Faith and Freedom: Is it really?

There was a time when Ralph Reed, the organizer of the Christian Coalition, was taken completely seriously, not only by most conservative, Evangelical Christian voters, but by most of his opponents as well.  The Christian Coalition did indeed make a difference in the outcome of elections, and Reed did a good job of helping to energize Christian voters, many of whom felt that faith had been sanitized from the public arena, and didn’t matter any more.  Ultimately, the organization began to wane, largely because it had a hard time defining its boundaries, and because it began to endorse candidates whose views were not exactly consistent with those of conservative Christians.

In 2009, Reed tried to make a comeback with the “Faith and Freedom Coalition,” an attempt to reorganize and restructure conservative Evangelicals and increase their impact.  The agenda is still remarkably similar, given that the old Christian Coalition gave wholehearted support to mostly Republican candidates who, in turn, for several Presidential election cycles, failed to deliver much beyond some token legislation on the main social issues that were the cornerstone of the conservative Christian position, namely abortion rights and school choice.  But the new version of the old Christian Coalition doesn’t have the punch, the energy, the money, or the effect.  There are several reasons for this.

Take a look at the photo.  There’s one major problem.  Glenn Beck is an ex-catholic who made the personal decision to convert to Mormonism.  Mormons have absolutely zero in common with the foundational doctrines and theology of Evangelical Christians, and I can reference any one of fifty books by Christian and Mormon authors who will zero in on the facts of that division, and substantiate the claim.  It is Beck’s extremism that seems to be the attraction here, and that gives away the inner secret of Reed’s organization.  The “Faith” part is quite deceptive.  Other than opening and closing their sessions with prayer, and pandering to people’s religious beliefs, if Glenn Beck is the media darling of this group, “Faith” is not even in the back seat of the bus.  Beck has learned how to parrot all the catch phrases he needs to wow his audiences, and the fact that he is able to get a hearing from them is evidence that their faith isn’t as important as they want you to think it is.

I read the press releases, the text of several speeches, and watched a lot of video.  One thing was absolutely missing from this whole conference.  Faith.  There are too many people involved who are not compatible with the theological and doctrinal perspective of the core group of conservative, Evangelical Christianity.  In the past, opponents and critics challenged what they saw as a threat to the subjectively interpreted phrase “separation of church and state.”  I don’t think there’s enough substance of faith, or a connection to it, in this group to raise that criticism.  The faith element was overshadowed and compromised by the support demanded from the GOP for Mitt Romney’s campaign, after several credible conservative Evangelicals, including Mike Huckabee, were passed over, and there wasn’t even an effort to put one of their own on the ticket as the VP candidate.  Maybe that’s why they downplay it now.  They think it won’t help win elections.

The lack of substance in the speakers that came to their recent gathering was, frankly, appalling.  Many of these people are in Congress, and others have served in state offices.  Most of the speakers seemed to hold the intelligence, and the knowledge of the relevant issues of the day, of their audience in contempt.  They’re good at reciting cliches, and the standard “talking points” are repeated until they almost become meaningless.  Essentially, it was their standard commercial for opposition to the President.  That may have some appeal to the 20% or so of the electorate that falls into the far right category, but it isn’t going to help win elections, especially on the issues that are coming to the forefront.  I’d include myself among the growing number of people who want to hear a realistic appraisal of the situation, and some solutions that involve working across the aisle, not more of the same obstructionism.  The other side is preparing a bankroll and a campaign strategy to overcome the obstacles, one that is likely to be successful, and which will eliminate the give and take necessary for real progress to be made.

I watched a local news station put together a series of Paul Ryan’s campaign speeches, and recent news interviews, and it seems like he doesn’t even vary his words much.  It’s almost as if he learned absolutely nothing from being on the defeated Presidential ticket in 2012.  Rick Perry missed a chance to say something of substance, and on top of that, his memory keeps failing.  He couldn’t remember the name of the country in which Benghazi was located.  Sarah Palin, as usual, opened mouth and inserted foot.  It is clear that she has no idea what is going on in Syria, nor does she have any idea how the US government needs to approach such situations.  The Democrats have to be pretty excited about the possibility that she will still be hanging around in 2014 and 2016, because her presence will help their chances at gaining control of Congress and winning another term for their party in the White House.

Surely there are people of faith who have a realistic perspective of where we are, and who can avoid the cliches and talking points, and help people understand the role that true, genuine, sincere faith can play in resolving the problems that we face.  Why do they not seem to be attracted to the Faith and Freedom Coalition?  Maybe they don’t think it matters.

I think it does.  And until it does, groups like this will just be one of many indistinguishable political action committees.

Southern Baptists Call for Trust in Calvinism Debate, See Decline in Membership, Baptisms and Attendance

http://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptist/15156-baptisms-in-sbc-down-to-lowest-number-in-64-years

http://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptist/15137-sbc-calvinism-study-calls-for-trust-dialogue

When I was serving on the staff of an inner city church in Houston several years ago, and started writing this blog, I made note of the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention, as a denomination, had a membership crisis rolling toward it, and for the most part, didn’t seem to be aware of it.  After a peak of evangelistic activity in the 50′s and 60′s, the denomination’s growth began to slow down, and the thousands of churches that had been started to accommodate the new believers began to see the effects of demographic change, in that the membership began to age, and the available pool of Caucasian, middle class families in the inner cities and suburbs, from which most of the membership was drawn, was declining.  At the same time, the “church culture” solidified around the kind of people who made up the majority of the membership. Unless change occurred, decline was inevitable.

Some change has occurred, and there are places where Southern Baptist churches are seeing strong evangelistic outreach and growing, thriving churches.  Ironically, most of this is happening in the Northeast, Midwest and the far West, areas outside of the traditional Southern Baptist strongholds in the South.  But generally, aside from swapping members, or mega churches draining them out of existing congregations, the growth has stagnated.  I believe there are a couple of reasons for this.  One, traditional evangelism approaches and training people to “witness” has focused on the assumption that the people you are talking to already have some kind of an idea of the subject matter.  That is no longer the case.  Most younger Americans, the under 40 generation, have never been to church, and are not exposed to the “gospel culture.”  So the frame of reference that launches a discussion into the four spiritual laws just doesn’t fall on interested ears.  They’re not convinced that the Bible, or the Christian faith, has anything relevant to offer them.  It’s a different world.  And it makes it difficult for churches that have been built around the way the members have wanted it to be for years to adjust and be evangelistic.

There are some initiatives from NAMB, and from other SBC agencies, that are beginning to shift the focus.  Southern Baptist churches are growing in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and in the far West, though most of them are small, and it takes a while for that to affect the numbers.  There is a new emphasis, with real enthusiasm, and realistic training, to reach the cities.  We will see where these things go over time.

The Influence of Calvinism

The second article I cited deals with the report that the Executive Director’s committee has been wrestling with over the past year.  As expected, the committee, made up of individuals from both sides of the spectrum, called on Southern Baptists to work together over this obstacle.  What that means remains to be seen.  Calvinists will have to stop thinking of non-Calvinists as heretics, and understand that they may wind up serving a church that has a minority of members who belong there, but don’t share Calvinist views.  They cannot view the convention’s institutions and agencies as places to advance their own theology.  Non-Calvinists, likewise, will have to acknowledge that the convention works best when it is shared, not dominated.  This is a beginning point.  There will be a lot of discussion down the road, and it will have to involve a lot of people who have a stake in the convention.  This isn’t the first time Southern Baptists have had to have this kind of discussion as a denomination.  It’s part of congregational rule and local church autonomy, both principles which I believe are consistent with the way the founders of the early church intended it to be.  So the discussion is worth the effort.

Now you might think, “Why is he writing about the SBC?  Isn’t he now a member of a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church?”  Yes, I am.  But you can’t be involved in a denomination for virtually all of your life, except for three years, and not still be interested.  I still work and serve with Southern Baptists, I hold a graduate degree from one of the seminaries, and that has provided me with the educational background necessary for me to do the work I am now involved in.  In this part of the country, the lines between different branches of conservative, evangelical Christianity are quite blurred, and the Southern Baptist churches I’ve visited up here are a mixture of individuals from different denominational backgrounds, attracted to Southern Baptist congregations which uphold the authority of the Bible, and use it as their primary text in preaching and teaching.  The Alliance shares a lot of common theology and beliefs.  It may well be that I will join and serve in a Southern Baptist congregation again at some point in my life.  So I like to keep up with what’s going on.

 

The American Definition of “Tyranny”

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word tyranny as

a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially: one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state  and b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

It’s nice to have a dictionary definition of a term like this.  It provides a point where perspective can be regained, and sanity can be maintained when a term is overused, abused, politicized and redefined to suit one’s self.

If you wanted to argue that the possibility exists for Americans to become subject to tyranny of the government kind, I wouldn’t disagree with the premise.  However, I think it is important to note that we do live in a democracy, we have a strong republic with a carefully crafted system of checks and balances, and while it is not perfect, and the flaws of human nature have entered into the picture, putting the system to the test, it is far from being tyrannical, and far from the point which would cause Americans to experience tyranny.

Some groups of people in this country have indeed experienced tyranny while living and working here.  Even though it is found in the constitution, the idea that all men are created equal has had to be defined and redefined, including the definition of the term “men” and who it applies to.  But the general direction of our whole culture, society and government system has always been moving forward, becoming more inclusive, and becoming less prone to tyranny.

So why are there so many people whining about the way things are, and using the term like it is the most common word in the dictionary?

Being on the losing side of an election, as an individual and as a political party, does not entitle you to use the term “tyranny” when the other side wants to do something you disagree with.  We live in a democratic republic, and the principle of one person, one vote elects politicians who then, within the limits of the constitution, head in the direction of doing what they perceive is the will of the people based on the fact that they got the most votes.  A majority that consistently controls the outcome of elections in specific places over and over can seem tyrannical.  But the constitution prevents that from happening by protecting the freedom and rights of the minority from oppression, regardless of what the majority votes to do.  That’s one of those checks and balances built into the system.  You might not like what your city or county or state government does, and it may seem that your vote is futile in bringing about change, but regardless, your rights are still intact and you are protected from oppression because you are a dissenter.  It’s a point that many Americans don’t understand, others prefer not to point out because it doesn’t lend credence to their argument,  and still others want to supress because if it is equally applied, it means that people who practice different religions, or are of a different race, or a different national background can still be who they want to be, and they don’t have to conform.

What we are hearing, mostly from small groups on the extreme right, is a lot of noise, and not much substance.  The current administration hasn’t made any kind of a move to restrict the second amendment right to bear arms.  Universal background checks and limits on the ability to purchase guns without them is not a restriction of rights, and there is no way an argument can be twisted to make that the case.  The word “tyranny” is being used, not necessarily to accurately describe what is happening, but as a political weapon to attempt to affect how voters will cast their ballots down the road.  Perhaps, in some cases, it is also being used to justify planned illegal actions or civil disobedience, built around the supposed constitutional provision of the right to bear arms being for the purpose of rising up against a tyrannical government.  I see nothing that the government is now doing that would qualify as tyrannical oppression, justifying any kind of taking up of arms against it.  Nothing that is happening now meets the dictionary definition of the word.

The founding fathers did put the right to bear arms in the constitution as a hedge against tyranical government, but they did not envision that as being our own.  What they were afraid of, in those early years of the American constitutional republic, was that it could fall victim to the influence of the heavyweight European monarchies, in spite of the fact that the Americans had defeated the British (with French help).  France, Britain and Spain were world powers who all owned large tracts of land on the North American continent.  That’s who they feared.  Their own government was subject to complete change every six years.  It still is.

There is a remote chance that a dictatorship could emerge our of our constitutional republic, but it is very remote.  The structure of the government makes it virtually impossible for any kind of movement in that direction to get any traction.  It is rare for one political faction to have a large enough majority in Congress to bring about the kind of changes necessary for it to happen, and the kinds of decrees and suspensions of constitutional law that would be required to bring it about do not exist.  In Nazi Germany, the structure of the Weimar Republic, with its multi-party system, coalitions required for effective government, along with the quirky system of a directly elected president with the power to appoint a chancellor based on the legislative majority, was a set up for takeover by a dictator, especially one who had a well-armed, well trained private army ready to instigate civil disobedience at a moment’s notice.

It really does sound like whining when the side that lost the election gripes about tyranny when the winning side launches its legislative agenda.  Even then, there are plenty of checks and balances to make sure that the majority does not become tyrannical, and that the rights of the minority are completely protected.  It is rare, in our system, for a single political party to dominate, and even when they do, it is rare for them to have a large enough majority to pass legislation without some support from the other side.  But even if that happens, it’s not tyranny.  It is the expressed will of the people through their elected officials.  It only becomes tyranny when the other side doesn’t have the right to speak up in opposition.

The biggest enemy of the constitutional republic is not liberalism, nor is it conservativism.  The biggest enemy of it is ignorance.  The lack of knowledge of the contents of the constitution, its interpretation and application, among Americans in general is beyond appalling.  The condition of the historical knowledge and awareness of generations of Americans is pitiful.  That enables the propagandists of our day, in the form of talk radio deejays, to manipulate people in ways that lines their pockets with cash, and feeds their ego with political power.  When talk show radio hosts sitting behind a microphone can manipulate people to get certain individuals nominated for political office, ignorance is winning the battle.

And that’s a very real, and very dangerous threat to the stability of our constitutional republic.

Politics and Religion Together: Which one Prevails?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/is-loyalty-to-msnbc-or-fox-news-more-critical-to-church-membership-than-jesus-is-lord–cms-20713

Any kind of analysis that would attempt to determine how things have developed in our culture to bring us to the point where we begin to think of our churches in terms of what divides us, and not what brings us together, would be a difficult undertaking, and would probably lead to conclusions that would be even more divisive.  I’ll concede that there probably are a lot of people who choose a church based on one or more of the factors mentioned in the cited article.  We choose churches for a lot more reasons than that, none of them consistent with the mission and purpose of a church as it is found in the Bible.

I think there is plenty of evidence which points to what happens to a church when it acquires members based on factors other than their sense of spiritual leadership and calling.  They grow large, and utilize their resources to attract more members their way, from other churches.  They attract new members by what services and benefits they can offer, not by what ministry opportunities they can provide for members to use their spiritual gifts.  They become gigantic “sit and listen” operations.  It becomes all about the “Sunday morning experience,” which, in some places, involves a congregation sitting and listening to a pastor preaching from a central location to “satellite campuses” so that, instead of finding a local body, people who want to choose a church based on its political perspective, or on the popularity of its pastor, can do so without the inconvenience of having to drive out of the community where they live.

That’s where we are.  And if that’s the case, then do we really have a church, or is it simply a group of people who share someone else’s perspective of what defines a “Christian worldview”?  If you’re looking for an explanation as to why something that has been as influential in American culture, as the Christian church has been, is rapidly losing ground and influence, not to mention membership, there’s one.

My political opinions and views often do not match the pre-packaged list of expectations which comes with what is frequently called either the “religious right” or a “Christian worldview”, both terms used interchangeably to mean the same thing politically.  I seriously doubt that anyone else’s match up consistently all the time, either.  But there’s no chance that any kind of healthy dialogue will take place, because we are intimidated into silence, fearing that our views will cost us relationships, or the ability to participate and exercise our spiritual gifts in the body of Christ.  Now I don’t believe that political opinion should dominate the discussions in church group gatherings, but churches identified by secular political preferences or issues are symptoms of an illness.  How can a church teach the principle of honesty if its members can’t be honest about the way they think?

A long time ago, I determined that I would not be part of a group claiming to be a Christian church if secular politics were preached from the pulpit.  This includes everything from heavily hinting at support for, or endorsement of, a political candidate or party, to direct mention of such in official church gatherings like Bible study groups, home groups, or the pulpit in the worship service.  I’ve been fortunate in that I have belonged to churches where walking out as a result of that determination hasn’t been necessary.  That’s anectodal evidence,  but I think it is a good sign that I haven’t experienced this in the last three churches to which I have belonged, spanning more than a 20 year period.  At two of those churches, people were confident enough in their ability to hold their own political opinion that some members put bumper stickers for presidential candidates on their cars, and in both cases, they represented both major party candidates running at the time.

We must, and I emphasize that again, we must teach each generation of Christians about their family heritage in the church.  Your reason for investing your life in one should have nothing to do with how you feel about it, or how well they do worship, or how much you like the preaching or the preacher, or how many programs they have in place to serve you or your family, or what political views you hold.  The Bible says that church membership is a matter of God’s sovereign will, and he will lead you to a church by his Holy Spirit based on the spiritual gifts you can exercize that will enhance and expand their ministry.  It’s not about you.  Let me repeat that.  It’s not about you. 

Music from Within: The Legacy of Hazel Dickens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ARJ9UoFa5U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg2sanFi0m8

You would have to understand my family background, along with my childhood and my upbringing, to figure out my taste in music.  First of all, I’m an adopted child, born in Phoenix and raised in a small town in Cochise County, Arizona.  My parents were both natives of West Virginia, who had migrated to Arizona in the early 1950′s because of the job growth.  So I was raised in two cultures.  One, the cowboy culture of Cochise County, and two, the mountain culture of West Virginia, the latter of which was a major influence in our home.

So the few stations that you could get on the radio broadcast mostly what we would call classic country music, mixed in with a little bit of bluegrass.  The closest station with the clearest signal was owned by Rex Allen, and I think they had a record collection they had collected in the 50′s and 60′s and just played over and over, not bringing in a whole lot of new music.  We could also pick up a couple of “rock” stations from Tucson, KTKT, known as “Channel 99,” and KIKX 58.  So my music tastes were a blend of those, along with the genuine mountain and hillbilly bluegrass from the stacks and stacks of records that my parents owned.  Outside of the mountain music, Lawrence Welk and Perry Como rounded out their music collection.

I went to my first bluegrass festival in 1976.  It was the fourth of July weekend in Williamson, West Virginia, a coal mining town buried as deep in the Appalachians as you can get without coming out on the other side.  There’s a sound with mountain bluegrass that sets it apart from other forms of music.  The singers are full voice, pushing the notes out with force, a piercing, penetrating sound with a few vocal nuances that capture you and bring you right into the song.  It’s music that comes from deep inside.

Hazel Dickens is, perhaps, the best example of this kind of music.  She was a preacher’s daughter, raised in the Primitive Baptist Church in the deep hills of Southern West Virginia.  Like so many others from the same area, she left home at 16 and made her way to Baltimore and Washington, DC to live with siblings who were already there, working in the factories.  Her musical talent soon led to playing and singing with others who had left the mountains to seek a better life elsewhere.  Her career, in what most professionals would call a limited genre, inspired other female singers in the Country and Western genre like Emmylou Harris and Kathy Mattea, who were superstars.

Hazel’s music reflected who she was.  She wrote and sang songs about life in the hills of West Virginia, which revolved around the Primitive Baptist Church where her father preached.  She wrote songs of praise to God, and expressing her faith in Jesus.  She discovered that, even in factory work, or in the businesses where she was employed in Baltimore and Washington, working class employees were often underpaid, overworked and poorly treated.  Combining that experience with her knowledge of the hard life and working conditions of coal miners in her native state, she became an advocate for workers everywhere, writing songs about coal mining and powerful pieces like “They’ll Never Keep Us Down,” about the struggles of miners to form unions, and the better life that they promised.

Being a working man’s son, that music resonates with me.  The picture Hazel paints in her music is far from that of the agitating union activist, anti-business, semi-communist perspective that the media portrays.  She understood the suffering and the hardships, and she understood that the lack of education and sophistication of the coal mining community, and their dependence on their employer not only for a job, but in many cases for housing and food, left them in miserable debt and at a clear disadvantage.  She also understood the dangers involved, and the seeming lack of concern on the part of mine owners for the safety of their workers.  This is expressed in a genuinely emotional rendition of “The Mannington Mine Disaster,” which she wrote in memorial to 78 miners who were burned alive in an explosion.

The pacifist inside me resonates with her songs that promote peace.  “Will Jesus Wash the Bloodstains from Your Hands” is almost a hand-clapping gospel song you could sing in church, and the Primitive Baptists, who are generally considered as consciencious objectors, probably did sing it.  If Hazel were still writing music today, I guess she’d probably be promoting universal health care.

But when I listen to Hazel’s music now, I think of my parents.  They’ve both gone on to be with the Lord, and I live within an easy hour and a half’s drive of where they grew up.  I’ve had some great afternoons, driving into those rolling hills, with Hazel’s music playing in the car, songs like “West Virginia My Home,” “The Green Rolling Hills of West Virginia,” and “Hills of Home.”  They, too, left West Virginia’s green, rolling hills, a place they loved, with family they loved, to find a better life out west.  Now, in my spare time, I try to connect with the family members that are left there, and just enjoy feeling the hills around me.

I’m surprised that the state hasn’t adopted those songs all as official state anthems.  Hazel also went home to be with the Lord recently, and when I hear those songs now, I can imagine she’s met my parents, and they are gathering in a circle of people from West Virginia, remembering the hills of home.

He was “becoming more Radicalized…”

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your brothers,^[a] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  Matthew 5:43-48, ESV

These words are from the passage of scripture in Matthew known as “The Sermon on the Mount.”  It was probably more of a collection of the common themes of Jesus’ preaching in several places.  The theme expressed in this passage is the very core of the Christian faith, the visible expression of acceptance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin, and the very essence of being committed to Jesus.

Love your enemies.  That’s about as radical as it gets.

The Christian faith is built on a foundation of systematic theology that has God appearing in the flesh, in the person of Jesus his son, to bring salvation to his fallen creation.  The belief system is systematic because it moves outward from the virgin birth, sinless life, death, burial, resurrection and promised return of Jesus.  The path that believers follow leads to what is called an abundant spiritual life which provides a connection and a relationship to God while the physical life experiences the realities of a fallen creation.  The Bible, which is considered the authoritative source of God’s revelation of himself to humanity in written form, defines and describes the spiritual life.  This particular passage is the most defining feature of what I will refer to as the Christian life.

First of all, it is a quote from Jesus himself.  One of the principles of the systematic nature of Christian faith is that what Jesus said, and the examples he provided, are the primary substance of faith.  He is the foremost authority on Christianity, so to speak.  But the frequency of which this particular principle is brought up all through the New Testament is another indicator of just how important the idea expressed here is to the very core and essence of being Christian.  Jesus keeps coming back to this principle in numerous ways.  He declares that loving your neighbor as yourself is one of the two greatest commandments given by God.  He defines “neighbor” as the next human being with whom you come in contact.  Two of the more prolific New Testament authors, Paul and John, both go to great lengths to make sure their readers know that the strength of their Christian faith is measured by the way they treat other people.  In Romans 12, Paul declares that one of the marks of a true Christian is genuine and sincere love, and that blessing those who persecute you is a demonstration of that love.  In I John 4, there is a flat out declaration that he who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  Next to believing and testifying about Jesus, John says that unqualified love for others is how we know that we abide in God, and that God abides in us.

So where does that leave us when it comes to Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev?

I’m not talking about a government, or law enforcement response.  They did something terrible, committed several crimes in the process, and whatever consequences come about as a result of that are justified.  I’m talking about taking this particular principle from the gospel of Jesus, and applying it in this particular situation.  Loving your enemies, demonstrating the kind of unconditional love for all humanity that God did through Jesus, becomes exponentially difficult in this circumstance.

It becomes impossible.

The term “radical Islam” and the process of radicalization have climbed onto the radar screen in our circumstances since 9-11.  Let’s be honest, as American Christians, we don’t have a high threshold of tolerance for people who practice other world religions.  In fact, we don’ t have a very high level of tolerance for Chrsitians whose beliefs and doctrines aren’t exactly in line with our own.  So Radical Islam, which is defined as that segment of the Muslim faith that resorts to terrorism to accomplish its ends, poses a particularly difficult dilemna for Christians who are trying to be Christlike.  I don’t think there would be much argument with the statement that it is probably the polar opposite of the Christian faith that Jesus established.

You’re probably waiting for me to tell you how Christians should deal with radical Islam, and specifically, with Dzokhar Tsarnaev.  I know the theoretical answer to the question.  But I think this does give us something to think about that might stretch our faith.  How do we make a difference?  In the face of hatred, and violence, how do we put this basic Christian principle, this defining characteristic of Christianity, into practice?

With God, all things are possible.  Think about it.

 

Why Conservative Christians are Losing the Same-sex Marriage Argument (Part 2)

I intended to post this second part more than a week ago.  Unfortunately, I got busy, and lost a weekend to a continuing education session from which, at age 55, I can now sort of see the light at the end of the tunnel.  A lot of things happened in that period of time, the background check bill proposal and failure, the Boston bombing, income tax day coming and going, and it was hard to get focused on writing on this topic again.  But, I’m back, so here goes…

Beyond the indoctrination that is provided courtesy of the public school system, there are some things that Christians have done to themselves which have limited their effectiveness in swaying public opinion on this issue.

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. ² For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³ heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, ⁴ treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵ having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. ⁶ For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, ⁷ always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. ⁸ Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. ⁹ But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.”   2 Timothy 3:1-9, ESV (emphasis mine)

“ For the time is coming when people will not endure sound^[a] teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, ⁴ and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ESV

We’re back on education again.

It is a natural tendency, coming straight out of the sinful nature of humanity, to re-define Biblical principles that don’t fit with our own philosophy of life.  Even if we’ve experienced a conversion by coming to the cross and receiving the atonement of Jesus for our own sin, at the same time receiving the Holy Spirit in our own spirit which sanctifies us and gives us the means to live in holiness, the natural tendency is to soft-petal sinful behavior, and justify ourselves rather than depending on God to do it.  In American Christianity, we do this through our ivory tower academics.  We have accumulated a nice collection of colleges and universities to sift through the Bible and determine for us which parts of it to take seriously, and which parts of it to ignore because it is just a reflection of ancient culture and is no longer relevant.  Frankly, many Christians are just to lazy to try to figure things out with the tools that God has given them, including that indwelling Holy Spirit.  The academic faith that we have developed is embarassed by references to spiritual mindedness.

So it is that the ivory tower academics have determined that true Christianity doesn’t need to rely on “ancient, sacred stories” to determine or define sin, but rather, to rely on feelings that reflect the loving side of God’s nature.  So how does that affect public opinion on the issue of gay marriage?

Well, it shows the world a divided church.  The loudest, most visible voices which tend to get a public media platform are generally those who accept the humanist version of Christianity, and proclaim that there is nothing wrong with two people of the same gender entering into a God-initiated relationship of marriage.  To them, God’s perspective on the matter, because it is only reflected in ancient cultural expression, is simply not valid.  Their claim, that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, and therefore there is nothing wrong with it, is as bogus as the thought that the Bible really doesn’t define marriage because there is such a wide variety of marriage represented in the Bible, including plural marriages.  Neither of those statements reflects an accurate interpretation of the scripture, which, in fact, is God’s perspective on the matter.  The Old Testament clearly defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, in the early part of Genesis.  Jesus cites this passage as being authoritative, and Paul also cites it.  Jesus clearly teaches us that following the law doesn’t lead to salvation, but that the law does indeed define sin, and he endorses all of it, including the passage in Leviticus that declares homosexuality to be sinful.

The other problems stem from the behavior of conservative, Evangelical Christians.  They’ve depended on a political party to deliver a political solution that reflects their perspective, but they’ve failed to hold the politicians accountable for their failure to deliver the solution.  Instead, they’ve provided support for all of the other partisan political issues that their party has asked of them, and in so doing, painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot now escape.  Whether it is an accurate depiction or not, conservative evangelicals are castigated as supporters of, and shills for the corporate elite and the wealthiest 1%.  That weakens their moral argument, because it looks like they don’t really have a problem with the sinfulness of the greed and selfishness that is supported by right wing politicians.  Isn’t one sin supposed to be just as bad as another?

And the bottom line is that the numbers are no longer there.  Christianity in America is now centered in the older generation.  The churches are aging and declining.  The young people in the churches themselves are leaving, in droves, at around age 20 or 21, and less than a third of them will make an attempt to go back, with only a fourth of them succeeding.  That doesn’t account for a whole segment of the almost 90% of the generation under 30 that has never been part of the church at all, and most likely never will be.  The idea that “if we can just get all Christians to get behind this issue, think the same way, and vote that way” will not lead to success, simply because if all Christians did unite, they would not have enough votes to make a difference.  And it now appears that the secular side of the political party they have made their home is not going to side with them to put enough votes together to change public opinion, or government practice.  We can’t stop it by using purely political means.

The only path that is now open to making a difference on this issue is the path that should have been the one we’ve taken consistently.  You can’t change someone’s behavior if they haven’t had a change of heart brought about by Jesus blood and righteousness.  Passing a law isn’t going to stop sin.  Only God can do that through his Holy Spirit.  The church is going to have to stop investing gigantic resources in politics, and start investing in evangelism again.  Until that happens, we’re not going to see what we want to see.