God and Politics: Greater than, less than, or equal to?

 I often speak and write about the danger of a too cozy relationship between the Church and political power, but this warning also begs a further question: What is the proper relationship between God and Politics?  The various answers will fall on a continuum from one end of the spectrum that places the Church above earthly power feuds all the way to the other extreme which subjugates the Church to the dominion of temporal power structures.  Some will respond to the 80's sitcom question, "Who's the Boss?" by emphasizing God's sovereignty (an idealist and/or Rationalist position) and others by accepting the limitations of life as we know it (a pragmatic and/or Empiricist position).  Truth be told, when studying philosophy, I always preferred the logic based approach of Descartes or Kant to the observational style of Hume or Locke.  I will focus upon three primary points on this continuum, feel free to carve out a place for others in between or at the ends of the spectrum, the goal is to spur discussion and contemplation, not to squelch it.

1. God < Politics  = Principles are expendable 

One option would be to merge Christian belief and practice INTO the current political goals of a party or system.  This option would be much worse if the system were itself overtly evil, like the German Lutheran Church's acquiescence to Nazi rule, but it still contains pitfalls even if the political philosophy one merges into is not outwardly immoral.  Why is that?  If one's commitment to political goals/methods is greater than one's commitment to God, it will only be a matter of time until that political system goes astray from the principles of faith and requires one to abandon them.  An example that might illuminate this type of arrangement is the 'deal' that Lando makes with Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.  Lando believes he has no choice, that a harsh reality requires him to compromise 'for the greater good', but soon realizes that his 'deal' can be altered at any point because he is subservient.  If you prefer a more classical example, the deal that Dr. Faustus makes with the Devil is a parallel, it too trades temporary benefits for long-term destruction.  While we might typically think of this choice as relevant to Christians living under oppressive regimes that try to force obedience upon them, for examples the Early Church when facing Rome, or Christians in China today, the real danger comes not from an aggressive and antagonistic power structure, but a welcoming one.  The promise of wealth and power are far more dangerous to the Church than the threat of oppression.  If power is more important than principle, where is the basis for criticism of the power structure?  What is the role of the prophet when the Church has handed over authority to political masters?

2. God = Politics = Principles are negotiable 

Option #1 only happens most clearly when dealing with a corrupt political leadership as when Henry VIII removed the Church of England from its relationship with Rome in order to allow himself to obtain a divorce.  An arrangement more likely to occur in 'ordinary' times would be one in which the Church considers Politics to be a partnership, simply a means to an end that can be managed (after all, how often are we really dealing with a Vader?).  In this case, Christian belief and practices are not merged INTO the system, but rather emphasized or minimized in accordance with the current political goals of the party (or a particular leader) that one chooses to partner with.  Criticism isn't excluded, as in #1, but simply muted for the sake of Realpolitik.  Principles and morality are not expendable, but they are negotiable, becoming a part of the game that must be played.  The time will come when the Word of God is weighed against a bargain that must be made (to get legislation passed, or to win an election), and tossed aside.  This arrangement it typified by the actions of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, whose study of the power of Sauron convinces him that the best course of action is not to oppose him (for he sees no hope in victory), but to work with him.  Gandalf, realizing that Saruman has traded morality for power, continues to fight on, even against hopeless odds.  If the Church allows its principles to be dictated to it by popularity (for what is politics but a popularity contest?  Even dictatorships require popularity among the ruling clique), it will forever shift with the needs of the moment.  Most of Church History reflects this middle of the road, pragmatic, view.  There will be times when this partnership seems to be beneficial to the Church, when it yields results, and may even advance worthy causes, but these victories will inevitably give way to setbacks and compromises.

3. God > Politics = Principles are foundational

But what if the Church chose to proclaim Christian belief and practice APART FROM the current political goals of any party?  Such a Church would be beholden to none, would compromise its beliefs for no promise of power.  The Church could then criticize whatever policies and proposals it saw as unjust or immoral, it could support those that align with biblical principles, supporting ideas that it judged to be moral, not politicians or parties.  It could cooperate when politicians chose to align with the Church's goals, engage on its own terms, and do so for God's purpose.  Is such a stance naive?  Impossible in the 'real world'?  Or have too many of the Church's leaders lacked the courage to stand their ground?  The example that comes to mind here is the decision of Steve Rogers, Captain America, to refuse to sign the Sakovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War because he believed that giving up the ability to decide for himself the difference between right and wrong was a dangerous path.  (Yeah, I'm Team Cap when watching that movie.)  There are actually numerous biblical precedents for this stance: When the Prophet Nathan saw that King David had chosen an immoral path, he opposed that path and called the king to question.  When the Prophet Elijah saw that King Ahab and Queen Jezebel had embraced the idolatry of Baal worship, he took it upon himself to oppose the prophets of Baal, earning himself a death sentence from the king and queen in the process.  Likewise, John the Baptist did not consider Herod's role as king to make him exempt from the Law of God and rebuked him for his unlawful marriage (this opposition cost him his life).  Fast forward to the situation described in option #1, that of the German Lutheran Church succumbing to Nazi control, and you see in opposition to this betrayal the faithful work of the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who also lost his life because of this stand).  The Church fulfills its relationship with earthly power most faithfully when it maintains its prophetic ministry of speaking Truth to the powerful, of opposing immorality wherever it originates.  

Are there other options?  The Amish have decided that they'd rather not be involved at all, withdrawing from society, as have the Jehovah's Witnesses (somewhat less dramatically).  While this removal from the questions of power and politics removes the temptation to compromise, it also abdicates the responsibility given to the Church to stand for justice and protect the oppressed.

Isaiah 1:17    New International Version

Learn to do right; seek justice.  Defend the oppressed.  Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Leviticus 19:15    New International Version

“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Psalm 82:3    New International Version

Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

While it is true that the Church is not Israel, and we do not live (nor should we seek to) in a theocracy, the Church still has a role to play in upholding and advocating for morality in the societies and power structures that it finds itself a part of.  What the Church has at times forgotten, especially when offered earthly power, is that God does not accept that the pathway to good can be paved with evil. (Romans 12:21 (NIV)  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.)  

When I was eighteen I strongly considered majoring in political science and seeking to serve my country in the realm of politics.  In the end, I rejected that path for two primary reasons: (1) I hated the idea of constantly asking for money, (2) I knew that I would be forced to choose between proclaiming what was True and Right and thus ending my career at some point when those things were opposed by the needs of the party, or muzzling my beliefs (or worse yet changing them) in order to move ahead.  I don't doubt that thousands of Christian politicians from the local to the federal level struggle with what their faith demands of them, with the demand to compromise principles for the sake of politics.  What if the Church supported them by not playing the political game?  What if the Church offered these politicians an example of moral fortitude that might inspire them to stand for justice even when it wasn't convenient?  

We've never truly seen what the Church could become if it took all of Jesus' teachings to heart.  What would our world look like if Christ's followers really 'turned the other cheek' and 'repaid evil with good'?  We fall short, we repent, we lean upon the Spirit and seek to imitate Christ-likeness better the next time.  Imagine also if the Church truly believed the words of Paul, Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is already sovereign, what if the Church started acting like it knew that to be true?

Philippians 4:8  New International Version

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

  

Sermon Video: Fasting: Jesus' disciples and the New Covenant - Mark 2:18-22

 In response to a question about why his disciples were not observing the Jewish custom of fasting, Jesus explains that his time with them is akin to a wedding celebration, a festive occasion for which fasting would be inappropriate.  What is fasting?  Abstaining from food, and sometimes also drink, for a period of time.  The Law of Moses required it for the Day of Atonement, other uses in the Hebrew Scriptures include as part of a person's repentance, in response to a calamity, or in preparation to communing with God (think Moses at Sinai).  These uses remain valid for Christians today, although some denominations emphasis fasting much more than others.  In addition, Jesus explains that what he is doing is both connected to the Covenant of Abraham, AND new enough that it won't fit into that definition without 'tearing' or 'bursting'.  The New Covenant will include Gentiles, have a new revelation of scripture, and the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

 

Every once in a while, you see something that reminds you of how far from the Truth Bible-believing, people of good intentions (giving them the benefit of the doubt on both counts) can be.  An example of which is the recent video by When We Understand the Text, a popular Youtube ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes, whose website states that the scripts of all videos are approved by the elders of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas.  In addition to being incredibly dismissive and tone deaf about racism, the WWUTT team decided to make a video mocking the idea of systemic racism during the fall of 2020, after months of protests around the country (and even around the world) concerning this very subject.  They, evidently, wanted to push back against the ongoing American reckoning with racism; hard.  It isn't difficult to discern how Pastor Hughes and his church leadership feel about any attempts to rectify the racism that exists in America today after watching this video.

I've been aware of the WWUTT series for several years, and have often been bothered by the lack of actual biblical exegesis in these super short videos, especially since the very premise of the series is to consult the Bible for Truth, this latest one is probably the most egregious example to date.

1. To ask the question, "What does the Bible say about..." any modern topic, is both a waste of time, and a not-very-subtle attempt at dismissal.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Bible doesn't use the words rocket or scientist.  Words for things which did not yet exist when a text was written (any text, not just the Bible) will not appear in that text!  The Bible also doesn't mention the internet, does that mean the the moral principles contained in the Bible have no bearing on how people use the internet?  Of course not, so why bring up this obvious lack of  biblical anachronism as your first point if you're not trying to set the tone that the Bible is against whoever is using this 'new fangled' notion called systemic racism?

2. After defining systemic racism, the narrator stunningly concludes that the definition of systemic racism means that everything is racist!

This after the definition that is quoted specifically says that systemic racism is about benefits and disadvantages (thus eliminating anything that doesn't produce one or both of those) designed to help Whites and harm minorities.  If you're going to 'win' a one-sided argument, one of the easiest things to do is to create a Straw Man, a fake version of what your opponent believes that you can then tear down, even though your opponent doesn't say or believe what you've pretended (by way of the Straw Man) that they do.  This is what WWUTT is doing here, citing a definition of systemic racism and then with no proof simply stating that systemic racism means everything is racist, which of course it does not.  This isn't argumentation worthy of a Christian apologist.

3. Follow up the Straw Man with Culture War red meat examples

Rushing past the "systemic racism = everything is racist" false assertion, the video next lists in quick succession four things that are designed to reassure White people that systemic racism isn't real but rather just a silly notion.  These include two decisions by private companies to alter their products (Aunt Jemima syrup and Land 'O Lakes butter), the decision of some realtors to stop calling the main bedroom in a house the 'master bedroom' (a reference to Southern slave masters, or aristocratic masters and servants), and finally the mix-up involving Bubba Wallace and the noose found at the NASCAR track.  None of these items has anything to do with real systemic racism, with real benefits to white and real harms to minorities, but by lumping these Culture War items in with the discussion, a Red Herring is created.  This is, sadly, another form of argumentation not worthy of a Christian apologist.  The next screen then shows a woman outraged at the seemingly never ending things that systematic racism will go after next, an appeal to hysteria, not actual real life.  At no point in the video, are the actual issues of systemic racism (criminal justice, education, voting, housing, healthcare, etc) even mentioned.

4. "That's what happens when you give up the Gospel"

Wow.  So anyone who believes that systemic racism is real has given up the Gospel?  Has walked away from the true Church?  Once again, no proof of this massive assertion is offered, simply another giant leap from talking about syrup bottles to the abandonment of the Gospel.  My apologies to the millions of Black followers of Jesus Christ in this country who know all too painfully that systemic racism is real, you do NOT have to pretend otherwise for the sake of the Gospel; this is a shameful assertion.

5. The claim that the debate over systemic racism doesn't offer any solutions

This is simply laziness.  Many different organizations and individuals have called for reform in the education system, the criminal justice system, and for the protection of voting rights, to name three massive issues that are plagued with ongoing racism, and regarding which, a variety of mitigating efforts are available.  That there is not an immediate and total solution to a problem doesn't make it any less real.  Was the Opioid Crisis in America only real once there were concrete plans offered to curb the devastation it was causing?  Is that crisis any less real because those solutions haven't been 100% effective?  Of course not, but WWUTT wants to dismiss systemic racism as a 'needless argument' on this basis. {Remember, they chose not to mention the real issues of real systemic racism}

6. The use of 1 Timothy's 6:4-5's warning against needless 'quarrels' is both selective and not exegetically sound.

On what basis is this text applied to this case?  Paul was writing to Timothy about internal Church arguments, are we to believe that Paul wanted Timothy to avoid dealing with issues of immorality and evil that infected the Church?  Is it not the function of Church leadership to be concerned with Justice and Peace in society?  Are these really the things that Paul wanted Timothy to clamp down on?  How does the discussion of racism in America in any way fit a definition of a waste of time??  None of these questions are addressed, but 1 Timothy 6:4-5 is offered as a proof text just the same.

7. "Our problem does not have to do with skin, it has to do with sin" makes no sense.

Sin is indeed at the heart of all immorality, this is basic Christian theology.  But, that sin manifests itself in a variety of ways.  What is the purpose behind trying to separate sin from its particular manifestation if not to minimize that particular type of sin?  Would you also say, "Our problem does not have to do with pornography, it has to do with sin" and then go on to say that pornography isn't a real problem??  Racism is a manifestation of sin.  It is the way in which sin is made real in the lives of human beings with darkened hearts.  This is logic similar to that of Pastor Robert Jeffress, which was equally invalid {Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong}.  We, human beings, have a problem with every kind of sin, and wherever that sin shows itself in our lives, and in our society, we must combat it.

8. Acknowledging that the System has faults does NOT eliminate personal responsibility.

I've heard this argument before, and it holds no water.  The classic example is the Nazi Final Solution and individual German SS soldiers.  Were they not responsible for murder because the system gave them orders to kill?  Acknowledging that individual responsibility, would anyone then say, 'Don't blame the Nazi system, its the individuals who are the real culprits'?  And yet, the WWUTT video puts forth the argument that if we acknowledge that the System (whether that be Educational, Criminal Justice, Housing, etc) has immoral structures or policies we are somehow removing personal responsibility.  This is utter nonsense, and yet another Red Herring.  Systems, created by sinful people, will contain within them immorality.  It is inevitable because they're created by flawed human beings.  Are we to never correct these errors, never to try to mitigate the effect of human sinfulness in society, or should we just ignore them when the system's flaws are related to racism?

I don't understand what Pastor Hughes is hoping to accomplish with this video, but it is flawed from beginning to end, will be used by those who wish to minimize racism, and will send a message to our Black brothers and sisters in Christ that White Christians in America really don't care about the racism they've experienced.  Therefore, I categorically reject the message of this video, from beginning to end.

Sermon Video: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:13-17

After preaching yet again to large crowds, Jesus decides to add to his group of disciples by making an unorthodox addition: the tax collector Levi (Matthew).  After this stunner, for the tax collectors were viewed as traitors and thus outcasts in Jewish society, Jesus goes a step further and has dinner with Levi and his friends.  The Pharisees, shocked by this co-mingling with 'sinners' ask for an explanation.  Jesus famously replies, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, bu the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Jesus reaches out to society's outcasts, 'lost causes', and villains, hoping to find there those who recognize their lost state who might be willing to repent.  Jesus calls us to do likewise, finding ways to connect with those who aren't like us, remembering the grace we have received, that we too might help the 'sick' find the Great Physician.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.

This trend has been a long time coming within American Evangelicalism, and we have seen similar claims before, but Pastor John MacArthur, one of Evangelicalism's most noteworthy leaders, has declared that in 2020, in order to be a "real true believer" you can only vote for one political party. {John MacArthur interview, quote at 5:44 mark} {John MacArthur says 'true believers' will vote for Trump, can't affirm abortion and trans activism - by Michael Gryboski, the Christian Post}

The question, as John MacArthur is framing it is not, "Which candidate/party more closely adheres to Biblical principles and Christian ethics?"  But rather, "Are you a real Christian or not?"  These are monumentally different questions revealing a significant difference in Christian Worldview.  The first is a position of Grace that realizes that in this world we have no perfect choices, that every vote taken by a committed Christian is an act of compromise, for no candidate, and no party, can truly represent the leadership ideal embodied by Jesus, nor the fullness of his command to us, John 15:12 (NIV) "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."  In other words, a position influence by Grace and Christian Liberty will recognize the anguish felt by many Christians, both now and in generations past, when choosing between two imperfect choices, and would even recognize the possibility that a Christian might, in obedience to his/her own conscience and with principled understanding, choose to vote on the basis of other moral issues than the three or four MacArthur considers to be primary, might vote for a third party candidate, or even to NOT vote at all.  The second position reflects a binary (only two choices) position of Law: "either you're with us or against us."  There is no room here for discussion, debate, or nuance.  The choices are light and dark, good and evil, only a fake Christian (still then, presumably NOT redeemed and still headed toward Hell) could think otherwise.
This is not the first such binary choice that John MacArthur has embraced recently.  Following the controversial reopening of Grace Community Church for in-person worship {links to my two responses below}, Pastor MacArthur declared that churches that obeyed government mandates were not real churches, their leaders not real shepherds. {Excerpt from 1st sermon after reopening: “There has never been a time when the world didn’t need the message of the true church,” he said. “I have to say, ‘true church.’ I hate to think of that, but there’s so many false forms of the church. Let them shut down.” Evangelical pastor John MacArthur suggests churches that remain closed during COVID-19 are not “true” churches}.  A pattern of adding to the list of things that differentiate, in John MacArthur's opinion, true Christians/churches/pastors from false one is growing.
1. How any Christian votes is NOT a test of faith.
I know that John MacArthur takes Martin Luther's Five Solae seriously, in this case Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, so why is he (inadvertently?) adding to the Reformation's declaration the need for 'real true' Christians to vote the way he believes they must?  Instead of judging John MacArthur's intentions, let me simply observe that it has becoming increasing evident that he believes that the Church is on the precipice of a cliff, that America is lurching toward oblivion, and that these increased stakes have seemingly resulted in increasingly politically partisan stances. 
Here's the thing, even if everything John MacArthur believes about the Democrat Party is true, even if the Republican Party are the saviors of America, even if there is only one morally acceptable way for Christians who respect the authority of the Bible to vote, that would still fall far, far, far short of being a way to determine who is a genuine Christian and who isn't.  One of John MacArthur's regular emphases is (rightly) the sufficiency of Scripture {Sola Scriptura}, but where in Holy Scripture does it tell us that we can judge the sheep and the goats by how they vote?  Matthew 25:31-16 contains a dire warning from Jesus that God will separate the true believers from the frauds on the basis of acts of charity toward those in need, for these actions (or lack thereof) will be sufficient to demonstrate who is living by faith and who is not.  What Jesus doesn't mention, nor does any other NT writer, is a civic test of faith.  The reason for this is pretty straightforward:
2. Our citizenship is in Heaven.
One of the inconsistencies of John MacArthur's very public, and very partisan insistence upon opening up his church's 3,000 seat sanctuary without any social distancing and without masks {John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation} {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response} is his very clear repudiation of the idea that Church and State have overlapping jurisdictions.  He even went so far as to write, "the church does not in any sense rule the state."  And yet, at the exact same time that he is fighting the state of California in court, and doing interview after interview in support of that fight, John MacArthur is also declaring that every "real true believer" in America is required to vote for one particular political party.  You can't have it both ways, either there is separation of Church and State or there isn't.  You cannot posit simultaneously time that Christians must be allowed by the government to do their own thing, without any restrictions, and that Christians should be intimately involved in the way in which government is run.  How can we be on the outside, and in charge, too?
In the end, whoever wins in November will have ZERO impact upon whether or not you, me, or John MacArthur is welcomed into heaven with the phrase, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" (Matthew 25:23). 
Why can't our civic responsibilities be the basis of judging our faith?  Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.  That I was born an American has nothing to do with my standing before Almighty God.  It doesn't help me or hurt me in any way.  That 95% of the world's population was not given this blessing at birth, has nothing to do with their standing before Almighty God.  Each and every genuine follower of Jesus Christ has a superseding citizenship, has been adopted into a heavenly family.  The Word of God has chosen to define its own tests of faith, to tell us how we can judge ourselves, and how we can evaluate others.  We have no right to add to that list.