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.

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 Church, the Government, and Syrian Refugees

Over the past few days there has been much discussion in the news and on social media as to what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees that have fled their war-torn region in hopes of a better life.  The issue is complicated by the reality that the country from which they are fleeing is full of terrorists, and it is quite possible (and even likely) that there are terrorists disguised as refugees who are using this opportunity to infiltrate other nations for the purposes of enacting violence and harm against their citizens. 

Some in the U.S. have insisted that we must not, under any circumstances, allow these refugees into our country for the reason described above.  To that end, several states have insisted that they will not harbor any refugees, while others have declared that they will indeed welcome them.  Others have said that to disallow a space for Syrian refugees betrays a severe lack of compassion for those in need.  Minnesota’s governor, Mark Dayton, much to the chagrin of his opponents, recently declared that our state would gladly welcome refugees seeking shelter and a better life.

As has become so common in our day and age with social and political issues, the question of whether or not to accept refugees from Syria has become a social media firestorm, in which the sides are black and white with no room for gray, and all those who disagree with the “correct” view are labeled bigots or heartless idiots.  Leaving aside the fact that social media has denigrated our overall ability to talk about issues seriously, it behooves us to think biblically and Christianly about this issue, as it has many biblical implications.  And indeed, there have been many from the Christian sphere who have done a good job doing just that (for instance, I would commend to you Kevin DeYoung’s article on this subject), and I appreciate their guidance in my own thinking on this issue.   At the same time, however, there is disagreement even in the Christian community on this issue.  So as we seek to form an opinion, let’s allow grace to drive our discussions with one another. 

To me, the issue of whether or not the United States should accept Syrian refugees  comes down to the answer to three questions: What is the role of the government?  What is the role of the church? and Who is my neighbor?  Allow me to take a shot at providing some answers.

What is the role of the government?

God has created the government to fulfill a specific purpose and to accomplish certain tasks.  Biblically (and constitutionally) speaking, government’s primary role is to protect its citizens through the enforcement of laws (Romans 13.3-4).  If the U.S. government is to allow Syrian refugees into our country, its primary concern in doing so must be the preservation and protection of American citizens – not Syrians.  While some may argue that the government should feel compassion for Syrian refugees, this is, frankly, putting the cart before the horse.   The U.S. government should primarily feel compassion for U.S. citizens, and express that compassion by doing everything in their power to keep them safe.  If the government receives Syrian refugees, they should only do so if they are certain that doing so will not bring an undo threat to the safety of American citizens. 

What is the role of the church?

The church’s role in the world is primarily to preach and declare the gospel of Jesus Christ.  One of the ways we express this message is to minister to people in who are in distress, who are displaced, who are in need, and so on.  This is a distinctly Christian mission, and it belongs to the church – not the government.  It is not the government’s job to provide charity to those in need.  The church can and should minister to Syrian refugees in the event that they are allowed into the U.S.  God cares about how his people treat and care for aliens and sojourners.  We are obligated to God and his word to be faithful ministers of the gospel to them. 

Who is my neighbor?

In the online Christian discussions surrounding this issue, the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37) is frequently cited, and used as evidence for why we should allow Syrian refugees into our country: because the refugees are expressing real needs, and we are able to meet those needs.  While I applaud the desire to let scripture guide us in our thinking, I believe the application of this parable to this situation falls short and over-reaches. 

For example, by insisting that Syrian refugees are our neighbors, and therefore we should minister to them like the good Samaritan, we fail to acknowledge that we literally have neighbors that already live right next door who we are called to love also. If there are Syrian terrorists masquerading as refugees (as it appears there are), and we invite and welcome them into our country, we are putting our geographical neighbors (those who live next door) at risk.  To do so would not be loving to our current neighbors.  It is a false dichotomy to pit the needs of our Syrian refugee neighbors against the needs of our physical and geographical neighbors.  (Furthermore, it could be argued that the parable of the Good Samaritan is primarily speaking to our interactions with our physical neighbors – those located near us, geographically speaking – than those interactions with international neighbors across the world.)  If we are able to determine that no undue danger will come to our current physical neighbors by bringing Syrian refugees into this country, then we absolutely should bring them in. Then those refugees will become our physical and geographical neighbors, and then we can and should minister to them as we would anyone else. 

Worshipping the idols of fear and self-preservation

There are some Christians who have brought up the reality that we should not let fear of bodily injury or a desire for self-preservation dictate our obedience to scripture and dissuade us from ministering to those in need.  I whole-heartedly agree.  However, I would follow my statement of agreement with the assertion that we shouldn’t have to be afraid if the government is doing its job to keep its citizens safe.  If the government is fulfilling its God-given role of protecting us, we are free to minister those who have been displaced and are distressed.  Nothing would please me more than to be able to allow Syrian refugees into our country so they can know its freedoms and benefit from our society, and also to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.  But we cannot do so at the expense of the physical and bodily safety of our citizens. We cannot lose sight of our obligation to love our current neighbors by advocating for their safety.

How now shall we live?

In response to these principles, let us pray that the government will fulfill its God-ordained role of keeping people safe and doing everything they can to minimize potential violence.  And let us simultaneously pray for more opportunities to be ministers of the gospel – to Syrian refugees and to all other peoples of the world.   

Government Sanctioned Religion

Yesterday I wrote a bit about the brouhaha over Louie Giglio backing out of his invitation to pray at President Obama's inauguration, mostly based on other articles I read that day.  One article in particular caught my attention, and I've been reflecting on it more and more throughout the day.  In his article Russell Moore implies that this most recent dust up with Louie Giglio is a sign that we are one step closer to a state church - government sanctioned religion.  That is, the government gives and receives final approval on what kinds of religious thoughts, speech, and expressions are allowable, and which kinds are to be done away with as intolerant.  It's a scary prospect, to say the least.

Anyway, today I had to run up to Hinkley, MN to pick up a slaughtered cow (long story) from my cousin.  I made use of the time on the road trip to listen to Wretched Radio, which I do on my iPhone via Wretched's podcast.  I don't really have time to listen to the show on a daily basis, so I'm actually about a month behind in my listening.  That is, the episodes I'm listening to right now were originally aired in early December.  Now, cast your mind back to that time: what happened in the early to middle part of December?  The Newtown school shooting.  Todd Friel has been talking about it for several episodes now, particularly by looking at big "why?" questions, and rightly insisting that we have answer to the "why?" questions, and we need to be speaking up.

Amidst Friel's own analyzation of the event, he played President Obama's speech that he gave from Newtown right after the shooting, which is absolutely laced with references to God, Jesus, and the Bible (you can watch the speech and/or read the transcript here).  I didn't do it, but it would be interesting to count how many times he referenced the Christian faith and Christian ideals.

Now, one does not need to ponder this for too long before one sees a pretty significant double standard here: President Obama gets to invoke the name of God, Jesus, and refer to the Bible as much as he wants in his speech, and you don't hear a peep out of anybody.  Nobody is complaining; nobody is insisting on the separation of church and state; nobody is crying "intolerance!"  But ask Louie Giglio, a minister who denied that homosexuality is a biblical way of doing life in a sermon fifteen years ago, to pray the benediction at Obama's inauguration, and a literal firestorm breaks out on the internet and in the media.  Enough so that the inauguration committee rescinded Giglio's invitation, and was also enough to make Giglio decline the invitation (the rescinding and declining took place at pretty much the same time, but both parties wanted to back out).

Note that Giglio was not uninvited because he was going to explain from scripture why homosexuality is sinful during his prayer, nor was he uninvited for being a Christian minister per say.  He was uninvited because, 15 years ago he delivered a message in which he denied homosexuality as a viable life choice for someone confessing the Christian faith.  In fact, all he was going to do in his benediction was pray to the Christian God and verbally bless the people watching and listening.  Certainly his prayer would have included references to God, Jesus, and the Bible, in much the same way that President Obama referenced the same three topics during his Newtown speech.  Why, then, were Obama's references to the Christian faith permissible during the speech, but Giglio's references would not be tolerable during the benediction?  Answer: because Giglio does not endorse the state-sanctioned religion, which includes tolerance of homosexuality, support of abortion, and relative standards of truth and morality.

It's a sickening double standard, and it is astounding to me that the people of this country don't have the cognitive capacity to realize it.

The state sanctioned church is on its way, and indeed, is here already, which we see through examples like this.  From now on, the government decides what religious expression is acceptable or not.  And if the government doesn't know what should be acceptable or not, then they will listen to those in the public who feign the largest offense at whatever is being expressed.  That's exactly what happened in the Louie Giglio scenario.  Word has it that Obama himself asked for Giglio to do the benediction.  As soon as that was announced, somebody who needs a job went through 15 years of Giglio's sermons in order to find one where he condemned homosexuality.  When they found it, they went through all the channels to get him blacklisted.  I wonder what the response would be if Obama asked a gay, universalist minister to pray the benediction.  Never mind.  That's a dumb question.  It would be a match made in heaven, because a gay, Universalist minister would perfectly fit the mold of the state church.

Part of me thinks that this whole story is much ado about nothing.  Since when did the government ever endorse my religion in truth?  Why would I ever think that the government would adhere to biblical Christianity?  To put it another way: the government has been exposed as being anti-biblical Christianity - why am I surprised?  We feel offended because the government seems to be betraying our religious ideals.  Since when were we on the same side?

Jesus will not be aligned with government policy or political ideals.  He is Lord over the government and politics.  He will not be tamed by them.  And shame on us me (I'll speak for myself here) for ever thinking that he would be.

So bring on the government sanctioned church.  In the grand and eternal scheme of things, nothing has really changed.  God still sits on the throne, and Christ at his right hand.  They have the final say over the affairs of the universe, including the state of religion and politics in this tiny corner of the universe.  I will rest in that.

The State Church

If you don't follow religion in politics very closely, you probably haven't heard about Louie Giglio withdrawing his acceptance to pray at President Obama's inauguration.  Obama asked Giglio to pray, and he initially accepted, but when it was discovered that he has preached against homosexuality in the past, a firestorm erupted.  Amid all the craziness, Giglio withdrew his acceptance, citing a desire to not have the prayer turn into a political ordeal.  You can read his letter to the inauguration committee, and some other thoughts he has on the topic, here.

Who is Louie Giglio?  He's come to the public eye in recent years as he's been attached to the wildly popular Passion conferences, and through his work with Chris Tomlin and others.  I've seen him speak before, and his messages, while a bit on theologically light side, are actually very engaging and eye-opening.  You can watch what is probably his most well-known sermon here.  I may not mesh with him on everything he does, and there are definitely some issues he and his ministry need to think through, but overall, Giglio is a great pastor, communicator, and preacher, and would have been a great choice to deliver the prayer at Obama's inauguration.

But to begin with, something like this isn't new.  As many have noted, the same firestorm erupted after Rick Warren offered the prayer at Obama's 2009 inauguration.  Warren stayed in, however, despite the criticism. That being said, it is becoming more and more difficult to practice religion in America these days, especially when that religion doesn't fall in line with the government.  What's the big deal?  Here's one liberal blogger's point of view on the issue.

There's a bit of uncertainty about whether or not Giglio rescinded his acceptance to pray, or whether the inauguration committee uninvited him to play.  The way I see it, it's kind of like six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Basically, Giglio rescinded his acceptance and the committee said, "Good, because we're uninviting you anyway."  Kind of like what you see in the movies when someone tells their boss they quit, but the boss responds by telling them that they can't quite because they're fired.  Either way, this brouhaha has some significant implications that come with it, and it behooves all Christians in America to take note of them.

Russel Moore points out that what we see happening is the development of a state church.  He notes that Giglio is not offering a point of view on homosexuality in the prayer, nor is he saying or even implying that that homosexuals can't or don't have freedoms in the U.S.  In fact, Giglio has never hinted at any of these things in public discourse.  What he has said, though, is that unrepentant homosexuality is not conducive with the Christian faith.  And, of course, the government will bow to the pressure of the loudest voices who cry foul, and in so doing, will endorse the religious views of those who disagree with orthodox Christianity.  It's government sponsored religion.

Albert Mohler similarly points out that we are moving into a time of "moral McCarthyism."  The government used to have a litmus test to detect communism in its ranks.  Now that litmus test exists to detect religious intolerance, and to expel those who would dare to buck the government-endorsed religious ideals.

The message is this: get your religious beliefs in line with government policy or shut up.  Basically, people with religious convictions that don't line up with the government's agenda are silenced and blacklisted.  Moore is right: this leads to a government run church.  In our time, the government is deciding which religious thoughts, ideas, and speech are acceptable.  Where are the usual protesters crying First Amendment foul?  Where are the liberals demanding a separation of church and state?  You won't find them, because they're at their place of worship, offering sacrifices to the government approved religion of tolerance.

How does a Christian respond to a state church?  Much the same way that Jesus and his disciples responded, I imagine.  In those days, however, you had government officials killing people whose religion they didn't like, and then profaning their bodies and places of worship.  Thank God that we haven't come to that in our country.  Our response should be that of the first century Christians: gather together, devote ourselves to the word, pray, and submit.  I don't like that this stuff is happening in my country, and that our religious liberties are being taken away in shockingly large leaps and bounds, but it is what it is.  God is still on the throne; God is still working in the world.  We should be trusting him, no matter what happens.

America, the freedom of religion you once had is gone, and the little bit you have left is quickly eroding away.  Get ready.  Cling to the truth, because dark days are ahead.  But take heart: they are not so dark that the Light cannot shine through.

Love Your Neighbor As Yourself...Or Else

Each week or so I receive an email from Relevant Magazine that contains links to articles from their website or from the most recent issue of the magazine.  I subscribe to Relevant as a last-ditch attempt to stay up to date on pop culture, both secular and Christian (I've found that most attempts to remain "relevant" after getting married and having kids go by the wayside, so I guess my subscription to Relevant Magazine is my only hope).

I've posted before about some of the issues I have with the magazine - particularly about how it is consistently left-leaning in most areas.  But sometimes the articles are informative and worth the read, if for no other reason than to practice confronting ideas and beliefs that I personally find to be unsatisfactory.

This week's Relevant email had a bunch of articles whose titles piqued my interest, so I followed the links.  A couple of them had to do with the election (pre-election, that is - like how to vote in the election that was held last week - I guess that's what you get from a bi-monthly publication: information that isn't necessarily current or up to the minute).  One article from this category caught my eye: "5 Reasons I'm Voting This Year."

The article details the five reasons that Nick Price has found to be valid enough to inspire him to vote in the 2012 election (hopefully these reasons are valid for every election for Nick, and not just this one).  Looking over the list, I can see a few nuances I'd make to Nick's list, and ways that I might state things differently.  But in general, I think it's good...until you get to reason number 4.  Nick says the fourth reason that he was going to vote in this past election was that it would enable him "to give voice to the voiceless."  He cites Isaiah 1.17 in support of his reasoning, and says, "Throughout scripture, especially in the prophetic books, those who have power and a voice are encouraged to speak up on behalf of those who do not."  Amen.

Nick goes on to say, however, "As such, I enter the voting booth not only with my own interests in mind, but also the interests of those less fortunate than myself.  In this way, voting takes on a corporate dimension as I give away the power that I have to the powerless - voting for what serves the marginalized and oppressed, and using my voice to amplify the voice of those who are usually silenced.  I believe that in this way I also put into practice Jesus' call to love my neighbor as myself.  So I try to vote specifically with the interests of my most disadvantaged neighbors in mind.  I see my role as speaking up and pleading their case to those who are in power."

The sentiment described above is one that is increasingly common among younger evangelicals.  I agree with this sentiment in the sense that it speaks to those who truly have no voice, such as the unborn, or to those who are truly and unjustly on the fringes of society.  The ideas espoused by Price, however, have become more commonly associated with a stream of evangelicalism that believes that a more liberal social agenda should be implemented in order to stand in the gap on behalf of the oppressed and effectively "give voice to the voiceless."  In a very real sense, this stream believes that government serves as a means by which Christians can fulfill the second-greatest commandment (love your neighbor as yourself), by way of voting for politicians who will establish and vote for programs that are intended to defend the poor, give relief to the oppressed, and serve those on the margins of society.  This belief, in my opinion, represents a severe lack of understanding of scripture, however, and exposes why the evangelical vote in this country has tended toward the left in recent election cycles (it should be noted that I do not know if Price himself subscribes to this ideology, but there have been many who have said something similar to what he has said above, and have used this idea to support a liberal social agenda).

Certainly all Christians agree that followers of Jesus are required (if by no other means than by their association and identification with Him) to defend the cause of the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give relief to the oppressed, and fight for justice.  But not in the sense that it is a law that a Christian must keep in order to be a Christian.  Indeed not, as we are saved by grace, and not by loving our neighbors as ourselves.  If this were the litmus test for a faithful Christian, we would certainly all fail.  Instead, we love our neighbors as ourselves because we have been saved by Jesus - because he first loved us, and because his Spirit empowers us to be able to love others.  On this point we can definitely find agreement.  The question is, how do we do these things?  It is my opinion that accomplishing these things through government is a flawed, dangerous, and unbiblical way to go about it.  But rather than talk about what the government should be doing, or what the church should be doing, I want to think for just a minute about the implications of having the government be the enforcer of people loving their neighbors as themselves.

The second-greatest commandment says that we love people as ourselves by...well...loving them.  And loving them genuinely.  While obvious, this is important to understand.  Consider the fact that the Bible does not commend those who love their neighbors out of duty, or obligation, or as a means of being noted by others.  Instead, the Bible commends unforced sacrificial giving and loving.  There is a significant difference between the two.  In fact, the difference is so significant, that scripture details the former as leading to death, and the latter as leading to life.

If we choose to believe that the second-greatest commandment is fulfilled by way of the government then - other than voting - we have no say in the matter.  The last time I checked, taxes are required of every American who owns property, collects an income, etc., and that tax money goes to programs that voters have implemented via politicians to help the poor, clothe the naked, etc.  If we believe that Christians fulfill the second-greatest commandment through the government, then I, as a taxpayer, am not emotionally or spiritually invested in its fulfillment.  I am simply doing what the government requires me to do.  There is no love or concern on my part to speak of.  We will "love our neighbors as ourselves" whether we like it or not.

Forced charity is not charity at all.  And love isn't love if it is forced.  Instead, whatever care or concern we give to the marginalized by way of the government is actually born out of violence.  This kind of thinking seeks to (knowingly or unknowingly) do violence to those who would not love their neighbor as themselves, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the poor, etc.,  After all, what will be the fate of those who do not want to help the less-fortunate and subsequently evade their taxes?  They will be prosecuted and imprisoned.

You cannot use the government to force people to love the marginalized; you cannot use the government to defend the cause of the oppressed.  In fact, if you do use the government (or any other means) to force people to "love" others, then what you have isn't love.  The best you can do is have an authority structure (in our case, the government) bully people into following a set of rules (paying taxes) that allegedly benefits the less fortunate.  This is the same kind of thinking that Jesus condemned when he called out the Pharisees: they bullied people into following religious rules under the threat of condemnation if the rules weren't strictly adhered to.

So then, asserting that we should elect government officials, representatives, and leaders for the purpose of fulfilling the second-greatest commandment is, in my opinion, a biblically untenable position to take.  Moreover, it has the potential to be spiritually damaging (maybe even damning?).  Unfortunately, however, it is one that many evangelicals have adopted and have brought with them into the voting booth.

Note that I am not asserting that we should not pay taxes, nor am I saying that paying taxes to support programs that clothe, feed, house, and relieve the marginalized is wrong or sinful.  In fact, the opposite is true.  I am saying, however, that using the government to fulfill what is perhaps an idealistic interpretation of biblical mandates (such as the notion that the second-greatest commandment is fulfilled when I vote for candidates with a liberal social agenda) is misguided at best, and does real spiritual and physical damage at worst.

Facebook on the Election and Voting

Lots of people voting in this election, and lots of them are posting about their experience (and trying to sway others their way) on Facebook.  Sometimes this is very good, and very encouraging - and not necessarily because these people are voting my way.  Other times people are rude jerks.  What follows is sentiment about the election and voting that I've seen today on Facebook from my friends.  These folks spoke highly, and were appreciative of, their right obligation to vote.  I don't particularly know how these people voted, but I respect the fact that they answered the call to fulfill their civic duty.  On a sidenote, a lot of these people are from my church, and I was overjoyed to see the ways in which they were analyzing the election through spiritual lenses.  Way to go, Riverview peeps!

Whoever wins, that’s my president.  I have to pray for him and wish him well.

#voting #longlines #worthit

The truth that Jesus of Nazareth was who he claimed to be has infinitely more impact on the world tomorrow than who gets elected tonight.

I did all that I could…it’s out of my hands now.  It was always in God’s though, so it will be alright regardless.

I am reminded today that this is not my home; I am destined for a better place.  Lord, guide me to that end, and no matter what today brings, that is where my hope carries me.

Praying for MN today!

In line to vote.  Too bad it’s such a crummy morning…well worth the wait!

God be with me when I head to the polls and cast my vote.  I pray that my choices will be honorable in your sight.

I have been anxiously waiting for the opportunity to vote, and finally I voted.  I felt like I had done something important, something that connects me with my fellow Americans, something that may very well impact the future of the country itself.  I do realize that I have contributed to one of the most important political races in the world.  Whoever will serve as the president, I want to pray that only God’s purpose be fulfilled.  God bless America. (posted by an immigrant who was recently granted American citizenship)

Well, this is quite an important day for our country.  I haven’t voted yet, but will in an hour or two.  I am praying that no matter what the result I will remember, “This is the day that the Lord has made, I will rejoice and be glad in it.”  I hope you can join me in that thought.

I went to vote today and got butterflies in my stomach.  I am so thankful for this right, thankful to the volunteers at the polling place for doing their jobs so well, and thankful for my freedoms.  God bless America.

How to Pray on Election Day

On this Election Day Eve, it is indeed profitable to lift up the election process and our nation in prayer.  I have read two great pieces about praying for the upcoming election and our country: one from John Piper at Desiring God, and a piece about how to pray for the election by Albert Mohler.  Above all else (like political involvement), those who call on the name of the Lord should do so at this time, and in the days to come.  And through this process, let us examine ourselves as we examine the state of our nation and those who lead it.

Unfortunately, our system of government has led Americans (including Christians) to believe that we are the masters of our own destiny - we elect whom we want, and if we don't like someone in power, we vote him out of power.  This gives us a sense of control when it comes to government.  We believe that we have the final say.  Also, there are many American Christians that separate their spiritual and political thoughts and opinions.  This ought not to be.  These two realities, however, have predisposed American Christians to, in large part, refrain from deep prayer when considering the political realm.  Again, this ought not to be.  As the two pieces linked above make clear, there is much to be prayed about when considering our country, our leaders, and even our own involvement in the political process.

How should we pray at this time?  Albert Mohler suggests the following.  And it should be noted that these prayer requests are appropriate for all times, not just during election cycles.

1. Pray that God will bless America with leaders who are better than we deserve.

2. Pray that Americans will be motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us.

3. Pray that Americans will vote by conscience, not merely on the basis of celebrity or emotion.

4. Pray that Americans will vote to defend the least among us - and especially those who have not vote.

5. Pray that God will prick the conscience of the nation on issues of morality, righteousness, and respect for marriage as the central institution of human civilization.

6. Pray that God will protect the candidates and their families.

7. Pray that the election is conducted with honor, civility, respect, and justice.

8. Pray that Americans will be prepared to accept the results of the election with respect and kindness.

9. Pray that this election would lead to even greater opportunities to preach the gospel, and that the freedom of the church will be respected, honored, and protected.

10. Pray for the church - that she would be strengthened in the truth, grounded in the faith, and empowered for witness and ministry.

A Bad Reason to Support the Marriage Amendment

This commercial has been airing in the Twin Cities of late, in support of the proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  I've seen it a few times, and in my opinion, it offers a bad reason to support the marriage amendment.  If you haven't seen it, take a look.



Why do I think this commercial does not offer good reasons to support the marriage amendment?  First of all, it offers a pragmatic solution to the threat against the definition of marriage.  The woman in the ad says: "Who should decide the definition of marriage?  We think it should be the people - not judges or politicians."  While there is some merit to the idea that activist judges and politicians legislate their own view of morality instead of allowing the people to have a say, I reject the notion that we decide what is right and moral based simply upon the majority opinion.

If, as the woman in the ad says, the definition of marriage should be determined by the majority opinion, then technically the definition of marriage is a fluid thing, and changes with the tide of public opinion.  This is a notion that Christians should flat-out reject.

Think of how crazy this would get if we allowed all of our laws and moral decisions to be left up to the majority opinion.  This same approach would allow whatever the public wanted, as long as 51% of the population felt the same way about something.  Furthermore, this is not an honest and fair approach to dealing with the issue of gay marriage.  If we really want to leave the definition of marriage up to the people, then we shouldn't be amending the constitution in order to do so.  Certainly the demographics of the public change over time, and at some time in the future the people might (I think will) decide that they actually do want to allow gay marriage.  So according to the logic espoused by the commercial, as soon as 51% of the people want to allow gay marriage, then it should be allowed.  After all, we wouldn't want judges and politicians deciding it (even if they're conservative judges and politicians), right?  What will be our argument then?

Instead of thinking pragmatically about the marriage amendment, Christians and other supporters of the amendment can only appeal to the word of God as why marriage is only between one man and one woman.  We can cite statistics and protest that the majority rules till we're blue in the face, but those are ultimately pragmatic and subjective reasons.  The only objective reason we have to insist on the sanctity of marriage is because the word of God says so (Genesis 2.24, Matthew 19.4-6).  If people disagree with this, fine.  At least they can't argue against it by citing a statistic or percentage of people who think their way.  Their problem is with the word, not with me or my personal opinion, nor the opinions of the masses that are on my side.

Furthermore, what people in this country need to accept - be they liberal or conservative, Christian or otherwise - is that the government has been and is involved in marriage.  In fact, we (Christians) invited the government into marriage when we encouraged it to offer tax breaks and other benefits to married couples to encourage and promote marriage among the public.  Since then, the government has increasingly been involved in marriage, for better or for worse, so to speak.  At the present time, we can't escape government involvement in marriage.  They are in it, and they aren't getting out.  It might even be possible that it's not possible for them to get out of it.  It just is the way it is.  The ad says that if politicians succeed in redefining marriage, then voters will have lost their voice.  I'm afraid that ship has already sailed.  The government has power over marriage, and we gave it to them.

How Are Christians to Regard the Government?

I was perusing the archives at Tim Challies' site recently and came upon this fantastic article on how Christians are to regard the government.  These are some important things to think about, especially considering that our country is on the verge of either electing or re-electing a president.  But even if there were no impending election, I think it's a very profitable exercise for Christians to think about how they are to regard those in authority.

Challies posted some reflections on the Christian's responsibility to pay taxes, and to do so with honor and respect to those who are collecting them.  That sounds like a strange and even foreign concept to most of us, considering that nobody's really excited to give up their hard earned money at the end of a sword.  Nevertheless, scripture has some important things to say about this issue.  For that, I commend you to Challies' site.

What I wanted to think about here for a minute is something else that Challies' post brings up in a roundabout sort of way, and that is how Christians regard the government in general.  Challies writes this about the historical context of Romans 13:

He [Paul] was writing to people who lived in Rome, people who were under the authority of a government that worshipped idols, that was systematically out to conquer and subjugate the world, that made death a form of entertainment, that promoted slavery, that was utterly ruthless and actively opposed to God.  This was the government that was always on the verge of breaking out in persecution against the church.  It was the government that had put Jesus to death.  Paul was telling these Roman Christians to give honor, respect, and taxes to the very government that paid the wages of the men who crucified Jesus, who mocked him, who spat on him, who rejoiced in his death.  

The opening verses of Romans 13 go on to say that the very authorities Challies describes in the paragraph above have been placed in their position and given their authority by God.  Furthermore, resistance to these authorities is resistance to God, since God is the one who has put them there.  In fact, those who resist the authority of earthly rulers will incur the judgment of God upon themselves (probably through the very rulers that one intends to resist).

Two things come to mind when I think about this

1. 21st century America sounds a lot like first century Rome.  When compared to Challies' description of first century Rome, we likewise have leaders that worship idols; we likewise have leaders that are set on systematically conquering the world; we likewise have leaders that are obsessed with death, slavery (of other sorts), and who are actively opposed to God.  Furthermore, our government is (I believe) largely opposed to the Christian faith.  We can't claim that it's just a different context than what the Roman Christians experienced, because in many ways it's quite similar.  We also can't use an excuse like "I respect the office, not the man," as a reason for ragging on elected officials (which I've heard many times, almost always from Christians).  I don't think this is a biblically tenable position to take.

2. A proper understanding of these concepts is difficult in the context of a representative republic form of government.  C. S. Lewis once commented something to the effect that he appreciated the fact that he lived in a monarchy, because it was always clear who was in charge.  There was always someone that was clearly defined as the ruler, and the knee was to be bent to such a person, regardless of his or her decisions or decrees.  Here in America, if our rulers don't do what we want, we vote the bums out.  We are perhaps inclined to show less respect to our governing officials simply because of the nature of the way our government is structured.  This is something I think we need to be careful about.  It can be easy to disrespect, belittle, and dishonor those with whom we disagree politically - even on very important issues that we would consider to be crucial.  If nothing else, rest assured that the Christians in Rome likewise had to deal with authorities that held unbiblical positions on important issues, and Paul commanded them to show honor and respect.

The crux of the issue is how I actually go about showing honor and respect to someone who believes differently than I do, say on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.  These are big issues that I feel strongly about.  Nevertheless, respect and honor is due to those whom God has put in this position.  How do I do this?  A few things come to mind.

1. Recognize that each leader is in place by the authority of God and nothing else.  God has placed leaders where they are for his purposes.  They have not achieved their end by their own means.  Realize that God is still sovereign, no matter who is on the throne or holds the office of the presidency (or governor, or senator, etc.).

2. Realize that in honoring leaders, I am honoring God.

3. I can hold elected officials in prayer, always seeking their best.

4. I can pray for myself, that God would help me to view all people in love and give me a desire to reach the lost with the gospel (yes, even those elected officials that we can't stand).

5. I can read the Bible to study the ways in which God has ordained leaders in the world for our good in order to gain a better understanding.

6. I can watch the way I talk about these people in public discourse.

7. I can realize that there but by the grace of God go I.

Good Grief

I think the United States government may have reached a new low - or a new high, if we're talking about incompetence. Have you heard about this? It's a bill that mandates that TV commercials be at the same volume as the programs in which they appear, and no louder. The bill basically instructs the FCC to regulate the volume level of commercials. It's gone through the house and the senate and is apparently waiting on President Obama's signature. Apparently U.S. citizens aren't smart enough to turn down the volume when commercials come on, and they need the federal government to come running to their aid and save their ears from annoying car commercials. Who actually thought this was a good use of taxpayer dollars? I'm almost speechless. It's despicable.

Here's a clue for ya, government. When I see an ad I don't like, I turn the channel, or I turn the volume down, or I just don't give the company my business. Case in point:

This is perhaps the most annoying, ridiculous advertisement I have ever seen in my life. This ad virtually assures me that I will never buy a car from Luther Kia. The dancing Santa is ludicrous; the song makes me want to pull my hair out; and the guy screaming at me to buy a new Kia grates on my nerves. I would never give money to the company that produces these commercials. I find them offensive.

But you know what? I don't need the government to rescue me from "Santa's Brand New Ride." I've got a remote and a finger. That'll do the trick. No new laws necessary.

Don't Blame AIG

So there's obviously been quite the hullabaloo about AIG giving several of their employees bonuses with the government bailout money, and now I think it's reached a fever pitch since I just heard on the radio that AIG employees are being encouraged to travel in pairs, and not to go anywhere at night for fear of some kind of mob justice. If you're asking me, the public is outraged at the wrong people.

I'm certainly no economist, and I haven't the first clue about how to run a successful business, but I think I know spin control when I sees it. If you're asking me (and no one is), the real culprit here is the government. If the public should be mad at anyone it should be them; AIG was doing business as usual. But that's the problem: business as usual becomes business as the government wants it done when you've got public money on the table.

Don't get me wrong. I think it was foolish and stupid for AIG to give out those bonuses, but that actually proves my point. We should never given ANY business public money. If we hadn't given them any money, there would have been zero chance that they could misuse it. We should have never allowed things to get to the point where we have to get mad at a company for its poor use of public money, and that's the point: businesses and companies shouldn't be using public money in the first place.

The government wants you to believe that this whole mess is AIG's fault, but we have to admit that they're at least a little bit involved too, don't we (see above)? In my opinion, they're the primary culprit, and the government should be the ones to shoulder this blame.

Now the government's spin on this whole issue is that there wasn't enough regulation, enough control, enough oversight. In other words, this fiasco occurred because the government supposedly wasn't involved enough a lot of people would say, "Yeah, that's right. If the government is going to give away my money to private businesses, then they SHOULD be watching what happens to it." If that's your opinion, you're still one step behind the thought process: no, the government shouldn't be regulating business, because the government has no place in business. The government shouldn't be regulating businesses because the government shouldn't be doling out money to businesses.

It all comes back to them. Follow the money. If you want to be mad about this, be mad at them, and hold them accountable.