Conquering in Conflict

Awhile back I mentioned that I had picked up Sam Storms' book of meditations on Colossians, The Hope of Glory. I enjoyed that book so much that I recently purchased Storms' similar book of meditations on the seven letters of Revelation 2-3, called To the One who Conquers.

I really appreciated this quote on the church in Ephesus:

The first church to receive a letter from Jesus was located in a city that wasn’t even remotely Christian. No laws existed to protect their freedom of religious expression. The worship of false deities was institutionalized. The only things on which the Ephesian believers could rely were God himself and one another. Yet, as we’ll note in a subsequent lesson, they labored faithfully for the gospel, endured patiently, and were intolerant of evil. Yes, the church had its problems, for which Jesus issues a stern rebuke, but its members had not abandoned the faith.

How would you and I fare in such a pagan atmosphere? I ask this because it often appears to me that many Christians believe the church in America can survive only if it is afforded legislative protection, only if politically conservative and Christian candidates are elected to national and local office, only if the next appointee to the Supreme Court is pro-life, only if prayer is restored to our public schools.

Make no mistake: I’m eternally grateful for the laws that safeguard our rights, and I consistently vote for those candidates who are social, fiscal, and moral conservatives. But have we come so to depend on such political blessings, economic liberties, and the legal protection Christianity enjoys that in their absence we fear the destruction of the church and the silencing of our witness?

The church in Ephesus, as with so many other congregations in the first century, knew nothing of a constitution, a first amendment, or a right to vote. Yet they survived, and thrived, in the midst of what strikes us as unimaginable state-sanctioned idolatry and immorality. Before we panic or lose heart at the state of our state, or the condition of our city, we would do well to remember the promise of Jesus: “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Seriously?

Regarding the blown call in last night's Tigers-Indians game that took away a perfect game from Tigers' pitcher Armando Galarraga:

Michigan lawmakers got into the act on Thursday, lobbying Selig to reverse the call and recognizing Galarraga as having thrown a perfect game. Gov. Jennifer Granholm issued a proclamation declaring that Galarraga had indeed pitched a perfect game, while U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell said he'd introduce a congressional resolution asking Major League Baseball to overturn the blown call.

The state government has nothing else to do?

Tim James: English Only?

What do you think God's attitude is toward this commercial:

Church Autonomy: A Good Thing?

I was looking through the most recent issue of Christianity Today and saw a full-page ad for an organization called Speak Up. It read:

The doors of the church are being bound. The growing intrusion of government into the affairs of the church poses a profound threat to church autonomy and even to our most basic religious liberties -- freedom of speech, freedom to exercise religious beliefs, and freedom of access. Pastors must be willing to speak up to reclaim and secure the right of the Church to be the Church.

It then gave its website link for people to visit.

I'm not sure what to make if this. I am a pastor, so they are speaking to me. They say I "must" speak up to secure the Church's rights. And yet my first thought on reading this was, "The Church's autonomy is being threatened? Should I care about this?"

It's not that I don't care at all, but I am much more concerned about the Church's purity and witness than I am about it's autonomy. And I could certainly be wrong, but it seems to me that the Church in America might not be so impotent and conformed to this world if its autonomy was threatened even more. I don't see government being the biggest threat to the Church; I think nominalism is by far the greater danger.

The more the Church is oppressed and hindered by the government, the more nominal, unregenerate Christians will be compelled to leave the Church, and thus the Church will be a more pure witness to our Savior and King, Jesus Christ.

But those are just my first thoughts. Leave a comment and help me to think it through some more...

Christians and Politics

With all the talk this past week about healthcare and abortion, Tullian thought it was worth posting a section from his book Unfashionable dealing with the role of politics in cultural change.

And after reading his thoughts, I thought it was worth re-posting here. Let me know what you think:

When it comes to engaging culture, many Christians think exclusively of political activism. I fully agree that Christians need to be involved in the political process; as I’ve argued so far, Christians are to bring the standards of God’s Word to bear on every cultural sphere, politics included.

But political activism isn’t the only thing—definitely not the main thing—God had in mind when he issued the cultural mandate to mankind. Nor is politics a particularly strategic arena for cultural renewal, as theologian Vern Poythress writes:

Bible-believing Christians have not achieved much in politics because they have not devoted themselves to the larger arena of cultural conflict. Politics mostly follows culture rather than leading it. . . . A temporary victory in the voting booth does not reverse a downward moral trend driven by cultural gatekeepers in news media, entertainment, art, and education. Politics is not a cure-all.

After decades of political activism on the part of evangelical Christians, we’re beginning to understand that the dynamics of cultural change differ radically from political mobilization. Even political insiders recognize that years of political effort on behalf of evangelical Christians have generated little cultural gain. In a recent article entitled “Religious Right, R.I.P.,” columnist Cal Thomas, himself an evangelical Christian, wrote, “Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed.” American culture continues its steep moral and cultural decline into hedonism and materialism. Why? As Richard John Neuhaus observes, “Christianity in America is not challenging the ‘habits of the heart’ and ‘habits of the mind’ that dominate American culture.”

For a long time now I’ve been convinced that what happens in New York (finance), Hollywood (entertainment), Silicon Valley (technology), and Miami (fashion) has a far greater impact on how our culture thinks about reality than what happens in Washington, DC (politics). It’s super important for us to understand that politics are reflective, not directive. That is, the political arena is the place where policies are made which reflect the values of our culture—the habits of heart and mind—that are being shaped by these other, more strategic arenas. As the Scottish politician Andrew Fletcher said, “Let me write the songs of a nation; I don’t care who writes its laws.”

MLK's Dream was a Religiously Rooted Dream

There are many in our society who want to see religious rhetoric banned from the public square. This of course, is very self-contradictory, but I won't get into that now. Besides that, if we strip the public square of religious rhetoric, we lose this:



This is all incredibly relevant to the abortion issue, which I will address in church this Sunday. Please pray for me, that I would speak humbly and graciously and faithfully lift up the glorious hope that is found in Jesus Christ.

Why Abortion is Different

Courtesy of Gene Veith's blog:

David Koyzis writes that, yes, there are many political issues that we should be concerned about. But abortion is not just one of many. It is qualitatively different:

Not all issues necessarily have the same import or significance – something the language of morality may mask. In fact, there is a qualitative difference between abortion and the cluster of issues touched on above. In the case of the latter, no one disputes that the environment must be protected; the current debate revolves around how best to do so. Some favour a market-oriented approach, while others are convinced that government must play a central role. Again no one denies the desirability of furnishing the best health care to all citizens. Disagreement arises over whether this is best done through private or public insurance plans.

Abortion is different. Here the quarrel is not over the best way to protect the unborn; it is precisely over whether to do so at all. Those believing women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy hold this position despite the presence of the vulnerable child. Those who believe that the unborn deserve protection do so because of the child’s presence. This fundamental disagreement over what is at stake is what sets the abortion issue apart from most others. Proponents of the so-called consistent life ethic generally fail to comprehend this. Such bishops as Denver’s Charles Chaput are right to make a fuss over Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Abortion is not merely a private opinion; it is a clear matter of justice that needs to be addressed head on.

Read the whole thing here.

Obama School Speech Controversy

I know I've got a few school teachers reading, and I'm curious to know (from them and from anyone else reading) any thoughts they have on this whole ordeal with Obama addressing students today.

Personally, this article from Al Mohler resonates with me. It seems like a lot of the concern from conservatives is irrational, yet Obama's administration is also responsible for a good bit of the controversy.

What do you think?

Does this picture say 1,000 words?

Thomas Lofton writes:

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

That may be an uncharitable conclusion to draw from a single photograph. I'm sure if Lofton or I was photographed as much as President Obama, we'd come off looking pretty unflattering more than a few times too.

But what really amazes me about this photo is that it originates not from some conservative, Republican blogger trying to make Obama look like a jerk, but from the White House blog! Seems like some PR guy at the White House fumbled the ball on posting this pic, no?

(Here's a writeup of the meeting between these three, for those who are unfamiliar with the story.)

Are we a Judeo-Christian Nation?

On April 6th in Turkey, Barack Obama said no; Congressman Randy Forbes says yes in this video:



After watching the video, I guess my question is: does it matter whether our nation is regarded as a Judeo-Christian nation? What does that term even mean?

I've written a bit on the subject of whether America is a Christian nation. But I am well aware that I'm more ignorant than informed when it comes to these matters. So I'd be interested to have a few people weigh in with some comments on this...

Four Motives for Christian Involvement in Politics

(This is Part 3 of a series on Christian involvement in politics. Read Part 1 and Part 2)

In my last post on the issue of Christian involvement in politics, I said that the motive for our involvement should not be as a method of trying to 'reclaim' America for Jesus Christ. And I said I would write another post explaining a more biblical motive for such involvement. That is the goal of this post.

I assume that the purpose of government is to promote and advance the cause of justice for all people, regardless of race, class, religion, or other personal distinctives. I realize that government does not always (perhaps does not often) serve this function, which is a product of the Fall of mankind into sin. Nevertheless, I think that most people would agree that the goal of government should be to promote a just, equitable, peaceful, harmonious society. I believe that this goal ought to be pursued by lovers of Jesus Christ, for at least four reasons. I'll touch on each one only briefly. I realize that they overlap in certain ways, but I also think they are distinct.

1. The display of God's glory. God is a God of justice, and Romans 13 says that governing authorities are God's servants, existing to manifest His justice and goodness by both promoting good and restraining evil, which are also fundamental to God's character. When the government is doing that, a part of God's image in man is shining forth, in what theologians call 'common grace'. He is glorified when, out of desire to honor Him, His people pursue a just society in which the common good is sought and preserved.

2. Love for neighbor. Jesus taught that the second commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and in Luke 10 He defines our neighbor as anyone we encounter with a need. While this involves more than politics, it does include the pursuit of a just government. The Good Samaritan story shows us that genuine love cares for both the body and soul of another person. So out of love for our fellow humans, we should desire that our political structures aim at the promotion of justice and peace for all.

3. Shalom. The Hebrew word shalom is translated as peace, but its real meaning is much deeper than that, referring to the full flourishing of human beings and society. I have given a more in depth explanation of shalom here. Specifically this has been helpful to me in correcting my attitude that because 'my citizenship is in heaven,' (Philippians 3:20-21), I do not have a responsibility to pursue the highest good of the earthly society that I happen to be an exile in for now. But In Jeremiah 29, God tells the Jewish exiles in Babylon not to retreat from the unbelieving society, but to seek its shalom. There are many ways to do this, but I believe basic political involvement is one important way that we can seek the shalom of our communities, states and nations.

4. The Kingdom of God. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus emphasized the good news of the Kingdom of God. This good news is not simply that God is collecting for Himself a group of individuals and restoring those individuals to a new relationship with Him. The good news is certainly not less than that, but it is more. It is the good news that in Jesus, the future, cosmic rule and reign of God has broken into the present. God's goal for the future is to completely renew and transform the entire creation, freeing it from its nautural and moral corruption. The images of this glorious future in both the Old and New Testaments picture a New Heavens and New Earth where God's perfect justice reigns, where racial and ethnic harmony flourishes, where weapons of war are turned into instruments of peace. Even modest political advances toward that glorious goal in our own day bear witness to the perfect Kingdom that Jesus will one day consummate.

For instance, the abolition of the slave trade that William Wilberforce helped to bring about made one aspect of his society a little more like God's final Kingdom. It did not bring about the Kingdom, but it serves as a signpost pointing to that glorious future. Likewise, when we labor to promote justice and equality for all, we give people a little taste of the perfect peace and justice that awaits the redeemed in the Kingdom of God.

Each of these four motives are deserving of much more thinking and writing. I have barely scratched the surface in this short reflection, but I hope it has at least given some broad, general principles to motivate Christians to care about the public policies of our nation.

Next week I'll finish this short series with a few posts about the common good, the role of religious beliefs in public policy and the separation of church and state.

America is Not a Christian Nation

(This is the second in a series of posts on Christian involvement in politics. To read the first post, click here.)

In thinking through the matter of Christian involvement in politics, it's important to ask the question, 'Why should Christians be involved in politics?' I am going to answer that question in another post, but think it's important to first explain what is not the answer: that America has strayed from its Christian roots, and that it is our responsibility as Christians to ensure that our nation's public policies favor Christianity as opposed to other religions, or atheism. In essence, believers need to get active in politics so that America will be reclaimed for Christ. To be as clear as possible: I do not believe that is the proper motivation for Christian political involvement.

I trust that for many who desire to 'reclaim America for Christ', they are well-meaning and have good intentions. They desire to see Christ honored in our nation. And of course, I couldn't agree more! The question is, by what means is God seeking to honor His Son? I believe the answer is not, 'Through political activism that ensures our public policy reflects Christian values,' but rather, 'through the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ's unmerited mercy and grace to hell-bound sinners.' Putting our hope in public policies to turn America around for Christ might be an implicit denial of the power of the Gospel to change lives, and through time might cause Christians to weaken their grip on the fundamental message that Christ has called us to spread.

Ethical conformity to Christian values is no sure mark that any individual or nation has been reclaimed for Christ. The Pharisees in Jesus' time make that very clear. Here was a group of people who had all their ethical, moral values perfectly in line with Christian values. No doubt they were against fornication, they despised same-sex marriage, they were pro-life, etc. Yet Christ's most scathing words were reserved for them. Their lips honored God, their behavior often conformed to the right values, but their hearts were far from Him. Likewise, seeking to reclaim America for Christ by cleaning up the moral behavior of our nation is no assurance at all that Christ is really reigning supreme.

In John 18, Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world. When Christians cite Psalm 33:12 and 2 Chronicles 7:14 with reference to God's blessing on America, I fear that we are dangerously close to substituting our earthly nation for the heavenly, eternal Kingdom which Christ says is not of this world. God's 'nation' is not an earthly, political power, but a diverse multitude of people from every tribe, tongue, nation and language who have joyfully bowed before Christ as Lord and King. He cannot be forced on people through political jockeying; He must be freely received.

And so, I believe, Christian involvement in politics as a way of taking over America for Christ will always end in failure, and may well cause the Church to minimize or abandon her true calling. If we try to use the government to do the work that the Church has been called to do, we end up confusing God's design for both government and Church.

As I often write, these are simply my musings, and are therefore open to critique and refining. I don't claim to have all the answers, but am simply thinking through these matters in a public forum. So feel free to weigh in on things you agree or disagree with.

In my next post, I'll try to answer the question of why Christians should be involved in politics. If it's not to reclaim America for Christ, then why should we be involved? I'll try to tackle that subject tomorrow.

Five Lessons on Christian Political Involvement

In looking over Healing for a Broken World, I am finding a lot of material that is worth blogging about. So eventually I will get to the specific issue of the separation of church and state, but I thought I'd make a few other posts regarding political involvement. I'll also do my best to intersperse some posts on other issues along the way.

In the first chapter of his book, Monsma examines the life of William Wilberforce (the 18th century British evangelical who, as a member of the British parliament, worked tirelessly to end the African slave trade) and pulls out from his life five principles for Christian involvement in politics:

1. Wilbeforce had a deep personal commitment to Jesus Christ that transformed every aspect of his life. He was not a politician who thought all the answers to society's ills would come through political activism; nor did he think his entire Christian duty was fulfilled in cultivating his inner, private spiritual life. Jesus claimed and transformed every sphere of his life.

2. Wilberforce did not act alone, but was part of a group of fellow Christians who prayed, planned and worked together.

3. Wilberforce experienced great opposition to his work, to the point of even receiving death threats. It took more than twenty years -- after failure upon failure -- for the slave trade to finally be abolished.

4. Wilberforce and his Christian partners worked for the greater good of society as a whole. There were not an evangelical special-interest group, seeking only to protect their narrow self-interests as Christian believers. They pursued political policies that actually hurt their own social class's economic wealth. I think this is especially important when wrestling through the issue of the separation of church and state.

5. Wilberforce acted thoughtfully. That is, he took up issues only after careful study and much prayer and Bible study. When he spoke, he had his facts straight and could defend his positions with skill and knowledge.

There's more to come, so stay tuned. And please leave comments so we can interact on these matters together.

Healing for a Broken World

I received an email last week from a reader of this blog (who didn't leave a comment giving his name, location and church!) who said he'd be interested in reading some thoughts I have on the separation of church and state. I told him I'd do that this week, but some other meetings and sermon preparation have prevented me from doing so.

With a couple of weeks off from preaching beginning next week, I plan to tackle that subject in a few posts next week. But for now I just thought I'd post a book recommendation on the subject. I read Healing for a Broken World last year and thought it was an interesting read. Probably a good bit of what I write next week will cover material that is found in that book in greater depth.

So for those who are interested in thinking through Christian involvement in politics, I'd recommend it.

Bush and Obama

Since I've already posted today on President Obama, I figured I'd add to that with something on our most recent president, George W. Bush.

Yesterday I started what looks to be an excellent book, Christless Christianity by Michael Horton. In it, Horton quotes Bush in a 2007 interview:

"I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe."

It is not my place to judge the faith of any man, especially those I have never even personally met. But my question is this: why do so many conservative Christians regard Bush as a man of great Christian faith, while Obama is demonized as the devil-incarnate? Based on this quote, it seems that both Bush and Obama have the same non-Christian view of God (I can't find the quote from Obama, but he basically says the same thing). They both deny a fundamental tenet of Christian faith, which is that Jesus Christ is the only way to God.

Don't get me wrong; I have significant disagreements with our current president. I am not seeking to defend him, per se. I am just wondering why so many church folk seem to regard Bush as a strong Christian man while doubting Obama's profession of faith.

Is my head in the sand on this one? Leave a comment and let me know.

Obama Speaks About His Faith

Barack Obama, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast:

"I didn’t become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck – no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose – His purpose. "


I wish I knew a little more about how Obama would explain his becoming a Christian. He seems to be saying that what led him to Christianity was seeing 'church folks' living lives of compassion and justice around him over a period of time. This beckons a few questions:

What is a Christian?

How exactly does a life of good deeds and a commitment to social justice lead someone to the Christian faith?