Five Fast Emotions on Inauguration Day

1.  I am excited that a minority has finally reached the White House. 

2.  I am worried that our new President is intent on weakening traditional marriage.

3.  I am hopeful that our new President can find a way to quickly, securely, and effectively end the wars in which America is currently involved.

4.  I am underwhelmed by the new President’s ability to fix our economic crisis (I would say this regardless of who the new President would be–one person simply does not have that much influence.)

5.  I am proud that America has a system of government where the change in administrations, control, and direction happens without a military coup, rioting, or bloodshed.

Post-election Decompression

I don’t know about you, but I feel like I need to decompress after this past election season.  Like everyone else, I was keeping tabs on everything up until the concession speech last night (which, as a complete aside, I thought was the best speech that McCain delivered during the entire campaign.  How ironic.)  I have so many thoughts and emotions swirling around my head and heart today, that it seems like it may take four years for them to sort out.

So, as a form of self-therapy, I thought I’d share some of the ideas and randomness that is floating around in my head.  These are in no certain order and reflect nothing systematic.  Here goes.

1.  I’ve been watching a series on the History Channel called The Presidents.  Since I’m a history buff, I’ve been enthralled by it.  Two things have gotten my attention.  First, presidential elections have always been this dirty.  Apparently, the election of 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson was by far the worst.  So while it seems like elections get more acrimonious each year, I guess they’ve always been this way.  The second thing I noticed that that our county tends to swing from side to side in presidential elections.  The country will go conservative for a while, then we’ll go liberal for a while.  I guess you could say, that as a nation, we always think the other guy can do a better job.  One party rarely has power for more than 12 years.

2.  This election has got me more interested in politics than ever before.  I certainly wouldn’t say that I’m interested, just more interested.  What has really made me interested, though, is the relationship between the Christian faith and politics.  Really, my interest started when I preached a series of sermons back in the spring about politics.  My goal was to preach a series of sermons on politics without being political.  I guess I accomplished my goal because at different times I was criticized for being a liberal democrat and a judgmental Republican.  Also, I was complimented for being a liberal democrat and a “real Christian” Republican.  This was by people who heard the same sermons, sat through the same lessons, and read the same blog entries.  How does that happen?

3.  This election has brought out the extremes of people, especially Christians.  One thing that has really surprised me is that I’ve talked with so many Christians who became incredibly judgmental of others regarding their political views.  So much hateful, divisive, and critical talk has come out of Christians’ mouths that at times that I didn’t even really know how to respond.  I really fear that Christians will allow politics to become a test of fellowship (maybe we could add a couple more items to Paul’s list of “ones” in Ephesians 4) or a divisive force in the church.  Satan would like nothing better than to divide Christians over politics.  We should all practice Ephesians 4:29 more.

4.  I wonder if the church has traded the power of the gospel for the power of the vote.  Do we think that our responsibility as Christians ends at the voting booth?  If we elect the right person, will we thrust all of our spiritual expectations upon him or her rather than take responsibility ourselves for changing our nation for Christ?  Have we wondered off course when we think that the spread of the gospel can only happen under one particular political party and that somehow the church will crumble if the other party is in control?  Now before you start sending hate mail, I do realize that our leaders certainly do have a tremendous impact on our culture and nation.  I’m not debating that.  I just get the feeling that we think the political process has more potential for changing our nation than the gospel does. 

So, as we move ahead into the next four years, here are my hopes for us Christians.

• I hope and pray that Christians will pray for our new President with as much fervor as we campaigned for or against him.  He will definitely need it.
• I hope and pray that Christians will exemplify in their lifestyles the things that were important on the ballot.  If it was abortion, then we should start volunteering to help women considering it.  If it was definition of marriage, then we should do something about the divorce rate among Christians.  If it was the economy, then we better get our finances in line with God’s priorities.  If it was the environment, then we better recycle, buy hybrid cars, and eat lots of lettuce (I don’t know why I wrote that, it just seems like an environmentally friendly thing to do.)  You get the idea.  If an issue was so important on Election Day, it should be just as important the rest of the year.
• I hope and pray that Christians will be a people who are known for our love and grace, rather than our condemnation and judgment.
• I hope and pray that Christians will never stop hating sin, but will love sinners into the Kingdom.
• I hope and pray that Jesus returns soon, because I’m not sure I can survive another presidential campaign.

Dear Mr. President

The following is from the Serious Times Update, by James Emery White

Dear Mr. President:

 

I do not yet know your name, but in a few days you will be elected to our nation’s highest office, and become the leader of the free world at the end of a long and engaging election season. 

 

I wanted you to know that I will be praying for you.  Not praying against you, or about you, but for you.  That is both my pledge, and my obligation as a follower of Christ.  In the Bible, the apostle Paul writes, “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” 

 

And I will do so with a full and undivided heart.

 

I will be praying for you from my position as a father of four children, and God willing, future grandchildren; that you will have the foresight to think through what your decisions will mean for them as the next generation.

 

I will be praying for you as a citizen of the United States; that you will seek wisdom from God and humbly submit yourself to His leadership as you lead our nation through economic turbulence, domestic divides, and cultural diversities.

 

I will be praying for you as a member of the global population; that you will work with other well-intentioned leaders from around the world as we face environmental challenges, wars and rumors of wars, and humanitarian crises.

 

And finally, I will be praying for you as a Christian; that you will encourage faith in God to flourish and never allow deeply held spiritual convictions to become a matter of ridicule, instead encouraging everyone to grant them a respectful hearing, even if they go against the political policy of your party.

 

It is being widely spoken that the next president will inherit more that needs immediate attention than any other president in recent memory.  As a result, it has been a hard-fought and hotly contested election.  Yes, I will vote, and I do not know if you will be the one for whom I cast my ballot.  But following November 4^th, all that must be set aside no matter how deep the divides may be. 

 

So while I do not know if you will be the candidate I voted for, I do know that no matter your name, I will support you in one way without question.

 

I will be praying for you.

 

James Emery White

Political Preparation #4

How did Jesus approach the government and politics?  Well, you can (and many have!) write a book on this subject.  However, I think the answer to this questions is incredibly relevant for Christians today.  So, may I humbly offer four observations.

1.  Jesus never took political sides. 
We live in an incredibly political culture.  Nothing happens, from the economy to war, without the consideration of political ramifications.  Every level of our society (school board, city, county, state, regional, and national) has some sort of political structure that operates it.  Simply put, we cannot escape having to take political sides on virtually every issue.

The world that Jesus lived in was equally, if not more, political.  Every group had a stake in the way the government operated.  Also, the government that Jesus lived under was immensely corrupt.  Most high level rulers gained their positions by military force, bribery, blackmail, or by arranging for the untimely demise of their predecessor.  The Jews lived under an occupying military force.  Opposing religious forces (Pharisees and Sadducees) dominated the culture.  All of this makes the fact that Jesus never took sides all the more remarkable!  He never endorsed a government official, a political group, a religious society, or even a candidate running for office!  The closest Jesus ever came to endorsing anything political in nature was when the Pharisees and Herodians tried to trick him into taking sides about paying taxes (which was a very hot religious topic of the day).  Jesus just simply acknowledged that some things belong to Caesar and some to God, so give each one his due (Mark 12:13-17).  Is it safe to say that politics isn’t something that Jesus thought worthy of investing a lot of time into debating or worrying about?

2.  Jesus made room for people with opposing political views.
The people who followed Jesus came from various economic, social, ethnic, and political backgrounds.  Even the hand picked chosen twelve were from very different backgrounds.  Two in particular are intriguing.  Included in the list of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15) are two guys named Simon the Zealot and Matthew the publican.  The Zealots were a militant group that completely opposed the Roman government, especially paying taxes to Rome.  Publicans worked for the Roman government as tax collectors and made their living by overcharging and keeping the proceeds.  You can’t be further apart on the political spectrum than Zealots and Publicans, yet one of each was a disciple of Jesus.  I wonder if Jesus ever had to break up a fist fight between these two? 

I find it somewhat humorous that in different parts of the country, Christians assume that the “Christian” way to vote is different than in other places.  I’ve lived where Christians were Democrats and I’ve lived where Christians were Republicans.  In every place I’ve lived, no one could imagine a good Christian voting the other way.  The truth is, though, that there is room for a wide variety of political views in the crowd following Jesus.  And to be honest, it saddens me when Christians think otherwise.  We usually think that being a “real” Christian means viewing politics the same way that I do.  I wonder if Simon and Matthew thought the same thing?

3.  Jesus never advocated rebellion or any kind of disobedience to the government.
When asked directly about the Roman government, Jesus said to give the government what belongs to it, and to give to God what belongs to it.  When His disciples wanted to resist the Romans guards in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus directly told them to stop.  When given the opportunity to resist the government, Jesus submitted.  In fact, Jesus submitted to the government to the point of death.

I just don’t see how the example of Jesus squares with anyone who advocates resistance to the government.  The Roman Empire had to have been 10 times more corrupt, more immoral, more oppressive toward Christian than our government.  Yet, Jesus never taught anyone to resist it. 

4.  Jesus made it a point to say that His Kingdom was not an earthly, political kingdom.
At His trial, Pilate directly asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”  Jesus responded that His kingdom was not of this world.  If His kingdom was of this world, then there would have been violence as His disciples would have resisted His arrest.  However, Jesus emphatically responded “My kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36.)  Repeatedly during His ministry, the followers of Jesus tried to make Him into an earthly king.  Without exception, Jesus resisted.  He came to create a spiritual kingdom, not a physical, geopolitical one.

I fear that many Evangelicals want to make the spiritual kingdom that Jesus came to build into a physical one.  They want to fuse the church and the state together and force people into moral living by passing laws.  The problem with this approach to politics is two fold.  First, Jesus expressly stated that His kingdom was not a geopolitical (earthly) kingdom.  Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not rule as President.  Does that mean that Christians should not be involved or vote for moral laws when given the opportunity?  Absolutely not.  However, the goal of the church was never to take over the government.  Second (and I will expand on this idea in the next post or two), the power that the government uses (power from above–force) is directly contrary to the power that the church should use (power from under–love.)  Some Christians believe that it is their role to take over the government. 

Feel free to share your thoughts…as long as they agree with mine

The Myth of a Christian Nation

The Myth of a Christian Nation
by Gregory A. Boyd

I’ve been preaching for Paradox at our church, which is the college/young adult worship service.  When I started to plan for it, I had a conversation with Rock Star Kirk (that’s a Don Miller reference), who helps lead the ministry.  We wanted to do a sermon series that would be very relevant and edgy, so I had the brilliant idea to preach on politics.  With the presidential election this year, it seemed like an easy thing to find material for.  The problem is that I had never really thought much about politics or how my Christianity impacted my personal views.  So I ordered several books to help jump start my thought process.  The first book that came was The Myth of a Christian Nation.  All I can say is, “WOW!”  It has been a long time since I have read a book that both informed, educated, and challenged my thinking as much as this one has. 

Synopsis:  Boyd begins the book by telling how the material originally began as a sermon series.  As a result of the sermons, about 20% of his church left.  His central thesis is this…”a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry” (p. 11).  Boyd goes on to develop the idea that there are two completely separated kingdoms in which Christians live: the kingdom of the world (he calls the Sword) and the kingdom of the Cross.  The kingdom of the world is ruled by Satan and can never have any redeeming value.  The kingdom of the Cross is ruled by Jesus and should be the priority for Christians.  Because of this dichotomy, Christians should not identify themselves with any specific form of worldly government, which is akin to idolatry.  Boyd then proceeds to address the ramifications of identifying ourselves with worldly government.  In the end, he believes that Christians should “vote their conscience”, but understand that the world will never be won for Christ as a result of our involvement in government–only though our participation in the kingdom of the cross.

On the negative side…
On the surface, Boyd’s premise sounds good.  I believe the problem is that he cannot support the idea that any human form of government is completely separated from God.  He fails to consider passages such as Romans 13 in depth.  So, I disagree with his primary assumption that God is not involved in government.  This is kind of a dualistic view of the world, which is unbiblical.  As you read this book, it is essential to keep this in mind.  Also, he addresses the issue of Christians and violence in the last chapter and specifically looks at Christians in the military.  I disagree with his conclusion on the subject, but I appreciate that he has thought it through.

On the positivie side…
Once I got over the fact that I disagreed with the initial premise, I thought Boyd did a masterful job of exposing how the church has become much too closely aligned with the political process.  He delved into areas that I had never considered.  I thought the best part of the book was chapters 6-8, in which he addresses the idea of a “civil” religion and how it negatively impacts the church.  This was fascinating reading that really got me thinking.

In the end, keep this in mind…
Do not read this book if you want your thinking to remain unchallenged.  Boyd takes some extreme view, but I think most of time he takes extremely biblical views.  He presents the truth, and sometimes it is a painful process.  While I disagree with the primary premise, I highly recommend this book.  It will definitely challenge you to examine how you look at Christianity and politics.

How to Change the World

Martin Luther nailed 95 thesis to the church door at Wittenburg.  Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery Alabama.  Martin Luther King Jr. told everyone that he had a dream.  John Lennon & Yoko Ono stayed in bed for a week.  Students in China protested in Tiananmen Square.  The Southern Baptist convention voted to boycott the Walt Disney Corporation.

Famous attempts at changing the world.  While each met with varying degrees of success, each one thought that this was an appropriate way to change the world for better.  As a Christian, though, how can we change the world?  Should we vote, boycott, picket, protest, and harass?  Should we stand by the road with signs, collect signatures on petitions, and attempt to pass laws that outlaw sinful behavior?  Throughout history, Christians have tried to change the world through political means.  Is that the way Christ would have us change the world, though?

Does the Bible give us a paradigm for changing the world?  I believe it does.  Let’s, for an example, take the issue of slavery.  Slavery in the Roman world was universally practiced and accepted.  The primary source of slaves was warfare and masters had complete control over their “human tools” (as Aristotle called them.)  In America, we think of slavery through the eyes of American history.  However, slavery in the ancient world had less to do with racism as it did with economics and class distinction (not that the American version didn’t either.)

We modern Christians are horrified at the institution of slavery.  It is a shameful chapter in our history.  We would expect that the New Testament would forcefully condemn this inhumane practice.  Surely the Apostle Paul would have us boycott businesses run by slaves, petition the Emperor to abolish the practice, and condemn slave owners publicly–especially those who were Christians.

Guess what: it isn’t there.  The New Testament offers little critique of slavery except to say that slaves should be good workers and masters should be good overseers (see Ephesians 6:5-9; 1 Corinthians 7:21; Colossians 3:22-4:2; and 1 Timothy 6:1-2.)  Paul doesn’t encourage Christians to harbor runaway slaves.  He doesn’t denounce those who economically support the institution.  He just seems resigned to accept it.

Except for his letter to Philemon.  Here’s the background…Paul starts a church in Colossae.  Philemon, a somewhat wealthy man, becomes a Christian under the influence of Paul and even hosts church meeting in his house.  Paul becomes imprisoned in Rome for preaching the gospel.  While in prison, Paul runs into Onesimus, who happens to be a runaway slave of Paul’s good friend Philemon.  Onesimus becomes a Christian under the influence of Paul.  Now Paul is legally bound to return Onesimus to Philemon as a slave.  Paul, however, sends this letter back with Onesimus to Philemon.

In this very personal letter, Paul gives his strategy for changing the world.  Here it is…

Change the world through character, not criticism (v1-3).  Paul notes that he also is a prisoner rather than criticizing Philemon for owning slaves.

Change the world through prayer, not protest (v4-7).  Paul is always praying for Philemon rather than protesting his involvement in slavery.

Change the world with love, not laws (v8-11).  Though Paul could have told Philemon what to do, he chose instead to appeal for the sake of love.

Change the world with purity, not piety (v12-13).  Paul’s motives were pure and he didn’t have a hidden agenda.  No one can question pure motives.

Change the world with compassion, not compulsion (v14-16).  Paul had compassion for both Onesimus and Philemon rather than making something happen under compulsion.

Change the world with partnership, not pride (v17).  Paul knew that the only way to accomplish anything was through partnership, not the prideful assumption that no one else can help.

Change the world with self-sacrifice, not self-righteousness (v18-25).  Paul offered to pay for the damages himself rather than simply talking about what should be done.

Paul’s approach to eliminating slavery was this: win both slaves and masters to the Lord and the problem will take care of itself.

Too many times Christians are known for anything but love.  We’re known for protesting, picketing, petitioning, and publicizing rather than loving.  There is a time and place to make our voice heard in our country, but we should always do it with the love of Christ. 

How do you change the world–from the bottom up, not the top down.

How do you change the world–you allow the Kingdom of God to govern every action.

How do you change the world–by changing the hearts of people.

How do you change the world–one person at a time.

Obama Claims Christianity

I hesitate to write about politics because it can be so devisive.  Also, politics creates labels that one can never seem to shake.  However, a development in the presidential campaign came about this week concerning Christianity.  Here are some of my very non-political (and slightly sarcastic) thoughts on religion in politics. 

This week a picture of Barak Obama was mysteriously released (if you believe that the Clintons had nothing to do with this then you also probably still believe that Elvis is alive, Bud Selig is a great baseball Commissioner, there’s a jolly fat man who delivers presents on Christmas Eve, and the Apollo moon landings were filmed on a movie set in Hollywood.)  This picture of Obama shows him in traditional village garb in his father’s country of Kenya.  This picture makes it look like Obama is wearing some kind of Islamic outfit.  The accompanying info with the picture also brings up the fact that Obama spent several years in Indonesia, which is a heavily Muslim country. 

Obama is going to great lengths to tell the world that he is not Muslim (even though his father converted to Islam, his name sounds incredibly Islamic, and he lived in a Muslim country.)  He wants everyone to know that he is in fact a Christian.  If you go to his official website at http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php#practicing-christian there is even an entire webpage devoted to his Christian beliefs, Bible reading, and the church he attends.

I have very mixed feelings about all of this.  Here are a couple of questions on this whole situation from a non-political point of view (not that there’s anything wrong with being political.)

• I applaud Obama for being open about his faith and beliefs (even his baptism!)  Kudos for standing up for his faith.
• Doesn’t this whole deal remind you of the Seinfeld episode when Jerry and George are accused of being homosexual?  I keep expecting Obama to say, “I’m a Christian and not a Muslim, not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
• I wonder if Obama had all these details about his Christian faith on his website before the picture was released.  I don’t know because I didn’t look.  If anyone can give a definitive answer, I’d love to know.
• Islam certainly has a bad reputation in the US after 9-11, which is understandable.  However, why aren’t all the politically correct police all over Obama for making such strong statements against Islam?  Isn’t saying your not a Muslim being intollerant of Muslims?
• Why are some politicians allowed to make such a big deal about being a Christian when others are thrashed in the media for it?
• Exactly why is someone who preaches diversity and inclusion trying to shake the label of “Muslim” like its leprosy?
• Is it okay to be a Christian politician as long as you just say that you are a Christian, but not that your Christian faith influences your values, decisions, and morals?
• Exactly when did it become okay to be a Christian again?

Religion has definitely played a significant role in this presidential election and we’re seeing that when it comes down to it, pragmatism rules American.  We had the Mormon, the Preacher, and now the Non-Muslim Christian.  Will the Dahlia Lama throw his robe into the ring?

Political Preparation #1

Politics has only moderately interested me in the past (aside from voting, the most politically active thing I’ve done is help put up dozens of “Thornhill for Judge” signs).  I know that for some people it is an obsession.  Their TV never leaves Fox News or CNN.  For others, politics serves as a litmus test for their respect, friendship, or civility.  Politics produces both passion and polarity.  It is at once the most talked about subject and the one topic that is to be avoided at all costs.  The political arena is full both very bright, genuine people and idiotic talking heads who only yap to hear their own voices.  Have you every noticed how every discussion of politics immediately pigeon-holes and stereotypes people?  Conservative vs liberal.  Democrat vs Republican.  Pro-life vs Pro-choice.  Progressive vs regressive.  Whig vs Federalist.  Abolitionist vs States’ Rights.  It seems that there is no middle ground.  I’m almost afraid to say anything that resembles endorsing anything political for fear of alienating someone.  Politics is, in my opinion, the most divisive (more than race or religion) subjects in the US today.

Unfortunately, the political influences of our great country have spilled over into the church.  It is ironic that in one area of the country, Republican is equated with genuine Christianity while in other areas the Democrat party is the view that “real” Christians take.  We should be above political parties, though it is impossible to completely avoid identification with them.  You might as well say that real Christians only root for the Cardinals while all the heathen root for the Cubs (well, maybe that’s not too far from the truth!)  You understand what I’m getting at.

So, as we begin bracing ourselves for a year long marathon of political ads, accusations, and acrimony, I’d like to suggest some biblical attitudes toward politics that we should keep in mind.  It is going to be a long year, but maybe these principles can help us all find our way through the coming information storm that typifies a presidential election year.

1.  For Christians, remember that our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20).  That means that our primary allegiance belongs to Jesus before we pledge allegiance to flag, country, and especially political party.  That is not to say that national citizenship is bad or not to be desired.  Paul seems to be proud of his Roman citizenship and even used it to his advantage.  I am proud to be an American and am as patriotic as anyone.  However, we are Christians before we are Americans and certainly before we are Democrats or Republicans.

2.  All government is ordained by God and draws its authority from God (Romans 13:1-7).  This one bothers me.  When Paul wrote these verses, he had the Roman Emperor and Senate in mind.  He was speaking of a government that actively persecuted Christianity.  Still, he insisted that the Roman government was ordained by God.  I absolutely don’t understand that.  However, my lack of understanding of it doesn’t negate the truth of it.  Our (every) government, whether we like it or not, has been put there by God for His purpose.  Logically, it would follow that government officials, whether knowingly or unknowingly, are ultimately servants of God and responsible to Him (as Paul repeatedly says).  So, if an election doesn’t go the way you voted, remember that it is God’s vote that ultimately matters.  When we speak against the government, we are speaking against God’s earthly agency for keeping peace.  As Christians, we are to submit to governing authorities, whether we voted for, agree with, or give respect to them.

3.   A Christian’s primary responsibility toward government is to pray for it (1 Timothy 1:1-3).  Again, that’s easy to do when we like the individuals in government.  However, that’s not nearly as easy when we don’t like, or even despise the individuals in government.  Doesn’t matter, though.  Paul had to pray for the Roman Emperor.  As bad as you may think a President is, the Roman Emperors have them beat on the “hard to pray for -0- meter”.  I would also add that if you don’t pray for the government, you should never talk badly or criticize it.  Also, an election should be a matter of prayer.  We should all spend the next year prayerfully considering who we will vote for.

4.  When Jesus came, His primary concern was establishing a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one (John 18:36).  America may have been founded on mostly Christian ethical principles (more like a deistic understanding of Christianity–just read the inaugural addresses of the first presidents and compare them to deistic philosophy), but it never has been or never will be a fully “Christian” nation.  For those who want to enforce Christianity upon the masses through the government, it will never happen.  The Kingdom that Jesus established is made up of individuals who commit their lives to living for Him, not an earthly “Christian” government.  The only way that America will be a “Christian” nation is if Americans all become Christians and live like it.  If you want to live in a nation that honors Christ (as we all do), then walk across the street and talk to your neighbor about Jesus.  If we expect people who are not Christians to live like they are, we are going to be sorely disappointed every single day.  We should be more concerned about making genuine disciples of Jesus rather than trying to legislate morality (not that our laws shouldn’t be moral, mind you.)

5.  Historically, the church has grown when the government has opposed it.  That doesn’t sound the least bit fun to me.  I really like living in a country where we are protected in our rights to worship as we want.  However, religious freedom breeds complacency in the church.  When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, it took a radically different focus than when it was illegal.  If you look at the globe and see areas where Christianity is flourishing, it is where it is oppressed and opposed by the government.  (And by opposed, I don’t me “We’re not allowed to pray before school football games”.  I mean where people are thrown in jail for attending church, church buildings are fire-bombed, and church leaders are killed.)  I really don’t know how this idea should play into an election, but it should somehow.

So, there are some biblical principles about government and Christians relationship to it.  I hope these can guide us as we prepare to enter an election year.  Let me know what you think.