Politics and the Pulpit

Last week President Trump signed an executive order on "Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty."  This order, among other things, states that the Trump Administration will not enforce the Johnson Amendment that forbids non-profit organizations from endorsing political parties and candidates.  In short, churches and pastors now have the legal freedom to endorse a political candidate in local, state, and national elections (although this Order does not guarantee that they will not be prosecuted for doing so in the future - see here).  Joe Carter has written a very helpful piece that explains in more detail what is accomplished by this Executive Order.

Although this Order gives churches and pastors the freedom to become more visibly and publicly involved in the process of political campaigns, as a pastor, I have no intention of endorsing a political candidate or backing a particular party as part of my ministry, and nor will Riverview Baptist Church do so as a non-profit entity.  There are at least three very clear reasons why:

1. It might be a stumbling block.
We live in a polarized political world where most people are clearly on one side of an issue or the other, and support either this candidate or the other, and never between the two shall meet.  In other words, everyone has their opinion and is sticking to it - no matter what.  It would seem unwise to me, then, when in the position to be a minister of the gospel, that I would cloud that message with an endorsement of a political candidate.  Such an endorsement may hinder someone who disagrees with my candidate of preference from hearing the message that I really want to declare: the gospel.  In other words, if I endorse a republican candidate from the pulpit, it's going to be hard for democrats to hear the gospel, and vice versa.  If there will be a stumbling block in front of a person, it will be the word of God, not the pastor's political persuasions.  I don't want to put any stumbling block of my own creation that does not come from the Bible in front of a person who needs to hear the greatest news ever given.  For this reason, I will gladly sacrifice my right to endorse a candidate from the pulpit.

2. The marriage between the church and politics has largely left the church weak and ineffective.
In my opinion, much of the present weakness in the American church is the result of its close association with political parties.  Far too many Christians have put their hope in the government for their salvation, believing that elected officials have the power to enact biblical change.  This is not true, nor is it the role that God intends for government to perform.  Additionally, far too many Christians have abdicated the work that the Bible clearly calls the church to accomplish, and has left that work up to the government.  The church has given up much of its authority to the government, and has looked to government programs to achieve change instead of the gospel, leaving it weak and ineffective.  The results of this marriage have been tragic.  Since the church has abdicated its work to the government, many of America's 300,000+ protestant churches have become entertainment centers that focus on life-enhancement rather than the gospel.  The endorsement of political candidates from the pulpit would only further this weakness.

3. The church is a divine entity created by God - not a political party. 
The church is distinct from all other institutions in the history of the world.  We are the called-out-ones; the disparate band of sinners redeemed by a great Savior.  We come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, political persuasions, and every other qualifier imaginable.  We are to partner with God in his mission to bring the gospel to every corner of the earth.  In this process we are to call all people to repentance and faith - from the lowliest peasant to the highest king or president.  We are to call all politicians and political parties to repentance - not to get into bed with the party we prefer and call the other one to repentance.  To endorse a candidate or party would muddy the waters of knowing what the church is and its purpose in the world.

All of this being said, the church is still bound by God to address topics and issues that are often political in nature in our culture.  We will still talk about moral issues, and we will do our best to speak clearly where the Bible speaks clearly.  The influence of the gospel permeates all areas of life - including our engagement with politics.  But make no mistake: we don't speak about these issues and take the stances we do because of an allegiance to a political party, but to God.  We are ambassadors of God's kingdom, not ambassadors for the kingdoms of the democrat and republican parties.  We will endorse the King of kings, and no one else.

As Christians who follow King Jesus, we understand that there are times when we may be called to sacrifice our earthly rights for the sake of the gospel.  I, for one, feel that sacrificing the right to endorse a political candidate for the sake of the gospel is a good one to make.

A Fool Takes No Pleasure In Understanding

This past weekend has been a wild one, as social and news media blew up over President Trump’s recent executive orders regarding restrictions for immigrants and refugees seeking to enter the United States.  The advent of the internet and social media have allowed us to have instant access to breaking news, and even more instant access to platforms that allow us to share our opinions on said news.  This is a double-edged sword, and unfortunately we seem to have lost an appreciation for expressing ourselves in slow, wise ways that are well thought out, rational, and reasonable.  Instead, we broadcast the first thoughts that come into our heads that are more fueled by emotion than rational (let alone biblical) thought.  This has not been beneficial for societal discourse as a whole, and I believe this past weekend has been more evidence of that: entire people groups and religions have been maligned and raked over the social media coals. 

Unfortunately Christians have played a large role in speaking quickly and definitively on this issue (at least in my feeds), regardless of which side of the issue they support.  Internet memes are used to stand in judgment over those who disagree, and trite, divisive social commentary questions the authenticity of the faith of this group or that.  People who are supposed to be characterized by godly wisdom, and who are supposed to be quick to listen and slow to speak are clogging social media with unfounded accusations and judgments that have more to do with a desire to affiliate with a political position than to accord with biblical wisdom and justice.

This has to stop. 

Believe it or not, the Bible guides us in how we are to engage social and political issues in the public square, such as social media.  Here are four correctives that God gives us when we consider entering the digital marketplace of ideas.  We would be wise to heed them.

Seek the truth, speak the truth

God is a God of truth.  Jesus described himself as “the truth” (John 14.6).  God’s desire is to lead us into all truth through his Spirit (John 16.13).  Jesus prayed that his followers would be sanctified by the truth (John 17.17).  Everything God says is true (Numbers 23.19), and he commands his people to pursue, love, and know the truth.  Conversely, God detests lies, falsehood, and slander (see Proverbs 6.16-17, 12.22, etc.).  Much, if not most, political engagement on social media is not based in truth.  Rather, it is based on one-liners and zingers in the form of memes that support a person’s preconceived notions.  At worst (and all too commonly), social media commentary propagates false narratives on the issues of our day, which lead to misdirected thinking and believing.  In other words: slander and lies.  If we share ideas and information on social media that is not true or is misleading, we are participating in slander, gossip, and downright lies.  As people who pursue the truth, it is our obligation to not participate in such things, and we similarly have an obligation to finding the truth, and only speaking the truth, regardless of the situation or ideas that we engage.  We are to hold ourselves to a high standard of finding the truth on any and every issue, and only dialoguing according to the truth.  To spread slander, lies, and gossip – even on social media – is to participate in something that God hates.  Even in light of perceived injustices, we would be wise to not run to social media and pronounce judgment until we have the facts of the matter. 

Be quick to listen and slow to speak

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. (James 1.19-20)

James says that we are to do two things slowly, and one thing quickly.  In our social media discourse, we are to be “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”  In an age dominated by social media and breaking news, however, this is very difficult to do.  Because of our pride, when news breaks we want to be the first ones to offer our opinions for all the world to see.  Social media platforms are built on quick and definitive words and speech.  Just check the news feed on your preferred social media platform right now: how much of what is in there has been thought out over time and can be characterized as an opinion that is based off of careful thinking and listening?  We should fight the temptation to make ourselves be heard on every issue.  And even when we have something to say, it should come from a long period of thinking and listening.  Instead of speaking because we are angry, we should listen – and then maybe speak.  After all, as James says, “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”  If you’re angry, and you’re going to post about your anger online, you better make sure it’s righteous anger.  Otherwise, be quiet. 

Seek to understand, not to express your opinion

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. (Proverbs 18.2)

There are multiple sides to that issue that you’re angry about, and about which you’ve just spouted off on social media.  Have you taken the time to understand each of those sides before speaking?  If not, you have no business talking about it.  The Bible says that if you are simply talking (or posting) in order to express your opinion, you’re a fool.  Fools have no desire to see the other side of an issue; fools have no desire to listen to and understand a dissenting opinion.  Fools only want to be heard.  Take a look again at your social media feed.  Does it look like people take pleasure in understanding, or in expressing their opinions?  What about the content you post?

The more you say, the more likely you are to sin

When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent. (Proverbs 10.19)

It’s very easy for social media debates to quickly escalate into name-calling, and for people to attach motives to others.  Usually, the more that is said, the more likely the conversation will degenerate into something ugly and sinful.  The Bible warns us against using a multitude of words.  Put simply, the more we talk, the more likely we are to fall into sin.  The reality of Proverbs 10.19 is easily observable with just a few clicks on any social media platform.  So before you engage in that debate on Facebook, consider the possibility that it could easily lead you into sin.  Don’t allow yourself to go there.  It’s probably better and wiser just to remain silent. 

How then shall we post?

Like it or not, our society has become one in which social media plays a dominant role.  As Christians who want to engage the culture and speak the word of God into it, it behooves us to be a part of that platform.  A few years ago, however, I got off social media altogether because it was becoming apparent to me that the things I said and shared on those platforms did not honor God.  It was easy for me to get angry and to propagate unfounded information that was not based in fact.  I was off social media for almost two years before coming back when I became the pastor of Riverview.  And nowadays, I stay mostly silent, for the very reasons I’ve listed above.  I’m not saying that Christians have to be silent about social and political issues on Facebook, but that there needs to be a lot more thought that goes into what we say on social media platforms.  If you can’t invest the time and energy into thinking deeply and truthfully about the issues that arise in our society, I would advise you not to comment.   

Also, consider the possibility that your polemical view might serve to alienate a friend or brother or sister in Christ who holds a different view from your own.  A strong statement on one side or another might serve to cause a division between yourself and others in the church.  Far be it from any of us to put a stumbling block in front of a brother or sister on social media. 

Christians are not to be people who communicate in knee-jerk reactions and platitudes represented by social media memes.  Rather, we are to be slow to speak, quick to understand, and to earnestly seek out the truth.  Christians are people who are characterized by their desire for the truth, whatever it might be, and no matter how inconvenient it might be.  In light of this reality, here’s a suggestion for you: rather than post a meme on social media, and rather than engaging in the next endless Facebook political debate that will probably cause you to fall into sin, take some time to think through whatever issue concerns you, and invite someone with whom you disagree out to coffee and go over the issue slowly, using the Bible to guide your thinking. 

Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I feel it necessary to make it known that I did not, nor do I now, support Donald Trump for president (although he is the president elect, and I will "support" him in that I will respect him in his office).  I did not vote for Donald Trump.  My "tribe" stands to lose very much from his election to the office of president (which, much to my chagrin, my tribe doesn't seem to understand).  For instance, I am of the opinion that the election of Donald Trump has effectively ended the debate on the sanctity of marriage.  Conservatives have unknowingly abandoned their argument for marriage being between one man and one woman by throwing their support behind a candidate who does not share a like-minded opinion on the sanctity of marriage.  The same is (somewhat) true for the life argument, although, to be fair, it remains to be seen how the newly elected president actually will deal with life issues.  At the very least, we can say that his commitment to pro-life values is very late in coming, and is not entirely robust.

I could go on and on about my problems with Donald Trump, but I'll leave it there for now.  I hope that you can see that I am not a Trump supporter, and that this reality will give you some context to what I'm going to say next.

In the two days since Trump's election to the presidency, there has been much consternation on the left that has manifested itself in the form of protests, riots, and social media outrage.  Others - both conservatives and liberals - have called for unity and to put our support behind the president-elect, and that this is a time for us to see how we can work together toward a better future for our country.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

Please understand: I don't say this because I don't want it to happen, or because I don't think it should happen.  Indeed, I do want it to and think it should happen.  But the reality is that our society has changed so drastically in the past 10 years, that our collective cultural and social constructs and "enlightened" worldviews won't allow us to make peace with one another.  It's a fascinating (and frightening) time to be alive.  Let me give you just three reasons why I think there will be no peace and unity in our nation for the foreseeable future:

1. Because we now interpret disagreement as hate speech.  Certain issues in our society that used to be matters of opinion in which two disagreeing parties could engage in vigorous debate have been deemed to be the litmus test for bigotry, hatred, racism, etc.  For example, the opinion that illegal aliens should not be allowed in our country is interpreted as having racist motivations.  And nobody wants to reason with a racist, because racism is wrong, right?  Nobody wants to have unity or peace with racists, because racists are filled with hate, right?  In the eyes of some in our country, it would be akin to finding unity with the KKK, which obviously is a type of unity that nobody wants to have.  Another example is opinions about the sanctity of marriage.  Not advocating for gay rights is considered discrimination and bigotry.  Who wants to sit down and work together with a bigot?  No one.  Since one side is convinced that the other is filled with hate-mongers, they have no desire for unity or peace with them.  To do so would be to validate what they see as hatred and bigotry.  As long as people interpret the opinions of others as hatred and bigotry there will be no peace or unity in our country.

2. Because we we buy the narrative perpetuated by the media.  The media loves ratings, and they know that juicy stories are going to garner page views, link clicks, air time, and advertising dollars.  The media doesn't care about the truth so much as the bottom line.  They don't care about what's actually happening, but they're happy to report on fringe stories that are just that: on the fringe, so as to make people angry.  When people are angry, they visit websites and share articles on social media; they watch cable news shows and read magazines.  The media knows this, so they consistently report stories that they know will push people's buttons, and we - people who like to have our buttons pushed - take the bait.  We ingest these fringe stories and we react to them.  The media tells us what is important, and we go along with it like obedient sheep.  As long as we allow the narrative of our society to be perpetuated by the media, there will be no peace or unity in our country.

3. Because social media amplifies the worst about us.  Similar to the way the media spins the narratives in our country, many of us live in the microcosm of social media.  We're never more than a click away from airing our most inflammatory opinions that we haven't thought out, vetted, fact-checked, or even read beyond a headline.  This kind of sharing simply perpetuates the anger and extremism that we all fall into if left unchecked.  Plus, social media is a safe place for us to say inflammatory things - there are no checks and balances.  The worst that can happen is for someone to call us a crazy liberal or conservative.  A very recent and real example is this website that supposedly catalogs instances of racism that have occurred since Donald Trump was elected president two days ago, and allegedly as a result of his election.  Take a look at the examples posted there, and you'll hopefully notice a few things pretty quickly (note: I am not justifying any of the horrible things described on this site): 1) many of these reports are unsubstantiated; they are based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay.  2) considering that reality, it is possible that these alleged instances of racism could be spread by anti-Trump people who want to hurt the image of those who have supported Trump (in other words, they're intentionally causing trouble - something that has been done before the in the recent past).  3) it's also possible (and, in my opinion, likely) that these instances of racism (if substantiated) were perpetrated by fringe minority groups who always have been racist losers and are simply living up to their reputation.  It's unlikely that all of a sudden, once Donald Trump was elected, a vast number of people suddenly began to let their racist strips shine through.  It's more likely that racist losers - who were racist losers long before Donald Trump was even on the political scene - have taken this opportunity to perpetuate their wickedness because they know they'll get the spotlight (see point 2 above).  But people have taken these fringe incidences and have used them as an opportunity to showcase the very worst things about humanity.  And others on social media see them and are (rightly) enraged by them.  But rather than direct their anger toward the fringe minority groups perpetuating evil, they choose to instead direct it at those who merely disagree with them (see point 1 above).  There will not be peace and unity in our country for a long time because social media brings out the worst about us, and we're all too quick to believe it and attribute it to everyone who thinks differently than we do.

We are a long way off from having unity as a country.  We can't even trust one another when we say that we don't hate each other.

The Day After the Election

I'll admit it: I fell asleep on my couch last night sometime between 1:00 and 1:30 AM, watching election results come in.  Like most people, I watched the coverage slack-jawed, astounded that Donald Trump was winning the election.  And, like most people, I woke up the day after the election with feelings of surprise, followed quickly by uncertainty.  My feelings were similar to that of Pastor Phil Johnson, whom I follow on social media: "I couldn't be happier that Mrs. Clinton won't be our next president.  I'm still profoundly sad that an unprincipled lout will be."  Yeah, that about sums up how I feel.  If you feel that same uncertainty on the day after the election, let's think for a minute about what this day brings with it.

The day after the election brings a renewed opportunity to trust in the Lord
In one of his letters, John Newton said, "The whole system of my politics is summed up in this one verse, "The lord reigns!  Let the nations tremble! (Psalm 99.1)  The times look awfully dark indeed; and as the clouds grow thicker - the stupidity of the nation seems proportionally to increase.  If the Lord had not a remnant here, I would have very formidable apprehensions.  But he loves his children; some are sighing and mourning before him, and I am sure he hears their sighs, and sees their tears.  I trust there is mercy in store for them at the bottom."

Every time we face uncertainty it is a new opportunity for us to renew our trust in the sovereignty of God.  To be sure, although the election results were a surprise to most, they were not a surprise to God.  He knew of them and even ordained them before the foundation of the world.  He will oversee the affairs of the nations, including ours, and he will see that his purposes on this earth our carried out, regardless of - and even in spite of - those who deem themselves as powerful.

The day after the election brings a renewed opportunity to pray
1 Timothy 2.1-2 says: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and ann who are in high positions..."  The Apostle Paul clearly thought that it was important to pray for our leaders, and so we should.  Additionally, in these verses, Paul gives us three reasons why we should use this opportunity to commit ourselves to prayer:

1. So we can lead peaceful, quiet, godly, dignified lives (1 Timothy 2.2b).  The government has a significant influence on how we live our day to day lives - more so now than ever before.  It behooves us, then, to keep our leaders in prayer so we can simply lead Christian lives.

2. Because it is pleasing to God.  God commands us to pray for our leaders, and so, when we obey that command, he is pleased.  We should pray for our leaders because "it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior" (1 Timothy 2.3)

3. So we can be about the business of gospel work (1 Timothy 2.4).  If we will pray for our leaders, and if they will in turn allow us to lead peaceful, godly, dignified lives, we can be more efficiently and effectively about the business of declaring the gospel to the world.  The more we keep our leaders in prayer, the more we can be focused on the work of our King.  God desires for people to be saved, and so he tells us to pray for our leaders so we can carry out his work.

So if you're still getting over the shock of the election, pick your jaw up off the floor and get busy praying.

The day after the election brings a renewed opportunity for gospel ministry. 

The United States is still the most free place in the world in regards to religious expression.  It behooves the church - God's vehicle for spreading the message of his gospel - to take the fullest advantage of such freedom as possible.  If you're a Christian and you're not involved in a local church, you need to be.  And a great way to not be overcome by the worries of the world is to busy yourself in kingdom work.  Find a ministry through the local church and devote yourself to it.  And if you really want to change the world, share the gospel with people.  Change won't happen through political means; it won't happen through governments or leaders; change only comes through the power of the gospel.  So let the election jar you out of your gospel-slumber and awaken you to the power of God in his gospel, and may it invigorate you to declare the good news.  Let the day after the election be a reminder to you that we still live in a fallen world that is effected by sin, and let that be a motivation to you to boldly declare the gospel.  

The day after this election can be one that is filled with all sorts of ideas and emotions.  So take a few moments to take it all in and feel the emotions.  And then remind yourself of the truths that the Lord reigns, and that he has called you to pray and to join him in his mission for this world.  

The Day Before the Election

Feelings of hopelessness and despair
If you're like me, the day before this presidential election is one where I am left with feelings of blah. Never before in my life have I been so uninspired to cast a vote for President.  Moreover, it seems like no matter who will be elected president on November 8, it will not be for the benefit of our country.  It's easy to spiral into feelings of hopelessness and despair.

But this is not where the Christian should find himself on this day, or any other day, for that matter.  If nothing else, our recent sermon series in the book of Joshua has served to underscore for me the reality that all power in this world comes from God and not from men (or women).  This should reframe the way that we think about the presidential election and leadership of our country.

It is the Lord your God who fights for you
Throughout the book of Joshua there is a clear theme that is apparent: there is no power in men, but only in God.  This is demonstrated time after time, as God says as much to the Israelites and shows them this truth in real life as he leads them against insurmountable odds.

Joshua 23.3, 9-10 - And you have seen all that the Lord your God has done to all these nations for your sake, for it is the Lord your God who has fought for you.... For the Lord has driven out before you great and strong nations.  And as for you, no one has been able to stand before you to this day.  one man of you puts to flight a thousand, since it is the Lord your God who fights for you, just as he promised you. 

The message to the Israelites is clear: there is no power in you; there is only power in the Lord.  This message is also reiterated to Israel a couple hundred years later during the time of Gideon.  Gideon and the Israelite army were going up against the occupying Midianite forces.  But before the battle, God gives Gideon some peculiar instructions: "The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, 'My own hand has saved me.'  Now therefore proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, 'Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return home and hurt away from Mount Gilead.'"  Then 22,000 of the people returned and 10,000 remained.  The reason God commanded Gideon to pare down his forces was so that they people would know that there is no power in men.  And you probably know what happens next in the story of Gideon: God looked at the 10,000 men that remained and decided that was too many as well.  So Gideon made some more cuts and was left with 300 men against an army of Midianites.  But here's the point: 300 men is still too many when considering the reality that God is the only one with power.  Even one man is too many.  God doesn't even need one man or woman to bring about his purposes in this world.  God is not limited in his power or strength.  He can accomplish anything because he has limitless resources and power.

This is something we need to remember as we go to our polling places: God is strong, and kings, presidents, and armies are weak.  The course of our nation and its successes and failures depend on God, not on presidents and leaders.  Everything we have comes from him and because of him, not because of the person that carries the title of "President" before their name.  What we as a nation have achieved, we have not achieved as a result of our own power.  What we possess we did not gain because of our craftiness.  What we now enjoy we did not earn.  All was given to us by God, not by any man.  

How now shall we live?
On November 8 you should go to your polling place and cast a vote for the candidate that you believe, according to scripture, will lead our nation closer to biblical righteousness, and know that God has ordained our next president from before the foundation of the world for his good purposes.  Do not go to the polling place on November 8 presuming to trust in yourself, or in Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, or even a third party candidate, for they are nothing.  You should not feel despair about this presidential election.  Rather, you should rejoice in hope and confidence in the Lord, regardless of exit polls and early results.  It is God who has fought for us and on our behalf.  Our trust should be continually in him.

The New Freedom of Religion

Every once in a while, when I want to see what crazy liberals are up to, I check in with Bill Maher.  Maher, to me is an interesting cat: he's a huge liberal and an atheist, so there's not much upon which we agree.  He is absolutely right, however, when it comes to his views on radical Islam, much to the chagrin of his fellow liberals and atheists.  Apparently, Maher has been asking President Obama for an interview for years now, and has been declined each time.  Now that Obama's second term is coming to an end, however, he obliged Maher and gave an interview, and said some interesting things about the freedom of religion when probed by Maher.  You can watch this segment of the interview here, but what I want to focus on is a brief section of the interview when President Obama responds to a question about perceived or alleged discrimination of atheists.  He says this (I've emphasized some of his words in italics):

I think the average American, if they go to the workplace, somebody's next tome, they're not poking around trying to figure out what their religious beliefs are.  So here's what I would say, that we should foster a culture in which people's private religious beliefs, including atheists and agnostics, are respected.  And that's the kind of culture that I think allows all of us, then, to believe what we want.  That's freedom of conscience.  That's what our Constitution guarantees.  And where we get into problems, typically, is when our personal religious faith, or the community of faith that we participate in, tips into a sort of fundamentalist extremism, in which it's not enough for us to believe what we believe, but we start feeling obligated to, you know, hit you over the head because you don't believe the same thing.  Or to treat you as somebody who's less than I am.  

This paragraph, in brief, represents the new version of religious freedom that many in our country would like to impose upon us.  I'd like to take a look for a moment at these italicized portions of President Obama's statement, because I find them simultaneously fascinating and frightening.

Private religious beliefs.
President Obama wants to foster a culture in which people's "private religious beliefs" are respected.  The important word here is "private."  There are many in our society - and in leadership of our country - who believe that religious beliefs should be a private thing, and that they have no place in the public square.  As long as you keep your religious beliefs bottled up and put away in your closet, and you only ever take them out inside your closet all by yourself (or at most, with other people who have similar beliefs in similar bottles), then everything will be fine.  But you can't take your beliefs into the public square.  That is unacceptable.  Hillary Clinton has espoused a similar idea by advocating for the "freedom of worship."  By using this term, she means that people should be free to worship in whatever way they want.  But freedom of religion is not freedom of worship.  Worship only takes place in temples and holy places like churches.  Religion saturates all of life.  Christianity, by its very nature, cannot be private.  It is living and breathing, and inhabits and saturates all aspects of life.  These small changes in vernacular are, I believe, veiled attempts to diminish the forcefulness of the language used in the first amendment.  The President and Mrs. Clinton know that religious people bring their religion to the marketplace of ideas, so they are trying to limit religion to a "private" function that only takes place in houses of worship.

That's freedom of conscience.  That's what our Constitution guarantees.  
To be honest, I don't know what President Obama means by the term "freedom of conscience."  Perhaps he is referring to the freedom to believe and worship and practice religion in whatever way our conscience guides us.  If he's saying that, I agree.  But our Constitution guarantees far more than just that.  Again, President Obama has in view here Constitutional protection of "private" religion.  But the Constitution actually guarantees us far more.  The first amendment states, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  We certainly are guaranteed the right and ability to follow our consciences in order to find truth through religion, but that is not where it ends.  We are also guaranteed the right to practice our religion in whatever way we see fit.  Unfortunately, President Obama's (and those who would come after him) view of freedom of religion is frighteningly narrow.

Hit you over the head because you don't believe the same thing.
This assertion, to me, is the most striking.  In it, President Obama insinuates that a line is crossed if and when people of a particular religion (or lack of religion) address religious issues in public (such as at work, in political discourse, etc.).  This, apparently, is akin to beating someone over the head with one's beliefs (note: this kind of behavior might otherwise be known as: "evangelism" and "proselytism").  Apparently using religious beliefs to guide our thinking in matters of truth and morality - and sharing those beliefs with others - is a no-no.  Again, keep your religion private - don't bring it out into the light of day and confront people with its truth claims.  They might be offended!  They might feel awkward!  They might feel triggered!  They might need a safe space!  Unfortunately, what President Obama is decrying in this statement is the exact thing that is guaranteed in the first amendment.  Also unfortunately, this line of thinking is gaining ground in America.  But what is so striking about this statement is that President Obama is literally hitting people over the head with a dogmatic doctrine that asserts that hitting people over the head with dogmatic doctrine is wrong.  In other words, he's not playing by his own rules.  And he doesn't even realize it.  

Sooner, rather than later, there will be a new version of religious freedom in our country, and it will look very much like what President Obama has layed out here.  It will be a freedom to be religious up to the point that it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable or ruffle any feathers.  And the moment your exercise of religion offends or creates awkwardness or discomfort, you'll be accused of bigotry and discrimination and whatever other politically-correct fear-mongering moniker can be applied.  You'll be free to be a Christian if you want, but just keep that stuff in doors, in private.  Don't even think about letting it see the light of day.  That stuff is private.

Thinking About Politics as a Christian

On September 25 a roundtable discussion was held at Riverview Baptist Church entitled “Finding Our Voice: Engaging in Politics as a Christian.”  This discussion covered several aspects of entering into political discourse through the lens of a Christian worldview.  In light of the difficult decisions that Americans – and especially Christians – must make during this election cycle, Pastors Joel and Levi present portions of their answers from that discussion.  

What is government? What is its purpose? 

Government is a system that God has put in place for the primary purpose of protecting its people through the enforcement of laws, for punishing evil and promoting good (Rom.13-3-4, 1 Peter 2.14).  Scripture is clear that government is a good thing that has been put in place by God – not by any man-made system.  The question then becomes, “How is the government to promote good and punish evil?”  It does so by enacting just laws – laws that are not evil and are instead fair.  And it does so by punishing those who break laws and by doing so impartially.

Along these lines, the Founders declared that the purpose of government was to recognize that all men were created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain, unalienable rights, and “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Government is not the source of our rights; God is (Acts 17.25).  Therefore the government is accountable to him.  The government does not give us our rights but instead acts on God’s behalf by protecting them based upon its delegated authority from the consent of the governed – the people.   It is not the chief authority, but it answers to both God and man.  

For these reasons, Christians are commanded by scripture to submit to and pray for the government that God has put in place, inasmuch as it does not command us to sin (Rom. 13.1-2, 5-7, 1 Tim. 2.1-2).  

What are some things all Christians should be united on when it comes to politics? 

We acknowledge that there are several areas in which the Bible does not speak clearly regarding current political issues, and there is much room for constructive disagreement and debate.  In general, however, Christians should be united on political issues about which the Bible speaks clearly, and there are many.  These issues include but are not limited to (in no particular order):

1. The gospel of God in Jesus Christ is the source of our hope and salvation – not any government or human ruler (Ps 33.16-17).  

2. A Christian’s true citizenship does not lie in any earthly nation, but in heaven (Phil. 3.20). 

3. Our hope is in the future kingdom of Christ in the new creation – not in a political party (Rom. 1.16). 

4. We must submit every aspect of our lives – including political involvement – to the authority of Christ our Lord (2 Cor. 10.5).

5. All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights (Gen. 1.27, Acts 17.25). 

6. Innocent human life is to be protected and preserved in all forms (Gen. 1.27, 9.6).  

7. Marriage was instituted by God as being between one man and one woman (Gen. 2.24, Matt. 19.4-6).  

Why is politics important?  Why is it not important? 

Engagement in politics is important because it is vital to the functioning and flourishing of our country and government.  Because we live in a constitutional representative republic, political engagement is necessary for the preservation of freedom and for our system of government to “work.”  We are a self-governed nation, and as such we are all rulers to an extent.  As such we must attempt to self-govern in such a way as to show our ultimate allegiance is to Christ (Phil. 3.20).  We must remember that our political activity is an area which is under the lordship of Christ and therefore – even and especially when considering difficult and complicated issues – our goal should be to obey Christ and to identify with his morality and his kingdom above the factions of this world (2 Cor. 10.5).  For these reasons, it is incumbent upon all American citizens to take part in the political process.

At the same time, it can be difficult for American Christians to find the balance between our involvement in politics and trusting in the sovereignty of God to direct the affairs of nations (Ps. 44.7-8).  It is easy for us to adopt a self-important view of our role in the political process, assuming that the course of our nation is determined solely by a majority of votes.  In fact, our system of government is set up in such a way as to emphasize the sovereignty of the voter, and not the sovereignty of God.  We should take care not to think that our nation’s course depends solely on votes and voter turnout.  In this sense, politics is “not important” because it is God who directs the affairs of nations, and the king’s heart as a stream of water in God’s hand (Is. 46.9-10, Ps. 75.7, Prov. 21.1).  

Considering these realities, we believe it wise to regard our role in the political process as participating in what God is doing in the world, in submission to his sovereign will (Est. 4.14).  When we engage politically, we do so with wisdom and the counsel of scripture in order to participate in what God is doing in our cities, states, and country.  

What is the role of the church in politics? What is the role of individual Christians? How are they different? 

The primary role of the church in the world is to spread the kingdom of God per the great commission (Matt. 28.19-20).  As the church goes about this mission it is not to endorse a candidate or party, nor are we to seek to set up our church, religion, or denomination as the “ruling religion” like the Roman Catholic church did for many centuries.  There is a separation between the church and the state in which the church does not seek the authority to run the country, and the state does not seek to control the church.  That being said, there are indeed ways that the church can and should influence the realm of politics, such as:

1. The church can and should set the cultural tone in which political discourse takes place.  The church shapes the marketplace of ideas in which we engage political ideas by informing public discourse with biblical principles (Acts 17.16-31, 2 Cor. 10.5).  

2. The church is to preach the gospel and teach the Bible to believers so as to inform and influence their individual political involvement (2 Tim. 2.15). 

3. The church is to call the nation, political parties, the government, and government officials to repentance (Luke 3.19).  When the government acts wickedly, the church identifies their sin and calls them to repentance. 

It must be acknowledged, however, that the influence of the church in cultural and political discourse has been diminishing in recent decades, and its influence has been declining exponentially in recent years.  It has been said that we are now living in a “post-Christian” culture in which the influence of the church has waned and we no longer have the collective power to be the culture shaping entity that we once were.  In this sense, the role of the church in politics has, and most likely will continue to, diminish.  

The role of the individual Christian in politics is to first and foremost engage in and challenge political issues through the lens of a Christian worldview informed by scripture.  Individual Christians should be leaders when it comes to fulfilling their civic responsibilities and taking positions of leadership in political arenas.   

What would you say to a non-Christian who says religion has no place in the public square, or in politics in general? 

We hold that any and all political discourse necessarily rises from a moral foundation, be it Christian or otherwise.  In fact, we assert that the notion that one can engage in political issues or in the marketplace of ideas without appealing to a definitive standard of truth is erroneous.  All people engage ideas through the lens of their worldviews, and each worldview has the right to be represented in the marketplace of ideas.  Christians should not be expected to abandon their worldview or standard of truth in political engagement any more than others who represent an opposing worldview.  In fact, even the statement “religion has no place in the public square” is an inherently moral statement that arises from a particular worldview.  If the worldview that generates this moral way thinking is welcomed in the public square, then on what basis should the morality of the Christian worldview be excluded?  

Along these lines, a common refrain is that morality can’t be legislated, and that to insist that laws be written based on a particular moral standard is to “force your morality” on others.  In fact, morality is the only thing that can be legislated.  All laws are moral and rest upon a moral foundation.  Many American laws are founded on the basis of Christian morality.  Other laws are not, but they are no less moral legislation.  

In the end, everyone always engages in political discourse and the marketplace of ideas through the lens of a worldview rising from a foundational morality.  If we truly desire for the marketplace of ideas to be a free marketplace, all worldviews must be equally welcome. 

What does it mean to vote for someone? 

In the most basic sense, to vote for someone is to give your delegated authority to a candidate to represent and govern on your behalf.  For this reason, we believe it is vitally important to prayerfully consider the candidate(s) to whom we give our authority, for in so doing we tie ourselves to the candidate and his or her actions and become, at least to some extent, accountable for them. 

For example, if a candidate runs on a promise to invade Canada and take all of their natural resources and does just that, and you voted for him then you are responsible on some level for giving him the authority to do what he said he was going to do.  It is true that candidates lie about what they are going to do in office and do things that we cannot anticipate, but we should be vigilant to be as informed as possible when it comes to giving our authority to (voting for) anyone.  This reality should give us pause as we consider the promises made by political candidates, and especially when considering party platforms.  By voting for candidates we give them the authority to accomplish what they have said they will do, and to promote the things that they value.  It is our belief that we will be held accountable by God for this decision.  

We have heard a lot about voting for the lesser of two evils, or not doing so this year.  Is voting for a third party candidate a waste?    

One thing is certain: every candidate in the history of the United States has been a sinner and, to some extent or another, a “lesser evil.”  On this side of heaven we will never have a ruler who is not stained by sin (Rom. 3.10-11, 23).  So we should not expect or demand perfection from our candidates, because such a thing is not possible.  

In this sense, perhaps we should reframe the question from asking “Which candidate is the lesser of two evils?” to “Which candidate will further biblical righteousness more?” (Micah 6.8, Amos 5.24)  Even if both (or more than two) candidates are not Christians, one will certainly govern in a way that is more in line with biblical principles than the other(s).  We should support candidates who will lead us closer to biblical righteousness.  

Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that God reigns as the Supreme Ruler over the nations.  God has foreseen and ordained the results of this election – and every election – since before the foundation of the world.  Put simply, one vote (or any number of votes, for that matter) is not going to thwart God’s plan, and he won’t be surprised by the way anyone votes.  If this is true, then it should reshape the way we think about voting.  God uses people to accomplish his purposes in the world – including through voting.  God uses voting and elections to “remove kings and set up kings” (Dan. 2.21).  Since God is in control of our elections, voting, then, becomes not so much determining the course of our country, but participating in God’s foreordained plan for our country.  A good question to ask ourselves might be, “Which candidate, if elected, will move our country closer to the righteousness God has revealed in the Bible?”  If we will be faithful to use biblical wisdom to vote in accordance with biblical principles, our vote will not be wasted, regardless of whom we are led to vote for. 

How To Not Waste Your Vote

Last week I was having a conversation with some friends about the current political cycle and all of the craziness that has come with it.  During the course of our conversation it was mentioned that to not vote for Candidate A was to inherently vote for Candidate B, and furthermore, that to consider voting for Candidate C from a third party was to "waste" your vote, and was likewise a vote for the "other side."  Interestingly, Democrats and Republicans use the same rhetoric with their constituents: "If you don't vote for Trump, then it's a vote for Hillary," say the Republicans.  "If you don't vote for Hillary, you're electing Trump," warn the Democrats.  Well which one is it?  And is it really a waste of a vote to consider a third party?  As in all things, the Bible guides us in answering these questions.  Note: it is not my intention in this post to persuade you to vote in a certain way or to endorse any candidate.  Rather, I'd like to challenge the notion that a vote can be wasted and instead make a case that it is impossible to "waste" your vote if you are informing your vote with biblical wisdom and making an effort to vote intentionally for the glory of God.

The Bible makes it clear that God reigns as the Supreme Ruler over the nations (Psalm 47.7-8).  He sets up kings and puts down kings (Daniel 2.21, Psalm 75.7).  The king's heart is as a stream of water in the hand of God (Proverbs 21.1).  God has foreseen and ordained the results of this election - and every election - from before the foundation of the world (Isaiah 46.9-10).  Put simply, my vote isn't going to thwart his plan, and he won't be surprised by the way I or anyone else votes.  God's vote is the only one that holds any real authority.

If this is true, then it should reshape the way that we think about voting.  In our form of government - a representative republic - the people hold the power to elect their leaders, and sometimes it can be tempting to think that the buck starts and stops with us, and that we are sovereign over our collective destiny.  While this is the way it appears, it is not the whole story: God ultimately decides what will happen.

Some might ask in response, "Then what is the point in voting at all?  If God decides what will happen, then why doesn't he just do it?  Why does he need me?"  He doesn't need you or me to accomplish his purposes in the world, but that fact does not absolve us from operating in ways that are in accordance with biblical wisdom and in ways that honor him.  God uses people to accomplish his purposes in the world - including through voting.  God uses voting and elections to "remove kings and set up kings" (Daniel 2.21).  Since God is in control of our elections, voting, then, becomes not so much determining the course of our country, but participating in God's foreordained plan for our country.  Instead of determining what we want or our political party wants, we should put our time and effort into discerning what God wants and vote accordingly.  A good question to ask yourself is: "Which candidate, if elected, will move us closer to the righteousness God has revealed in the Bible?"  And if we will be faithful to use biblical wisdom to vote in accordance with biblical principles, our vote will never be wasted, regardless of whom we are led to vote for (2 Timothy 2.15).

For this reason, the notion that to not vote for Trump is to, in effect, vote for Clinton (and vice versa), is erroneous.  God doesn't need me to vote for a particular candidate in order to get him or her elected.  If God has ordained that Hillary Clinton should be president, all the Trump votes in the world won't make a hill of beans worth of difference.  Instead, what God wants me to do is go to his word, know his heart, and vote in a way that is faithful to who he is and what he has said in the Bible.    Regardless of the outcome, I will have been faithful to God, which is really the only thing that matters.

This process is what brings meaning to your vote.  This is what gives you a voice - not voting for Democrats or Republicans, but voting in light of what God has said in his word.  Learn to view the fulfillment of your civic (and biblical) responsibility as an act of service to your Lord, bowing in reverence and humility to his Lordship as you do so.  In this sense, you're not voting for Candidates A, B, or C - you're voting for God, and trusting in his sovereign will to determine the course of our country for his eternal purposes.

Vote using biblical wisdom in accordance with biblical principles and for the glory of God, and your vote will never be wasted.

The Sustainability of Transgender Theory

Many corners of the internet have been abuzz recently after President Obama put forth his "decree" (I'm not sure if that is the proper term, or if it is only being used by some in a pejorative sense, but nevertheless, it seems somewhat appropriate) stating that public schools should allow students who identify as transgender to use the restroom or locker of their choice.  This is yet another cultural shift that we have endured and, even if it is not to last (there are many who believe that this decree is akin to the LGBT movement jumping the shark), this decree is at least a foot in the door for more flawed thinking about gender and sexuality in our culture, which has become perhaps the slipperiest of slippery slopes our culture has ever trod.

There are significant theological implications to this decree, and I've touched on some of them here and there on this site, and many, many others have capably done so as well.  Let me point you to Russell Moore's article, and my associate, Levi Secord's article as good examples of how to think through this issue biblically.

Don't get me wrong: it's incredibly important to address this issue biblically.  But what is just as fascinating to me - and almost as important - is looking at the practicality and sustainability of transgender theory in society.  In Russell Moore's article, linked above, he makes the point that societies can't operate under the assumptions that transgender theory makes - it's just not sustainable.  And the lack of sustainability of transgender theory is not a matter of opinion but of practical observation and basic logic.  I think it's a fair and necessary task for all parties to step back and make an honest appraisal of the logic used to justify advancements made in the LGBT movement to determine if they are culturally sustainable.  And, in my opinion, an honest judgment of the arguments made should lead us to realize that these matters are not sustainable in our society, or in any society, for that matter.

Transgender theory essentially states that a person's feelings override or trump biological reality.  Within the scope of transgender theory, this means that a person's feelings of gender override biological gender, and so biological men who feel like women become women, and vice versa.  But this theory is severely and fatally flawed: our feelings never override biological or scientific fact - even feelings that are strongly and sincerely held.  It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe that I can fly like a bird - if I jump off a ten-story building, I will die.  My feelings do not override scientific reality.  But since the scope of transgender theory is limited to biology, I'll limit my arguments to the reality of that field of science.  If transgender theory is accurate, and feelings do override biological reality, then other scenarios must also be true.  For instance:

According to transgender theory, it must be possible for a person to feel a different race or ethnicity than their biological race or ethnicity, and therefore identify as that race or ethnicity.

According to transgender theory, it must be possible for a person to feel a different age than their biological age, and identify as that different age.  (For instance, using the logic of transgender theory, why can't a 17 year old boy identify as a 21 year old adult and buy a case of beer?)

According to transgender theory, it must be possible for a person to feel a different species than their biological species, and identify as that particular species.

I could go on, but I'll leave it there.  In order for transgender theory to be sustainable, it needs to explain why feelings trump biological reality in regards to gender, but not to race, age, or species.  But transgender theory is capable of no such thing, and is therefore an unsustainable cultural construct in our society.  It simply can't be sustained.

For instance, transgender theory seeks to alleviate the plight of transgendered persons of being forced to use a restroom that accords with their biological sex rather than their gender identification by forcing schools to allow such persons to use the bathroom that most closely aligns with their own gender self-identification.  By forcing transgendered persons to use the bathroom that aligns with their biological sex, transgender theory asserts, transgendered person are discriminated against.  So the desire of transgender theory is to alleviate this perceived discrimination by "guiding" public schools to accommodate transgendered persons in using whichever bathroom or locker room they prefer.  The incredible irony created by this situation, however, is that in attempting to alleviate perceived discrimination against transgendered persons, transgender advocates are enacting real and demonstrable discrimination against the more than 99% of the population that is not transgendered.  Consider, for example, the vast, overwhelming majority of children in schools who have no desire to use the restroom or shower with people of the opposite sex - regardless of their self-identification.  Transgender theorists have no regard for the feelings of those who will be imposed upon (biological boys and girls who naturally identify as boys and girls), and will force them to accommodate transgendered persons at the cost of their own privacy and dignity.  In other words, in an alleged attempt to provide privacy and dignity for transgendered persons, transgender advocates steal the same from literally everyone else.  This is yet another reason that transgender theory is simply not sustainable.

Moreover, the speed at which these changes are taking place is breathtaking - literally.  In a matter of weeks and months our culture is being commanded to utterly reverse a cultural norm that has existed in our country and culture since its inception (in a grander sense, a world-wide cultural norm of segregation of the sexes when it comes to public restroom accommodations has existed for centuries, if not millennia).  Those who are advocating for these sweeping changes based on transgender theory simply cannot be shocked that there is pushback.  Even if transgender theory weren't fatally flawed (which it is), to demand that 300 million people change their centuries-engrained cultural practice on a dime is incomprehensibly shortsighted and ignorant.

To be sure, there are a myriad of other problems with transgender theory - I've only identified a few.  Here's to hoping for more intellectually honest and logically consistent thinking in our society in the coming days, because it's certainly not happening at present.