporting creation care efforts, are taking part in feeding programs at central city missions, and in other ways are living out the gospel through acts of service—will be further alienated from the political process.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not an apology for the left, Christian or otherwise. From my experience the left and the right—including so-called spokespersons for the Christian right and the Christian left—are both guilty of oversimplifications and of being used by political operatives more cynical than they.

In fact, more than one writer has written of a coming demise of American evangelicalism based in part on evangelicalism’s identification with political partisanship and the “culture war” political ethos. This identification tends to make everything into an “Us vs. Them” proposition with no room for divergent opinions. Most of the problems we are facing in America cannot be reduced to simple black and white answers that usually spring from that type of thinking.

Even more problematic is that this evangelical identification with a specific political viewpoint smacks of an idolatrous worship of America itself rather than the worship of Jesus. More than once I have watched a political rally and noted the parallels between it and a modern religious service. Think I’m off base on this assertion? Both are usually opened in prayer, both have emotive music meant to stir our feelings, have a testimony from someone whose life was changed, and then culminate with powerful oratory meant to get us to place our faith in someone as the answer to the problems we face in life. I suppose if you consider the trip to the ballot box an altar call, you could even add that.

Yet, I know that even with’s Jesus’ admonition to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” I owe my supreme allegiance not to Caesar but instead unto God to whom I belong. I am a citizen of his Kingdom first and foremost. Senator John Danforth was quoted as saying in his book “Faith and Politics” as saying:

If Christianity is supposed to be a ministry of reconciliation, and has become instead a divisive force in American political life, something is terribly wrong, and we should correct it.

As a citizen of this Kingdom it’s high time that I act like one and avoid divisive partisanship. Earthly kingdoms will one day turn to dust, I need to work for the Kingdom that will last.

Are We Really “Under Assault”?

Have you noticed that "our cherished way of life is under attack"? Or how about that the "values this country was founded on are under assault"? Assaults and attacks? Really?

I wonder why it is that politicians have taken to using such over the top superlatives to describe the folks on the other side of the aisle in our government?

I was a police officer for over 14 years. Unfortunately, I have on occasion had to fight people who for whatever reason decided that they didn’t want to be arrested. In fact, I have been in a couple of doozies with them trying to grab my gun while I was having to whack them with a nightstick while hoping that backup arrives before something really bad happens. That kind of ruckus can be legitimately described as an attack or an assault.

The wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan have led to a number of harrowing accounts of battles between American forces and insurgents including this one that led to the first Medal of Valor awarded to a living recipient since Viet Nam. These incidents can be legitimately described as attacks or assaults.

However, using such over the top language to describe the opposition using the political process to further their legislative agenda can hardly be called an "attack" or an "assault". In fact, when the complaining party used the exact same process to further their agenda was it also an "attack" or an "assault"? This kind of over the top language would make Dr. Goebbels proud.

When you hear such language you should realize that you are being manipulated. Shame on them for doing it, and shame on us for falling for it and/or tolerating it. 

Hey, You Didn’t Bother To Crash My Party

The Washington Post has an article in their Religion section stating that Focus On The Family head, Dr. James Dobson was “disappointed” that there was no White House Representative at the National Day Of Prayer event organized by Dobson and his wife Shirley. Well, maybe this will help Dr. Dobson figure out why they weren’t there:

However, a White House source with direct knowledge of the situation, said event organizers placed restrictions on potential speakers saying that they had to be “pro-life” and the only person officially invited from the administration was Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican. Source: Washington Post

That’s probably a pretty good reason why they didn’t come. They apparently weren’t invited.

This brings up my biggest gripe. This event has been largely co-opted by people with a specific political agenda. Maybe it’s time to bring the event back to it’s origins. While the National Day of Prayer has been around since George Washington, it was solidified into the specific observance on a specific day by President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, in 1952. It’s probably time to kick the Republican kingmaker Dobson out and bring a less partisan leader to the fore if they really want this event to be bipartisan.

As it stands, complaining that someone you didn’t invite didn’t come to your party sounds a lot like political grandstanding. Maybe they ought to change their name to Focus On The Republican Family.

James Gilmore over at the Matthew 25 Network also has a good piece on this controversy.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 792 other followers