The Desert of the Real

One other (at least) has already said it well in the comments for Randy’s post. But I want to add my voice, ignored though it will likely be.

The values voters debate was a setup. The people commenting after the debate (one of whom you quoted) were clearly already set on Mike from the beginning as God’s annointed candidate.

The question and answer period was structured in a way to prevent any sort of rational discussion by reducing it to yes and no answers.

The easy thing here would be to answer the way you know everyone wants you to in that audience. It would’ve been so easy for Ron to tell people what they want to hear. Like some of those other men did. Instead he held fast to his principles even though he knew they’d be misinterpreted by people like you.

People who take no time to actually understand the political ramifications of an idea or decision before weighing in on it. Evangelicals are largely political morons. There is zero appreciation for the double-edged sword that is the use of government power. Zero understanding of the law of unintended consequences.

No, we swing that sword for all its worth with no heed to who is going to be hurt by it, including ourselves. Imagine a three year old with a fully automatic handgun. That’s the typical evangelical in the political arena.

We have a system of government that separates powers. It does so for a reason – a recognition that man is depraved and cannot be trusted with power. It must be divided and set against itself or it will be abused.

Some of us, like me, Ron, and hundreds of others I now know thanks to Ron’s campaign, understand that the national government has a very specific and LIMITED set of powers and responsibilities. Yes Jefferson made that statement, but if you actually bother to read his writings instead of a quote you read on the web somewhere or in someone’s email signature you’ll find that he CLEARLY did not believe it was the responsibility of the national government to intervene in the life of the individual to accomplish that.

The federal government has that job as a priority in the specific areas that it is responsible for. It is the job of the pastor to shepherd the flock. Not for him to shepherd EVERY flock, but the flock he was given. Likewise the federal government has a responsibility to protect life in its management of our national and international affairs. In part that means not sending our people to die in unjust wars.

If Ron were running for governor and was taking those positions I think we’d have a much more interesting debate. However, the fact is that he was running for president of the United States, and he was dead right on every single one of those questions and everyone else was wrong.

This includes the issue of forcing laws on the Iraqi government. We have no place to impose laws on other nations. Instead we ought to lead by example and encourage that result that we want. I am truly horrified by what happens to Christians in Islamic nations. It’s awful. However, it is also being used of God for the benefit of that Church. One of the biggest problems the American church has is that it is not persecuted enough. How about if we follow our constitution and bring this particular problem before God in prayer instead. The utter hypocrisy here amazes me. One of the main reasons most Christians oppose Islam is because of its law and that laws opposition to and attempted suppression of Christianity. (Sadly enough, they’d likely be fine with it otherwise, much like GWB). Then they want to turn around and impose their own law on Islamic nations.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are fundamental issues with Islam that many people don’t appreciate. However, there is this seeming belief among many that the majority of muslims are consistent, accurate muslims. That somehow the Islamic world is not possessed of the weaknesses that possesses every other world religion.

But that’s not the case. There simply aren’t that many militant muslims. Or there weren’t before we started bombing them regularly. Most people are not even aware of the regular bombing runs we did leading up to 9/11. And of course, we can’t possibly give any credence to the idea that might make people angry. Maybe even angry enough to join a militant organization to strike back at the US.

Not when we can look at their religion and find reasons there. Surely that explains everything. Why should I be forced to actually think about cause and effect. Why should we possibly ever possibly entertain the thought that maybe we might need to repent of what our nation has done in the past?

What really gets me is that most of that was Clinton era actions. Christians are even defending HIS policies and their consequences. It’s not even typical “republicans can do no wrong.”

Our pride is killing us.

If we put a man like Mike in the office, he will continue to expand the size of government. Sure, he’s a social conservative – mostly. But that’s as far as it goes. He might even lower taxes. But that is meaningless.

This is not a question of whether he can do enough to appear conservative. This is a question of his worldview. Of his ideology. What is his overall approach to government. It’s not conservative. Not in any historical or meaningful sense of the word.

Further, he will do nothing to repair the great damage done by President Bush. Speaking specifically of his moves in regard to Martial law, his repealing of the Posse Comitatus act, his willingness to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and the subsequent stripping of their rights, the warrantless searches, or the patriot act. In particular on that last point, the power granted to the federal eforcement arm to write their own search warrants and then prevent you from telling anyone – even your lawyer – about it.

As a result, if he wins, and that’s a big if, then in 4 years or 8 years or 16 years when the democrats come to power they will have all of that power and they will employ it in ways that will hurt everyone.

And you will be responsible.

As usual, I want to be fair to the people I discuss on this blog. While Dr Dobson still doesn’t seem any closer to understanding the value of federalism, I am not so sure he’ll be supporting any of the so-called “first tier” candidates. In fact, he may not support a republican candidate at all—which could be interesting on its own.

However, the big thing I want to talk about is that it has come to my attention that he was on Sean Hannity’s show the other day. On that show, Hannity did his best to browbeat Dobson into supporting Giuliani and Dobson wouldn’t budge. Further, he openly rebuked Hannity for his politics of fear, that he would vote contrary to principle out of his fear of losing—and then maybe losing to Hillary later. It’s good to hear someone with some influence reject the “boogieman” approach to politics endorsed my men like Hannity and Jason Engwer.

This is something that really needs to be said and I’m frankly surprised that the person who did it was Dr Dobson, but I’m thankful it was said regardless. He held firm to his refusal to support such immoral candidates and I can’t blame him for that. I’d like for him to get on the federalism bandwagon, but even if we disagree on that I can respect his uncompromising stance.

I have not as yet been able to confirm this but I have heard that John Hagee has endorsed (or stated he could endorse, it’s not clear) Rudy Giuliani for president.

Now there is a clear display of what an unbalanced and unbiblical eschatology will bring you. Rudy’s pro-Israel position is apparently sufficient (for Hagee) to overcome his other moral failures. Apparently it no longer matters to John that Rudy is an adulterous pro-abortion, cross dressing candidate who has married his own cousin. As long as he supports Israel, that’s enough for him.

Then you have Dobson, who I really don’t know what he wants. He has openly rejected Thompson now (and by implication, Ron Paul as well) because he’s a federalist. Apparently, if you’re unwilling to use the sword of government in an inquisition against all those who disagree with the morals of the AFA you’re not worthy in his book. Even if you ARE willing generally, but for the sake of the election are spouting federalist noises you’re not worthy in his book. He has likewise (rightly) rejected Rudy, and apparently McCain too. Which leaves…Romney. Or maybe Brownback or Huckabee.

(One last thing, Dobson’s argument that states dealing with the marriage issue would result in 50 different definitions of marriage is just ludicrous. Honestly, can the man really come up with 50 substantively different definitions of marriage? Further, as I’m sure you’d guess from my recent post on this topic, I can’t reconcile the idea that a Christian should somehow bow to the state in order to get married. That’s just absurd.)

Last night I watched the Values Voters debate. Most people talking today think it went well, but I on the other hand think it was an absolutely disgusting display. Person after person came forward, asking if presidential candidates would take action as president on behalf of their moral cause. Would he limit free speech in the way we want? (Prosecute pornographers) Would he remove limits on free speech we want to have (repeal hate crimes legislation). Would he make Iraq follow their constitution? Would he invade the Sudan and end slavery? Would he invade Saudi Arabia on behalf of Christians there? Would he impose tariffs on Chinese goods to raise their prices? Would he legislate against immoral behavior?
(more…)

I don’t know a lot about this judge, beyond his being a big supporter of the PATRIOT Act. That shouldn’t surprise us though, he is a Bush appointee. What really scares me is the pictures of Bush shaking has with Chuck Schumer. Anything those two men can agree on has got to spell disaster for the United States. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the bowls of revelation in dispensationalist teaching.

Someone asked me about my comments about marriage while live blogging the debate offline (since I forgot to enable comments, which I have now done). Many Christians are in favor of a ‘defense of marriage’ act. The lesson is the same one Christians have never learned through centuries of history. Lets use a very clear example here. In the middle ages, the English government fluctuated back and forth between Roman Catholic and Protestant. When each was in power, they used that power against each other. By doing so, there was implicit acknowledgment of the government’s power to do this. So when the other side was in power, they took their turn. That’s what will happen if we pass a defense of marriage act as well. Eventually, there could be enough votes to overturn this act, and pass one declaring that marriage is between any two people, and then they’ll try to use that to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. And we won’t have a leg to stand on in challenging the law, because we implicitly stated that the government had a right to define marriage and to legislate it.

This is the way of things. When the protestants came here, they had learned their lesson. There was no authority granted to the central government to establish religion. In the same vein, we were all protected from the dangers of the “church” (obviously not the true church) coming to power. (Bad for the church and for the people). However, we have forgotten that lesson. Over time the visible church (here forward the ‘church’) has begun to see the federal government as a convenient way of making people behave the way they want them to.

Yet that is not our call. There is not one place in scripture that calls the church to impose a veneer of propriety and morality on an unregenerate society. Paul lived in the time of debauched Rome, and nowhere did he call on the government to outlaw the excesses of the populace. Paul realized, as we should, that the only way to change men is from the inside out. Outside of God’s work of grace in the heart of a believer no amount of overbearing government action is going to make them “behave”.

This is all just an outworking of the roles of our governments as set down in the constitution. The federal government has a very specific purpose. It handles tasks that cannot be relegated to the states specifically related to our interaction with foreign nations. We cannot have individual states negotiating treaties and such with foreign nations, or fighting wars all on their own. As a result, the federal government manages those things. All domestic responsibilities are reserved to the states.

Now, at the state level, there is nothing legally preventing them from establishing such a view. Or, alternately, establishing one allowing same-sex marriage. Yet I would fight against it. I do so because I believe that marriage is, at its core, a private contract issue. Obviously, as a Christian I see it as significantly more than that on the whole, but at its core it is a contract between two people. As a Christian, I see it as a contract and a pledge made before God, with deep and permanent commitments—but a contract nonetheless. I think it is absolutely critical that we see it this way as well. This is an area where we have fallen into superstition as Christians. We believe that a wedding is not properly done unless there is a minister officiating. Yet there is absolutely nothing magical about a pastor or elder officiating a ceremony. Anyone could do it, or you could do away with the ceremony altogether and you would be just as married if you have made the commitment to each other. I would argue it should be a public commitment for various reasons I won’t go into here, but that is the crux of the issue. And maybe you want to seal it with a signed document between the two of you stating your commitment to each other. (Not a prenum, a literal marriage contract). That’s all great.

Unfortunately, because the government now gives varying preferences based on your marital state (particularly in regards to taxes, inheritance, etc) they have opted to require certain sorts of people to sign off on a marriage. AFAIK, not just anyone can perform the ceremony and sign the document, they have to be authorized by the state. (I specifically did not want our pastor to say ‘power invested in me by the state of blah’ in my own wedding, because I do not recognize its power or its influence in terms of my wedding—and that was 15 years ago.)

Now, you might think I’m crazy on this point, but I’ll tell you I’m in good company. I was researching something else last week, and I stumbled across some commentary on this by Charles Spurgeon. Now, I won’t go so far as to say he agrees with everything I said here, but as far as his agreement goes, I think it is enough as Christians to give us pause in allowing the State to re-enforce such superstition.

Upon the same spirit as it crops up in reference to marriages and burials we need not remark. Neither of these things are in themselves our work, although, as they furnish us with excellent occasions for doing good, it is well for us to attend to them. At the same time here are two threads for the syrup of superstition to crystallize upon, and it will do so if not prevented.

The ignorant evidently attach some importance to reading or speaking over a corpse at a funeral, and do not regard the service as meant wholly for themselves, but as having some sort of relation to the departed. To have a gracious exhortation and prayer at home, and then lay the dear remains in the tomb in solemn silence, would be regarded as barbarity by many, and yet it would be no unseemly thing. To give the minister liberty to keep to the word of God and prayer, and release him from serving sepulchers, is according to apostolic precedent, and yet our churches would be grieved if it were carried out.
...
By what process have these things come to be an integral part of our ministry? Are they really the business of the ministers of Christ? It is not meet that we should needlessly grieve any by refusing to attend upon either of these occasions, but we must take heed that we do not feed the sickly sentimentalism which makes the preacher necessary to them. We must all have seen how soon a superstition springs up, and therefore we must be on our guard not to water the ill weed.

I realized this morning I have not as yet commented on this. Not that I was particularly clamoring to do so – but I probably should. It produces very conflicting feelings for me.

It is hard not to rejoice over anything that means a reduction in the number of horrific murders of infants in this country. This is a barbaric practice and part of me does rejoice with the court’s decision.

However, the greater part of me is conflicted. This decision is ultimately wrong. It represents a further attack on federalism and violates the 10th amendment (which should’ve been argued here). It was done with an act of congress, and I just can’t agree with that. This puts us in a bad position for down the road. Liberals are most definitely the squeaky wheel here, and all they have to do is convince people in Congress to reverse this Act and we’re right back where we started, only quite possibly with an actual law on the books federally protecting this practice and further hampering any state from passing laws to prevent it.

I fear this is a short lived victory which will in the end make things worse. I pray it is not, but given realistic political theory and historical context that’s what I expect.

Update:
Radley makes an excellent point that given the specific aspect of abortion in question, the fourteenth amendment should’ve been sufficient to ban the practice on its own. Specifically, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I could agree with that I think, but obviously – that’s not what was done here.

shall perish by the sword.

When Jesus said this, he was speaking to Peter, after his rash action in cutting off the ear of the High Priest’s slave. There are of course multiple ways of applying this verse, it could have been a warning to Peter not to rush to rash action, as vengence is not in the purview of the Christian. However, I think it more likely that it was a prophetic statement. That the Jews who were now wielding the sword of the Roman government would soon see it turn on them and destroy them.

We have seen this same prophecy come true repeatedly in Church history, but as with so many other things in Church history which we fail to learn from, this one goes ignored. Here we see it again in a microcosm. A complete lack of foresight on the part of the parents led to unintended consequences that some of them aren’t real happy with.

She then fumed that a “pagan ritual” is “an educational experience my children don’t need.”

The reality is that Public Schools are a quagmire when it comes to the rights of students. It’s a mess, and not one worth sorting out. It’s like trying to save the good meat from a package that’s got maggots in it. Even if you succeed, you really still don’t want to eat it.

But more importantly than that, when we try to wield the government like a sword to accomplish what we want in society absent a work of God’s grace we are not paying enough attention to where the other side of that double-edged sword is going to end up. Every time a Christian decides to go this route they really should ask themselves, “What are the ramifications of this? How is it going to come back on me?” And having considered it, put that sword away!

There is a story over at AgapePress now about Joel Osteen’s recent appearance on TBN. Now, I hope you won’t think I’m picking on him if I point out a few problems I have with what he said, because I think his example is merely reflective of the larger evangelical church. He is simply a more public, and thus more recognizable, figure.

Pastor Osteen was asked by [Larry] King if a Jew, Muslim, or anybody could get to heaven without going through Jesus. Osteen stated he could not judge anybody’s heart, and left the matter up to the Lord. Osteen was criticized by many evangelical leaders for his response. Last week Osteen was interviewed on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), and he clarified his previous statement. “Before I did that interview, I read the last five interviews Billy Graham did. It’s the same thing that he said. He just had 50 years of ministry, where people knew exactly what he stood for,” the Texas pastor explained.

Ok, so, I understand what he’s getting at here. It is true that people know more about Billy Graham than they do about Joel Osteen. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. I have just as much of a problem with Billy Graham saying it.

There is an underlying problem here as well, but lets come back to that.

“Well, our number-one thing is to bring people to Christ—and He is the way. It’s just, again, I don’t want to turn off the people we’re trying to reach.”

It sounds good, but Osteen missed a critical part of the teaching he is referring to. We are not to add to the offense of the cross. We should not be a stumbling block ourselves. Yet the cross itself is an offense, and one that we are not to be ashamed of. If you leave out the cross, then what do you have left?

Osteen was also asked, while on TBN, about critics who say he is too “soft” when it comes to biblical preaching and evangelism. “Every morning I start off the first half hour and just seek the Lord, make sure I’m right on course,” he shared. “And when I search my own heart, which I think is the most important thing for each individual, I think, ‘God, I believe to the best of my ability I’m doing exactly what you called me to do.’”

It starts out good, but the rest is disturbing. It is important to seek God, and I would say that is the most important thing for each individual. Beyond that, we do not search our hearts for direction. “The heart is more deceitful than all else” (Jer 17:9) That should be the last place we should look.

Osteen admitted that while he does listen to the critics, “the stories of lives changed are a million to one.” He added: “A lot of times the people criticizing, that’s what they do for a living.” Lakewood Church is reportedly the fastest growing church in the United States.

So, to summarize that point, if more people like what I’m saying, that dislike it, then I mist be on the right track. I wonder how he would explain that in light of John 6. There, thousands didn’t like it, and disliked it so much they left. Only the disciples remained. That isn’t to say that the reverse is true, and that you’re only on the right track if everyone hates you, but the point is that it isn’t a good idea to trust in popularity for determining if you’re doing God’s will.

So, I’m sure there are those who will read this and think I am being petty. That I’m taking a live interview and expecting him to cover all of his bases. However, I believe this little blurb says as much about evangelical Christianity as a whole as it does about him. Tomorrow morning, I am going to be teaching on Proverbs 16. There are a couple of relevant passages here:

2. All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
25. There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Indeed, the Christian church today compares itself mostly to itself. And when they do that, they declare themselves as being ok. Their ways are ‘clean in their own sight’. They seek whatever means they desire to accomplish God’s will, based on what seems right to them. They ‘search their heart’ if you will, and find all kinds of creative ways to expand their church. The world eats it up, and you get huge megachurches as a result.

The problem is, that we are not the standard. God is the standard. His Word was provided to us for a reason. I fear for a pastor, who when asked about how he handles his ministry, answers that he aligns himself with his own heart, and with the voices of men, rather than Holy Scripture being his first and last stop. And I fear for the church that does the same. Joel was right the first time, the place to go is on your knees before God, and before His word. That is the only place to go, and the only place we need to go. The rest only searves to betray a functional denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.

In many churches today discussing passages like Colossians 3, or its parallel passages in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, are off-limits. It isn’t even mentioned privately in pre or post marriage counseling, and the idea of preaching on it is positively unthinkable. A large portion of evangelicalism flinched in the face of feminism, and ceded this point.

The inevitable result of this is the loss of a proper understanding of the Trinity. We emphasize the co-equal, and by implication emphasize the equality of the husband/wife relationship, but then neglect the submission of the Son to the Father. Once you begin abandoning the revealed truth of Scripture for the sake of convenience, pride, or really any reason whatsoever, the inevitable slide into heresy begins.

This is demonstrated quite clearly in this story from Fox News on the PCUSA national assembly putting forward an action to change ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ to ‘Mother, Child, and Womb’ or ‘Rock, Redeemer, Friend’. Many people see this and shake their heads in dismay. They recognize that it’s wrong. What they don’t recognize is that their own rebellion against God’s Word are the same actions that led the PCUSA to where it is today.

Men are not by any means off the hook here either. This story brings to mind the passage of Jeremiah 44. Here, the women of Judah have been committing idolatry, worshipping the ‘Queen of Heaven’. The Lord, through the prophet Jeremiah rebuked them, and they rejected his instruction outright:

15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying,
16 “As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you!
17 “But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.

This is a classic excuse from people who wish to attempt to justify their rebellion. They confuse God’s mercy and generosity with His blessing. Despite the clear teaching that God causes rain to fall on the righeous and the unrighteous, they assume that if they get rain He must think they’re ok.

Note that the men were in full awareness of the activities of their wives, as noted above, and then in vs 19:

19 “And,” said the women, “when we were burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

Do you see what is happening here? The men in these families did nothing to intervene in the unbiblical actions of their wives. As a result, their wives used this as justification for their actions. As husbands we will be called to account for this, and it is our failing as men, both in our leadership in the home and in the church, that has brought the church to a state where this sort of thing can happen. We can point the finger at feminism, the the fault lies ultimately with us as men.

Further, it specifically comes from our failure to define a standard. Confessional churches have an easier time of this, because there is an objective standard of the way Scriptures are interpreted. The elders in a church can be held to it. The Elders can use it as a valuable resource in handling these sorts of movements. However, the majority of evangelicalism has ejected the majority of creeds, and certainly don’t require any sort of subscription to them. As a result, our churches are adrift, and vulnerable to exactly this sort of thing.