Me with my lovely wife, Kathy:
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Saturday, January 18, 2025

On the Eve of the Inauguration:

 When I put my ear to the cultural-ground I hear a mix of sounds. As one who has the privilege of being a "Minister of the Gospel" (I think that's what my ordination certificate says) I need to make sure that I listen to what I hear and speak truth into this cultural moment with wisdom, compassion, and proper tolerance. Here are some things I'm trying to remember. Perhaps they'll jog your thinking as well.

  1. Politics is always messy. By that, I mean that no candidate or government official is all good or all bad. From a Biblical perspective, some are in closer alignment with what is right, while others are seriously out of line. I need to resist the urge to "gush" over those with whom I agree and acknowledge that most of the time those with whom I disagree have some redeeming quality. I need to be cautious about joining the cheering crowd on the bandwagon and resistant to throwing people under the bus.
  2. All people are God's special creation. They bear God's image and are therefore worthy of respect. While the saying, "Love the sinner but hate the sin," is often overused and wrongly applied, it's not a bad general guideline. 
  3. Yes, a sovereign nation ought to control its borders, and laws need to be respected and enforced. There is growing agreement that sanctuary cities and states are a mistake. Mayor Adams of New York is at least a partial convert.
    But, I have to acknowledge that many immigrants who crossed our border illegally did so for reasons that resonate with me as a husband and father. There are those who were carried across the border as infants. Legally they have no right to be here. Ethically, do I have a right to demand their deportation to a country that is as strange to them as it is to me? I need to avoid overgeneralization on this matter. To quote Micah, I need to, "do justice . . .love kindness, [a]nd . . . walk humbly."
  4. Going back to point 1, in politics, nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong. Mussolini did make the trains run on time. I've had to repent of some of my criticism of the underdressed Senator from PA. Go figure.
  5. As we try to teach our kids when they play sports, I need to win humbly and lose gracefully. The words of Republican President Gerald Ford shared at Democrat President Jimmy Carter's funeral are a great example. These men held political convictions that separated them. Ford's loss to Carter in the Presidential election could have made them lifelong enemies. Instead, they formed a friendship that extended past the grave. Lord, give me that kind of grace.
  6. Chiefly, I need to, whenever I can, avoid doing or saying anything that will detract from my ability to minister the Gospel.
Lord, I need your wisdom,  compassion, and discernment, especially over the next few days. Amen.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

Vote, #2

 In the last post I used the concept of "stewardship" as a descriptor for our right to vote.
Perhaps if we compare our vote to a sum of money entrusted to us--a sum we are expected to invest to earn a profit--it might clarify what we should do with this valuable resource.
Investing for a profit involves research and critical thinking. One must go beyond merely sorting an opportunity as good or bad. One only has so much money. Choices must be measured on a good, better, and best scale. If things aren't going well and the investor has to cut his/her losses, the measurement involves, a "What will do the least harm?" analysis.
Getting back to voting, it's complicated, but we have a responsibility to do our best.

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Vote

 I know I have brothers and sisters who conclude that the proper thing to do is to refuse to participate in government activities, at all. That includes abstaining from voting. I admire these folks' commitment to putting God and His kingdom first, but I disagree.

We have a system of government that is unique from a historical perspective. "We the people" have the privilege and responsibility to make certain decisions essential for our nation's welfare. 

The history of the Old Testament, Judges - Esther clearly show the benefit of righteous leaders and the disaster that wicked kings bring. Proverbs 14:34 sums it up.

Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a disgrace to any people.

I can already hear the protests. "If you show me a righteous candidate, I'll vote for him or her. I share your frustration, but, again, I'd encourage you to look at the records of the Biblical kings. Some of wicked kings on occasion did something right, and none of the righteous leaders were perfect. Like all humans, leaders and candidates for leadership are a mixed bag. I join you in wishing it were otherwise, but we have to choose from what we have. Perhaps that will mean voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning. I have done that. I've concluded, this time around, that voting for someone who has no chance of winning is not the best stewardship of my vote.

As I recently heard another pastor put it. "If I don't vote for the least worst, I may be helping the worst worst to win." That may not impress you, but it did me.

I encourage you to look at a post I wrote a while back, "Vote Ontologically."

Lord willing, I'll follow up with some other thoughts between now and next Tuesday, but, for now. I'll just share this:
Vote.

Tuesday, August 13, 2024

Vote Ontologically

 I realize that Albert Mohler is a somewhat polarizing figure for some of us. I find myself alternating poles depending on what he says at any given time. I suppose I would describe myself as agreeing with him most of the time, but sometimes recoiling at what comes across to me as arrogance. A fellow pastor probably captures it best by calling Dr. Mohler, "tone-deaf." He sometimes wades into issues involving people groups he is not a part of and makes strong statements to groups when he was not invited. 

Still, I often listen to Mohler's "Briefing." I've read a couple of his books and find him generally helpful. I found today's (8/13/24) briefing to be particularly so. It's based on ontology. While I'm not a philosopher, I'll stretch and say, "Ontology is the study of/the thinking about/the dealing with matters of reality. " When we go into a three-year-old's room late at night and lovingly tell them, "No, honey, there are no monsters under your bed," we are dealing with ontology. We want our child's fears or courage to be based on what really is. Likewise, when we caution our teenager that she can't post that picture on that website because there are people out there who will use it to cause her pain, our concern comes from a sound ontology. Those kinds of people really are out there. We are convinced of their reality by solid evidence.

So, though you don't use the word every day, sound-thinking, regular folks constantly deal with ontological questions. We may build imaginary palaces in our imaginations, but we can't live in them. Accepting that reality may be hard, but the imaginary floor of a pretend mansion won't support the weight of a real life. The fall is hard.

I encourage you to listen to Mohler's briefing for today because he challenges us to think about reality concerning the current election cycle. He acknowledges that there are no easy decisions, but he reminds us that there are basic realities that need to be considered. The decision that must be made is ontological.

  • Are unborn children truly human?
  • For that matter, is human life really worth any more than any other kind of life?
  • Is female and male a real thing?
  • Is there a standard of marriage that is universal, or are cohabitation and procreation just matters concerning which everybody gets to make up their own definitions?
I could go on. 

Mohler doesn't mention Moses, but his piece reminds me of truths that come from two visits that Moses had with God on Mt. Sinai. The first is in Exodus 3, when

from the burning bush God declares Himself to be "I Am"--the ultimate reality. The second is found in Exodus 20, when the I Am God gives Moses the Ten Commandments. Are these based on reality or are they like like the rules ten-year-old boys make up for their clubhouse? If behind these laws given to Israel there are basic realities, then, like the child who is afraid in the night, or the teen who doesn't know the realities of the online world, I am foolish--even sinful--if I ignore them.
I could almost hear a nasal twang in Mohler's voice. Clearly, he had to hold his nose as he shared his conclusions. I'll not go as far as he did. That's probably above my pay grade. I'm not going to tell you what to do. I am urging you to do what you do based on reality.  
Vote Ontologically. There's a bumper sticker for you!

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Is 80 to Old for the President of the USA? What About Me?

 Listening to the news this morning, I heard several talking heads bring up the question about whether the President, Joe Biden, and the leading Republican candidate, former President, Donald Trump are too old to serve as leader of the United States.

In spite of the fact that at 73 years of age, I find myself saying, "I resemble that," this is a question that needs to be considered. To put it in the bluntest terms, we don't want someone having a "senior moment" when they push the nuclear button. To push things to the other extreme, though, I sure don't want to give a young hothead the opportunity to start a nuclear holocaust, either. The founding fathers of our republic recognized the need for maturity when they put an age threshold in place for the presidency. Those less than 35-years-old need not apply.

For the record, according to the National Park Service, "The average age [of those who wrote our constitution] was about 45 years. The youngest, Dayton, at 26, was one of three men in their twenties, the others being Spaight and Charles Pinckney. Eleven were in the thirties, 13 in the forties, and 8 in the fifties. Jenifer, Livingston, and Sherman were in the sixties, and Franklin was in his eighties." Dr. Franklin as he was known, one of the most respected minds in the world of his day, was in the time of life of the two current leading candidates to be our next president. Perhaps a case could be made that half-a-Franklin is better than about any politician available to us today, but that's a discussion for another day. I will say, if Ben were running today, I think I'd have more problems with his dalliances with younger women, to whom he was not married, than about the number of candles on his birthday cake.


Is an 80-year-old, qualified to be president?

Leading a nation, or any other organization for that matter, requires not only knowledge but wisdom. We tend to associate wisdom with age. Yet, we all know older folks who have only grown more bitter, prejudiced, angry, and deeper in their rut with each passing year. 

Leadership, likewise, requires knowledge. In our lightning-quick, changing world, keeping up is often associated with youth. I seldom meet someone in their 70s and beyond, who says things like, "Now that I've gotten older, I master new skills more easily,"  "I find my memory has improved." or, "I'm mentally quicker than I've ever been."

Yet, on an intellectual level, I have found as I have grown older, that the smartest, quickest, person in the room is not always the rightest. I think the ideal leader is one in whom there resides enough knowledge and intellect to follow and sufficiently understand new situations, problems, and proposed solutions, and who possesses enough wisdom and has a well-enough-tuned moral compass to decide what is best and right. 

If we accept what is obvious to all of us of a certain age, that, slow though it may be, mental acuity like physical prowess declines with age, while if we pay attention and don't let negative emotions dominate wisdom increases, then somewhere in the intersection of those two graph-lines there is a sweet spot. I've yet to meet a 16-year-old who has attained that balance. When I visit the nursing home I meet folks who are well past it. But where in between those poles is the magic age? The constitution says that the lower limit is 35-years-old (one current candidate for president is only 38). In spite of Dr. Franklin's record, is it time to place a limit at the other end of the age spectrum? Some say it is.

It depends (go with the pun if you want to).

Rather than focus on how old the president should be, I am thinking more about what do I do, what can I do, and what should I do at the age I am? Maybe some of you can help me with this. Maybe we can help one another. Here are some thoughts. I offer them in the hope that my mind is still acute enough to make sense and that my heart is wise enough to understand what really matters and sort better from not-so-much.

  • This one applies to both the young and old. I ought to live my life--especially the part of my life that has to do with learning and self-improvement--in such a way so that when I am older and my knowledge-izer begins to deteriorate or deteriorates more, there is still a reservoir from which my wisdom-ificator can draw. I need to depend on that.
  • I very much need to know the difference between things that are new and better and those that are old and essential. As an older guy I think I'm better off focusing on the latter.
  • I may need to admit that in certain areas I can't keep up anymore. I need to have others--probably younger others--who can tell me what I need to know about the latest and maybe greatest. I may choose not to go there, but I need to know that wisdom and curmudgeonliness are cousins. Go with wisdom.
  • As my ability to hold on to things diminishes, I need to be more careful about what I hold onto.
  • I need to know that it is wise to consider new ideas. For as long as I can, as much as I can, and as effectively as I can, I need to keep learning. I should not, however, waste that precious ability on the trivial.
  • In the same way that I have started using stair rails, I need to have intellectual assist devices. For instance, a search engine provides a quick check for spelling, correct names, dates, and other points of knowledge. It is wise to know that I may not be as smart as I used to be. I need trusted/trustworthy people who can help me on this. 
  • When possible, I ought to maximize collaboration--by the way, I think the same is true for you youngsters. Wouldn't you love to listen in on the conversation that Franklin and those twenty-something constitution writers had?
  • An article I read several years ago suggested that guys like me need to turn loose of the reins of leadership and embrace the mantle of sagacity (those are my words of summary).
  • I need to know when to quit.











  • I need to know when to quit!

Friday, November 18, 2022

2 Articles & a Statement on the "Respect for Marriage" Act:

The two articles, one from a respected Evangelical magazine and the other from a widely read online, Evangelical commentator,  agree on the basic facts of what the act does--mainly codifying recent SCOTUS decisions, particularly Obergefell. The CT article puts a positive spin on it, while Dennison takes a darker view.

I think the CT article is only available to subscribers. You may find it elsewhere. It is by Carl Esbeck.


https://www.denisonforum.org/daily-article/does-the-so-called-respect-for-marriage-act-threaten-our-religious-liberty/


In the Theological sense, I am an Evangelical, the LDS church is not. They have, however, been co-belligerents with us in many of the social battles of our time. The first line of their statement indicates that they still profess to be on our side in regard to a proper definition of marriage. 
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement
I wonder, though, in our age of freedom to worship (in private), but not necessarily freedom to proclaim truth lest it offend, is the Mormon statement a retreat into a sort of modified Benedict Option (HM's brief definition: withdraw, hole up, and hope, wait, and pray for better days).

Not all slopes are slippery, but, clearly, some are. 
Christian leaders need to be wise. All of us need to pray for clear courageous thinking.

Sunday, January 9, 2022

What's wrong in Washington, and beyond?

 I posted a shorter version of this several weeks ago on Facebook. I decided it is worth cleaning up and posting here.

I heard the news this morning that Senator Joe Manchin, from my neighboring state of WV, killed President Bidens Build Back Better Bill.
While I'm so far from being a political pundit that I had to check the spelling of the word, I seriously disagree with that. Further, I don't think the reasoning behind that cause of legislative-death post-mortem is purely, or even mostly, political. It is but one example of the way things are in our world today.
At this point, I'm not saying whether President Biden's bill is good or bad. I am saying that it was killed by one outworking of the extreme partisanship of today's US political landscape, which is but one outworking of the postmodern zeitgeist which is the air which we all breathe.
No doubt there are many good things in the President's expansive proposal. Other things, not so much. It used to be that decisions like this were made on the basis of appealing to people of goodwill to do what is right or more right than wrong, or at least the best we can do in the current circumstances. Statesmen (persons), realizing that no manmade proposal is perfect, weighed the pros and cons. There was recognition that each representative represented a different constituency with a different set of interests. Some representatives had lines of conscience or stubbornness that they would not cross. Deals and accommodations were made. Backs were scratched. While such maneuvering often involved party alignments such legislation was often passed in a bipartisan manner. The common interests that crossed the aisle were of more importance than the partisan, unshared, interests of each side.
As I look out through my keyhole, I see an entirely different scenario. Two party machines meticulously--dare I say ruthlessly--maintain conformity to the party line in ways that differ only in degree from the methods of absolute dictators or Mafia dons. "Do what I say or I will make you suffer." In this encounter, the sides were almost evenly matched. The one vote differential allowed no room for defection. Again, from my perspective, it didn't appear that the expectation was that we can win this because "truth, the welfare of the nation, kindness, and responsibility are on our side." Instead, the expectation of victory was, "We have one more vote than the other side." I quickly add that it also appeared to me that the other side based their hope for victory or defeat on similar mathematical logic. Except.
I'm not arguing whether the Senator from my neighboring state did the right thing. As I look at the situation I don't see any other conclusion than that he thought he was doing the right thing. I figure he will pay a price for it. In that sense we clearly need more politicians like Senator Manchin.

Above the political rhetoric and maneuvering an overall principle reigns, "My party, right or wrong." I hope some lessons are learned from the current impasse. The lessons for those elected to serve us in government should be obvious, but in our eagerness to point our fingers at those we have elected are we neglecting to see how this applies to those of us who do the electing? Do we focus too much on those who are able to get things done and too little on the things they want to get done.? Is it that the people in power aren't doing the right thing or is it that we aren't putting people who think rightly in power? Or, perhaps it is both.
I think clearly the defeat of this mammoth bill points out something that's been obvious, but too seldom spoken, for quite a while, now. His Excellency Emperor Partisan (and I'm not giving this title to any particular person but to the whole syndrome that reigns) is buck naked.

Monday, October 4, 2021

Politics and Brotherhood:

 I had a break from mainland USA & Virginia politics. On Guam, where I spent most of the five years, and in the island nations and states of Micronesia, people take their politics seriously, but it clearly has a different character. There are only 170,000, or so, residents of Guam. Some of the legislative contests in FSM and Palau are decided by electorates of a few hundred or even less. Often the main candidates for a position are relatives. Even on Guam, a US territory, the social group from which candidates are usually drawn is a pretty small club. This familiarity tends to bring a measure of civility. I haven't seen that in the current Virginia contest for governor. The mud is deep. Even though most of you don't live in the Old Dominion, I figure you have a share of the wet, sticky soil in your neighorhood.

As citizens, we have a responsibility to wade through the mud and make the best decision we can. 

As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, those who claim to be Christ-followers have a greater responsibility. The difficult fact of elections is that someone (sometimes several someones) losses. The Body of Christ, however, Democrat, Republican, Independent, abstainers, etc. goes on. In the final analysis, it is the church that will make the ultimate difference in this world. Read John 13:35, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1-3 as examples of what the church can, and should, do.

Lance Witt offers some thoughts on honoring one another within the church. It is a needed reminder. Let's put brotherhood above partisanship.

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Andrew Cuomo, The Fall of the Mighty

 The former (or is it, "soon to be former"?) governor of New York is not on my favorites list.

  1. He is pro-abortion.
  2. He has taken steps to undermine the sanctity of marriage as defined in Scripture.
  3. He is widely reputed to be a strong-armed bully. This, no doubt, has some to do with his recent fall from power.
  4. He has been, until he was recently abandoned by his former allies, a part of a political system that is taking America in a direction I don't like.
You would think I would rejoice at his fall from power. Don't bake a cake yet.

There are all sorts of self-satisfying observations that could be made, from a number of different perspectives.
  • No doubt some will take pleasure in knowing that a powerful man, accused of taking advantage of women is now being replaced by a woman. Kathy Hochul will be New York's first female chief executive. I pray that she will lead the State of New York well.
  • Cuomo tried to make the scandal go away. His arm that had proven strong enough to stiff-arm his way past previous attacks wasn't up to this task. No doubt, many black-eyed opponents of former conflicts are raising a glass to the powerful guy finally getting what's coming to him.
  • Philosophically some purveyors of wisdom-to-live-by feel vindicated. When you use people as stepping stones on the way up, you can't expect them to hold out a hand to you when you are on your way down
In the end, one of the most powerful men in America found himself defenseless and friendless. Out of all the sins available to a man like the governor of one of the most powerful states in the union, Andrew Cuomo was accused, tried in the court of public opinion, and convicted by an unofficial jury (whom I'm confident the former chief exec would regard as not anywhere close to being his peers), of the crime, for which the current zeitgeist affords no defense.

To the list above you would expect that I would take pleasure in Cuomo's eviction from the Executive Mansion (Even the eviction moratorium that Cuomo signed is no help.). Though I'm tempted to let loose with a "Yippee!" I'm resisting. Two reasons:
  1. First, I don't like lynchings. Perhaps I should say I do like some lynchings and that scares me. I realize that what happened to the former governor is not a court of law, but then again it kind-of, sort-of is, isn't it? For some in our culture when a certain accusation is made, the deal is as good as closed. I live in the South. We have an ugly history of taking justice into our own hands. In spite of his political positions, Cuomo perfectly fits the description of the kind of guy who always does what the former governor is accused of doing. To quote countless cowboy movies, "I've heard enough. String him up!" When that happens to someone in my tribe I feel the injustice. In cases like this where I could easily volunteer, "I've got a rope right here in the back of my truck," I need to extend the same caution.  Even if it isn't a real court, the accused deserves to have his day. 
  2. I've been reading a book that reinforces some conclusions I have drawn and been drawing about our postmodern times when there is no longer a widely agreed-upon view of right and wrong. It is a time when each "tribe" contends for its own view. In the lynchings of the past, that I mentioned above, the main evidence was often the color of the accused skin. One was not judged as an individual but as a representative of their group. Comparing the current trend with the tradition, rooted in the Bible, that dominated in the West until recently, author, Scott David Allen, says, "This biblical idea created the West, and none of us can fully imagine the dystopia that would result if we discard it in favor of the dehumanizing idea that individuals don’t exist, and that people are reduced to mouthpieces, drones, or avatars of the groups that define them. In this fraught cultural moment, we need to emphasize what unites us, not what divides us."*
    We need to resist this way of thinking even when--no, "especially when"--this judgment based on what group a person is in results in a verdict that I find agreeable.
Lest someone is tempted to draw some wrong conclusions, let me state categorically:
  • People of whatever gender, race, economic standard, etc. are creatures of God, bearers of His image. As such they deserve respect. If Mr. Cuomo is guilty of what he has been accused of he should suffer the just consequences. That same standard, however, applies to him. That same respect leads me to believe that Cuomo has a right to make his case.
  • I am not denying or doubting that workplace abuse is a common and grievous issue. It is right that systems be put in place to give victims, and those who are easily victimized, the protection they deserve.
  • I realize that those in positions of leadershp are held to a higher standard. In light of that higher standard, it may have been right for Mr. Cuomo to resign. Perhaps we can end on a note of agreement. For the State of New York and perhaps for our nation, at this time, this may have been the best, or "least worst," decision. 
Everywhere, let's follow the Apostle Paul's command, "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Ti 2:1–2). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.)

*Allen, Scott D.. Why Social Justice Is Not Biblical Justice: An Urgent Appeal to Fellow Christians in a Time of Social Crisis (p. 66). Credo House Publishers. Kindle Edition. 

Thursday, May 6, 2021

Some good material on abortion:

 Christianity Today sent this article that features an excellent piece by Most Reverend Salvatore Joseph Cordileone Archbishop of San Francisco.

As a conservative, Evangelical Protestant I found the whole compendium of information confirming and helpful. Here are the links to the items referred to in the emailed article from C.T. followed by some quotations I gleaned from it.

https://albertmohler.com/2021/05/06/briefing-5-6-21?mc_cid=ed527e4864&mc_eid=20aa58364c
or
https://sfarchdiocese.org/documents/2021/5/Pastoral_Letter_LetterSize_0501.1.pdf?mc_cid=ed527e4864&mc_eid=20aa58364c
(This article by Cordileone is excellent)

https://albertmohler.com/2009/01/09/a-chilling-account-and-a-word-of-warning?mc_cid=ed527e4864&mc_eid=20aa58364c

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/world/the-pandemic-may-have-accelerated-the-american-drop-in-birthrates.html?mc_cid=ed527e4864&mc_eid=20aa58364c

”. . . abortion is not a “Christian” or “Catholic” issue: the dignity of the human person is a value that is, or should be, affirmed by us all.”

“Because an embryo is a unique and developing human organism, it follows that she or he possesses an inherent right to life from the moment of conception. Thus, the violent invasion of the act of abortion ends a human life.”

“This does not mean that we seek to impose our religious beliefs on others, but it does mean that our religious understanding of the human person as created in the image and likeness of God deepens our resolve to join hands with others, regardless of religious convictions or lack of them, to serve, teach, heal, and protect the human community, especially those most in need. We share with others the conviction that human dignity is innate; but we also believe it is of inestimable value.”

“Our increasingly polarized and uncivil society manifests a lack of respect for “the other” across a broad spectrum of issues. . . .”

“Formal cooperation in evil is never morally justified. For decades now western culture has been in denial about the harsh reality of abortion. The topic is swathed in sophistries by its advocates and discussion about it is forbidden in many venues.”

There are important lessons here, to be sure.  One lesson must be this:  There will be theologians who seem ever ready to find a way to subvert the teachings of their church, even as they seek to remain in its employ and trust.  The second lesson is like unto the first:  There will ever be politicians who are looking for political cover, and will gladly receive this cover from those willing to subvert their church's teaching.  These lessons are by no means limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

My observation is that people have grown weary of the abortion issue. Other more popular issues now have taken the place of protecting the lives of the unborn in many Christian's thinking. Being-tired-of is not the foundation of good ethics.

Friday, November 6, 2020

The Closing Of, The Slouching Toward, and The Disposal of Unsalty Salt That Led to This Mess

 One of the things, concerning American politics, that I have thankfully observed over the years is the orderly transfer of power that takes place from one election cycle to another. Unfortunately, I see evidence that this might not be the case this time around. Personally, I don't think the chances of wide-spread violence are very high. I definitely don't see a coup in the works, but I can't ignore the recent demonstrations--some of which became riots--or the fact that some businesses and offices in major US cities have proactively boarded up their places of business against the possibility that some might "take things to the street." We pridefully claim that we aren't a "banana republic," but could we just be a republic with more bananas?

During my lifetime, to one degree or another, the United States was influenced by respect for authority, fairness, and the rule of law, that found its roots in Judeo-Christian values. I'm not saying that most of my countrymen of 40, 50, or 60 years ago were Christians (or Jews). They weren't. But, my nation was still strongly influenced by values that were in many cases drawn from Scripture, or from the natural

law that is parallel with Biblical ethics. 

I came of age in the late 60s. As a boy growing up with Beaver Cleaver in the 50s I was aware of President Eisenhower. Mostly I remember that he played golf. He considered himself to a very religious man, but he was not a part of any church. I would say that most of the adults around me in my growing-up years shared that sentiment. It was my dad's view (until he turned back the Lord in a personal way, just after I started college). People had a religion and set of values that were handed to them. Most did little if anything to strengthen that package and make sure it maintained its relevance so it could be passed on to the next generation. 

Two books that helped me, later in life, to see what was going on in my youth are The Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom, and Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by Robert Bork. To use a Biblical picture, our salt became saltless and it was therefore good for nothing except to be thrown out and walked on. Even later, Cornelius Plantinga's book, Not the Way it is Supposed to Be, A Breviary on Sin, helped confirm and tidy up my thinking.

So, what do we do?
  
The simple answer is--and it's not wrong just because it is simple--to do right.

      He has told you, O man, what is good; 
      and what does the LORD require of you 
                  but to do justice, and to love kindness, 
      and to walk humbly with your God? 
(Mic 6:8)

Beyond that, or perhaps I should say, "within that" let me offer a couple of thoughts:
  • Do what you can, where you can. Spend less time railing, or fretting, or rioting about what is going on Washington, or Palikir, or . . . and more time reaching out with kindness to your neighbors.
  • Don't just coast, based on the moral/ethical capital of the past. Live, work, and minister in such a way that you are adding to the supply of salty salt that will help preserve coming generations from the kind of rot we see around us today. 
  • Discipline yourself to discriminate between the person who holds the view to which you object, and the view held by that person. That person is created in God's image, one for whom Christ died, and she or he is a repository of unimaginable potential. That view you despise may be despicable. That person is redeemable.
  • Think! Don't just feel. 
  • Listen more. Talk less.
  • Don't shout (unless you are warning someone of a disaster.)
  • Seek to understand.
  • Be kind.
  • Know that God has gotten along just fine while all kinds of governments and governers functioned in this world. Our hope is in him.
Live for Jesus.

Monday, December 23, 2019

Can We Just All Get Along? Part 1:

Mark Galli, Franklin Graham, and some friends of mine:
I realize that by writing this, I'm taking the role of someone who steps into a domestic dispute. Before I'm done both sides might decide to unite and fight with me rather than each other. I'm motivated to stick my nose in, however, because this is a squabble that is taking place between my friends. Though I've never met either, I regard both Mark Galli and Franklin Graham as friends. I have benefitted from both of their ministries. As soon as the matter hit the fan, so to speak, some of my personal friends began to weigh in. I felt like the host at a Thanksgiving feast when war-veteran Uncle Charlie, just couldn't resist commenting on Niece Suzie's "I love Jane Fonda" sweatshirt and the vegan meal she had packed in for the occasion.
At first, I thought I would write one big peace-making piece. Instead, I'm going to dole out my "wisdom" in bite-size servings. That way you can chew on each serving for a day or two before the next mouthful is served up.
Before I offer my first pacific hors d'oeuvres (note that's a lower-case "p"), let me review what I'm talking about.

  • On December 19, Editor Mark Galli published an editorial in Christianity Today stating, "Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."
  • Whatever is you may think of Galli--I have found him to be often helpful in pulling together various strands of thought in the Christian world--he is no dummy. I'm not saying that it was Galli's intention to stir up a ruckus with his frequent use of CT founder, Rev. Billy Graham's, name, but he had to have known that using Graham's name in this context could be seen as waving a red cape in front of a bull named Franklin.
  • Franklin Graham, Billy's son, did not disappoint. He released a statement the next day. To no one's surprise, he disagreed with Galli. He did surprise some of us, though, when he revealed that his dad had voted for Mr. Trump.
  • I have no idea how many opinion pieces followed. I saw several articles about an interview Galli did on CNN. Another article is a summary of an interview Galli had with New Yorker writer, Isaac Chotiner.
  • Nothing much happens in our world without a petition or letter to sign. Not to disappoint, more than one-hundred Evangelical leaders signed a letter addressed to CT President Timothy Dalrymple. “Your editorial offensively questioned the spiritual integrity and Christian witness of tens-of-millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligations.”
  • Of course, Dalrymple responded, and 
  • on it goes.

Let's begin by thinking about worldviews--perhaps philosophies or even Theologies are better words. What I'm talking about are those foundational truths on which we build the rest of our thinking. Our overall philosophy of life and our ethics which are part of that philosophy are based on the way we see the world. What makes the world tick? Or, perhaps more accurately, "What would make our world work the way it should?"
Since all Evangelicals, to one extent or another, hold in common the basic Gospel message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and all that these fact mean, one would think that Evangelicals share the same worldview. One might think that, but one might be wrong. The Roman Catholic Church and the early reformers all subscribed to the same creeds, yet their differences fomented reformations, martyrdoms, and wars. The varying denominations in Christendom bear witness not to what they shared, but to that over which they differed.
The operative question is often not just, "What do you think is important? but, "What do you think is most important at this time, and how does that differ from what your neighbor thinks?"
Take the present bruhaha and dig down to the basic realities--as each side sees them--that lie below the surface. Here are two matters that both sides agree on, in principle, but about which they disagree mightily in degree and emphasis--abortion and social justice. Keeping our focus on the evangelical leaders who are in this argument, it is clear that both sides are prolife. Just reading the articles I mentioned above will make that clear. Once you get below that agreement in principle, however, we notice all sorts of differences. Is this the most important issue of our day? Is it so important that someone who is not prolife disqualifies themself as being worthy to hold public office? What about prenatal deformities, rape, or incest? How do we define "health of the mother"? What difference does the answer make?
Galli's writing and Graham's humanitarian work clearly show both to be dedicated to social justice. Just exactly how does one best address life's inequities? To what extent do people today have a responsibility to repair the social legacy of their less enlightened ancestors?
There is an old joke about politics. Elections are about choosing between "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer." (originally it was Tweedledee and Tweedledum, John Tenniel's illustration, from Through the Looking-Glass (1871)). Of course nobody in national politics is dum anymore. even if they are, brains can easily be hired. It seems that now the choice if often between Tweedle Bad and Tweedle worse. Deciding who is Bad and who is Worse is a matter of nuance. Answers to basic questions like those above are going to inform that choice. Good people will disagree.

Two more things, really quick:
Nobody wants to make an important decision based on 50.0001% certainty. In the same way that a fisherman's fish gets bigger each time he tells about his catch, decisions that barely more than a coin-toss to begin with, evolve into thunderous slam-dunks. Our craving for certitude drives us in that direction.
When our certitude is challenged we easily become like a potential mugging victim cornered in a dark alley. 2x4, rock, broken bottle, we desperately look for a weapon we can use in self-defense. In  the kind of fight this article is about, there is almost always piece of pipe nearby. It is about 2 feet long and has fitting on one end. Read the label--ad hominem, attack the spokesperson rather than what the spokesperson says.

In this case the spokesperson is me, so be nice. Chew on this until next time.
it

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Praying for the President: Should I, Would I?

A neighboring pastor, Jerry Fallwell Senior, used to say that people in Lynchburg VA would either pucker (as in to kiss) or spit when they saw him coming. Clearly, our current President, Donald Trump, brings out those kinds of polar responses in the political social realm. I'll leave it to others to sort out which pole, or perhaps a mediating view, is right about the current resident of the White House. My thought today has to do with an interesting encounter another Virginia pastor had with Mr. Trump.
At this point, I'll quote from Tim Challies's blog. I had heard about Trump appearing before a church asking for prayer. It was Challies who provoked me to click and learn more.
PRAYER FOR THE PRESIDENTDavid Platt explains how he found himself praying for President Trump on Sunday morning. “Sometimes we find ourselves in situations that we didn’t see coming, and we’re faced with a decision in a moment when we don’t have the liberty of deliberation, so we do our best to glorify God. Today, I found myself in one of those situations.”
Platt found himself in a very typical pastoral situation, not that the President regularly appears in a church requesting prayer, but pastors frequently find themselves in situations when they have to make potentially important--even life-altering decisions in a very brief time. I have often been in these Nehemiah moments. You remember, don't you, when Nehemiah stood before the absolute sovereign of Persia. In the sycophantic culture of the palace, Nehemiah had been caught in what could be a capital crime. “Why is your face sad, seeing you are not sick?" (Nehemiah 2:2) Sadness in the monarch's presence was considered an insult. Nehemiah bravely summarized the source of his discomfort, the plight of his people, the Jews, who lived on the fringe of the Persian kingdom. I figure Nehemiah's senses must have been on high alert. The plight of his people was the result of the policy and practice of the Persian administration, and he was standing before the Supreme Persian. Nehemiah's relief at not being immediately dragged away was short-lived.
Then the king said to me, “What are you requesting?”" (2:4)
In that brief moment--that was all he had--Nehemiah prayed.
I figure Platt uttered one of those "Help, Lord!" prayers as he decided how to handle the request put before him. President Trump had shown up, unannounced, toward the end of a service, and requested that the McLean Bible Church have a time of public prayer for him. (It would appear from the report that the President's request was not disruptive--at least not to those other than Pastor Platt.)
I've not made requests before all-powerful Kings or had the controversial President of my nation appear at a service requesting prayer. I have, many, many times found myself in situations when I needed to decide fairly quickly, knowing that the decision wasn't completely black or white and/or knowing that either way I decided there would be consequences, some negative. Just off the top of my head here are some. Fellow pastors will note, "been there, decided that."

  • Phone call from a funeral director: "Rev. Merrell, The family of Sally Jones has asked that you speak at her funeral." At this point the default, "Yes, of course." answer is on my lips. "Oh, and by the way Rev. Objectionable will also be speaking." Fill in the blank. Rev. Objectionable is a heretic, sexually immoral person, member of a group that is Theologically obnoxious, or someone who has instulted me and my church, etc.
  • Walking into a hospital room of a person who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease. The family has been diagnosed with a sickness called "denial." In hushed tones they instruct me, "Don't mention that she has cancer." 
  • In spite of my best efforts to set up policies and guidelines, someone or something comes along that doesn't quite fit what I had already decided. As I make up my mind I can already hear the protests, "But you didn't do that for . . ." The nuance that influenced my spur of the moment decision would be lost on my detractors.
  • I wish I could more consistently take comfort in the knowledge that our Lord suffered at the hands of critics. "He hangs out with tax-collectors and prostitutes." Too frequently, my thoughts continue, "Yes, and they crucified Him."
I could go on, but I think I have made the point, at least one point, of this post. Church-member, your pastor is called on to make decisions that you will never have to make and often make those choices in a Nehemiah moment. Cut him some slack. More importantly, pray for him.

For what it is worth, I think Platt made the right decision. He probably won't read this, but I figure I ought to stick up for someone who is making a good effort to do the right thing in a turblent context. To those who think otherwise, I ask you to consider, would your objection still be there if the President were Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, or (fill in the blank with your favorite)?

I also was convicted by the news. I find it difficult to consistently pray for my leaders. Often mention of "Kings and all who are in high places" in my public prayers are most prominent by their absence. I need to do better.

Below is the link to a post in which Pastor Platt shares his thoughts. It concludes with a video of him praying for President Trump.


BTW, a word of thanks to Denise Gregson for giving me a heads up about Tim Challies post. :)

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Is Perception Reality? A Question for our current situation:

I have been following the reports of demonstrations, riots, emotional distress, etc. that has come an aftermath of the recent election of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  I've also read and heard a good bit of reaction to these events.  For any who don't know me, I need to let you know that I'm in the heart of the demographic that is being talked about in many of these stories.  I'm White, conservative, Christian, straight, and from the Bible belt.  I'll try to not be scary.
Some of those who live in my cultural neighborhood have responded to the post-election reports with a combination of law-and-order rhetoric, and counsel that basically amounts to "just grow up."  I haven't been without my opinions, especially about looting and/or destruction of property, but I have tried to do something that I think all of us need to do more of--I'm trying to listen.
Sitting in my warm and comfortable living room this morning it occurs to me that a mantra that I have been reciting concerning a ministry I'm involved in probably has some relevance in the current situation in my world:

PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

Now I'm not getting all New Age-y here.  For one thing the "New Age" is old enough to be on Medicare (and since it is sick it needs to be).  I have railed against concepts like, "If you can dream it you can do it."  I know there is a certain motivational factor to this kind of statement, but I have been around long enough to also see the truth behind this cynical view from Despair.com.
What I mean when I say "Perception is Reality," is if I am going to build any kind of positive relationship with people who have a different view of what is going on around us than I do, I need to grant their view a measure of legitimacy.  Say I'm having a pretty good day.  My caffeine intake is about right.  I haven't gotten any audit notices from the IRS, and the sun is shining.  In my bliss, perhaps ignorant bliss, I greet my friend, "Hi.  How are you?"  My friend clearly doesn't get that my question was a courtesy, a greeting more than a request for information, and proceeds to spew forth a stream of that witch is dark and painful.  At this point let's assume that I really do care about my friend.  I really would like to have a relationship with him going forward.  How will that best be achieved?
  • By immediately pointing out why I think his view of reality is utterly wrong?
  • By questioning his maturity, intelligence, and/or spirituality?
  • By uttering some feel-good platitude?  (The cartoon is offered tongue in cheek, but it make a point.)  Or,
  • Taking a moment to listen to my friend.
In the end I may conclude that my friend is utterly wrong, or I may totally understand why my friend has such a dark view on such a sunny day.  Either way, if I start by listening, I have laid a foundation that could lead to productive conversation.  I can tell you by experience--experience in which I am the bad-guy--that the other three responses don't lead to that opportunity.  At least they aren't likely to.
The way others perceive reality, is the reality that has to be dealt with in getting along with those
others.  When others see reality in the same way I do, that appears to be non-problematic.  I say "appears" because our world is becoming more and more a series of echo-chambers, side by side, each surrounded by totally sound proof walls.  We hear only those who say the same thing we say.  Too often, when we venture out of the realm where all is agreeable, all we do is shout what is constantly said in our group.  We are like kids throwing at rocks at each other.  Most miss, or hit us somewhere that causes little pain, but there is a scar, somewhere under the little hair I have left, that bears witness to the reality that they don't all miss.  Some draw blood.  My Granny was right to discipline my cousin and me, not just because she hit me--boy that girl could throw--but because throwing rocks at each other is not something civilized people do.  Neither is a lot of what I see on the news, or read on Facebook.
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that we should surrender our intellect and act as if things that matter don't.  What I am saying is that out of the things that matter it is difficult to find anything that matters any more than another human being.  Listen to James, again.

. . . the tongue [I think we can extend this other forms  of communication].
It is restless and evil, full of deadly poison.
Sometimes it praises our Lord and Father,
and sometimes it curses those who have been made in the image of God. . .
blessing and cursing come pouring out of the same mouth.
Surely, my brothers and sisters, this is not right!
(James 3:8–10, NLT)

So, I've been working hard to stay out of the mudslinging business.


It doesn't help.  It just muddies things up.  I'm trying to hear.  I've read articles that forced me to my dictionary, and compelled me to go back and read paragraphs again.  I've read stuff that took pages to say, "I don't like this!"--the election, the demonstrations, etc..  I often don't agree with either--at least not completely.  I am, however, working to hear those on all sides.  I'm not saying that each of us
can create our own reality, but in the realm of, to quote that great philosopher Rodney King, just getting along, I have to start with the reality that at this moment what my friend is saying is reality as he sees it.
Like Frasier, I'm listening.  Or, at least I'm trying.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

A Historic Election: Now What?

In our nation this morning, you can hear a collective “Wow!” 

"The most stunning political upset in American history."
That's how ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos described Donald Trump's victory.

One commentator speaking about how we—the talking heads on TV—got it so wrong, said, “Pollilng broken.”  Indeed as we look at not only the two candidates in this contentious campaign, but the methodology behind them, it shows clearly that, in spite of our best efforts, we are not nearly so in control as we would like to think.  The losing campaign was powered by an incredibly sophisticated data-driven, computer aided, algorithm guided, scientific process.  The winning campaign was run by a man’s gut.  (No pun intended, but if a bit of humor helps, go with it.)  It kind of reminds me of the John Henry statue a few miles from where I sit.  On this night, man beat machine.  Since most of us had already accepted that the machine couldn’t be beaten, we find it a bit un-nerving.
Just this past Monday I was talking to a fellow pastor.  Like me, he sees the man who is now our President-elect as a flawed individual.  He articulated his support, not of this candidate, but of the platform that he represents.  He articulated why he would vote for Donald Trump.  He articulated about seven points—prolife concerns, gender issues, a desire to see a proper respect for law, etc.—all had to do with matters concerning which God’s word speaks; none had to do with prejudice or ill-will toward any group of people.  My friend wanted the outcome that has come to pass, but toward the end of our conversation he said, “I really feel that Secretary Clinton is going to win.”  Then there are those who were so invested in a Clinton-Kaine victory that they couldn’t imagine any other outcome.  As I listen to the morning-after commentary words like shock, seismic, bomb-shell, and greatest-upset dominate the reports.  How should we as God’s people be God’s people in this critical time?
From my position I heard from fellow-Christians over the past few months who were, on the one hand, clearly in favor of a Trump victory, and other—equally Godly, in-love-with-Jesus—sisters and brothers who rather passionately were opposed.  Many of my friends concluded that they could vote for neither of the two leading candidates.  I won’t be surprised to find out that my name was written-in somewhere.  Because of the computer-driven ability to track and crunch numbers, we not only know the big, important, number—who has the most Electoral College votes—but all kinds of other statistics.  As a result we see the deep divisions that exist within our nation more clearly than ever.  There is a knee-jerk reaction to this kind of shocking outcome.  On the one hand those on the winning side can have a tendency to look at those groups who “opposed this historic victory” and seek ways to make them pay.  On the other hand, it is easy for those who did not win the day to be on the “See, I told you so.” watch.  A recent “60 Minutes” piece fleshes out the observation that 82% of Americans were disgusted with the recent political campaign.  (I warn you, in speaking frankly, some of the folk in this focus group express themselves using words of which I don’t approve.)  Frank Luntz’s words, especially what he said at the end of the piece, are worth considering.  Far more eloquent than the pollster, are the words of Abraham Lincoln at his second inaugural.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations” (Lincoln).

This is true about us as a nation.  It is absolutely indisputable for us who are part of the body of Christ.  Many of us—others with far more eloquence than me--have said for months, now, that we need to remember—no, we need to militantly cling to the reality—that all of us who by God’s grace have been made new creatures in Christ have something in common that supersedes anything that might divide us.  Scott McKnight, on this historic morning, stood to lead us in prayer.  I encourage you to join him.
There is a low spot in the bed.  Unless we resist we’ll roll into it.  The tendency is abundantly clear in the 60 Minutes excerpt above.  We tend to look for what is worst in the motives of those on the other side.  I heard it come out clearly in some of the comments that were made by dedicated Hillary/Kaine supporters as it became clear that they were not going to win the day.  “I guess there are more people who support bigotry and xenophobia, than there are who support the dignity of all people”  (That is not an exact quotation, but an honest attempt to capture what I heard.).  I know John MacArthur is, himself, a polarizing person.  I ask you to set that aside for a moment.  I was surprised that he spoke with a clarity with which I was not comfortable, even as a former pastor.  He does, however, articulate the carefully parsed reasoning that entered into not only his decision, but a great many Christians’.  I don’t doubt that such people are out there, but I will say clearly that I did not hear any supporters say anything remotely like, “I support Donald Trump because I hate ______,” or, “because I want to see ______, put down, discriminated against, etc.”  Likewise I heard none of the Hillary/Kaine supporters say, “I want to kill babies.”  Sure, the ideas that each candidate espoused—indeed, the ideas that motivate each of us—have consequences, and it is entirely appropriate for us to point where the way one thinks leads, it is, however, very important that we avoid rhetoric that enflames, and rather seek to engage in conversation that enlightens.

“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt,
 so that you may know how you ought to answer each person”
 
(Col 4:6, ESV).

Let’s be careful about how we talk in the days ahead.  Like David, let’s pray that God will guard our speech.  “Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips” (Psalm 141:3)
Let me again quote from our Sixteenth president.

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” 

God has His own purposes, and, I add, His purposes are not necessarily ours, and we don’t have them figured out.  (Read Romans 11:34-36.)
Let me close what is a fairly gloomy post with an invitation to watch a beautiful sunrise.  No, what I speak of has nothing to do with which candidate or which party prevailed yesterday; it has to do with the end of the Bible.  I read the end of the book, and God wins.  This is one of those times when it is easier than on other occasions to believe God’s sovereignty.  I find myself clinging to that reality, this morning, like a person grasps a piece of flotsam after a shipwreck. 

Hold on tightly, child of God.  He will not forsake His own.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Is This The Best We Can Do?

I just read Al Mohler's blog-post of a couple of weeks ago.  I found Mohler's reasoning and conclusions to be helpful.  Central in his piece is the conviction that character does matter.  His observation agrees with mine.  Evidence--and that is all we can go on--indicates a serious lack of a solid moral base in both major presidential candidates.

Mrs. Clinton simply doesn't seem to care about truth and integrity.  The recent announcement by the FBI, though indicating that the former Secretary of State would not be indited, was hardly an indication that she is a person of character.  She is clearly dedicated to the "We will absolutely not ever interfere with any abortion." position of the the Democrat party.  I cannot say whether her position is one of personal commitment or political expediency.  Either way it is a serious ethical flaw.  On one hand it represents a disrespect for human life, on the other it displays a glaring lack of integrity,  While a case can be made that she is was the victim of her husband's adultery, and her willingness to work through those issues and preserve her family is admirable, I have not heard her offer an apology to "The vast right wing conspiracy" since it became clear that, indeed, her husband did have "sex with that woman."

Recently, Evangelical (former) leader James Dobson announced that he believed that Donald Trump is born again.  The report, based on what he heard, indicates that Paula White led the presumptive Republican candidate to faith in Jesus.  I will gladly lead the rejoicing should such a report turn out to be true, but the fact is, I have no idea whether it is true or not.  I am struck with the convenience of floating this story at a time when Republican strategists are desperate to gain Evangelical support for their candidate.  In a subsequent statement Dobson speaks with greater caution.  Like me, it now appears that he is hopeful, but agnostic on the matter.  More to the point, the reality or fiction of the reports about Trump's conversion are irrelevant to the decision before me.  I know many folk--I would probably put myself in the group--who clearly are trusting the Gospel of Christ for life and eternity, who would make horrible presidents.  It is in a different realm, but the concept is relevant.  Paul, passing on counsel to his younger delegate, Timothy, cautions him to “not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB95)  When looking for someone to lead the church the standard was not, "Is he reported to be born again?" but, does he exhibit the necessary character?"  (See 1 Timothy 3) Though such character flows from a heart changed by "grace, through faith," it takes time to be seen.  We haven't had, and we won't have, the time to inspect the fruit.

In case it isn't clear, what I'm saying is I don't see either of the major candidates to be somebody I am for. As far as it goes, that is a sentiment that I hear from a number of Evangelicals.  They aren't for either candidate, however they are more, not-for, one candidate, and so they will, therefore, vote for the other.  One reason I appreciated Mohler's article is that he doesn't make that case.  Fairly early on Russel Moore wrote on that line of reasoning.  "Should we vote for the lesser of two evils?"  I admire the clarity of his conclusion.
Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.
When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse. The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we “give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).
This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option.
 During my pastoral career I avoided endorsing candidates.  I'm not doing that now.  If anything I'm saying that I don't see either of the major candidates as worthy of my vote.  That's bipartisan, folks.  What will I do on November 8?  I don't yet know.  I am trying to approach this mess in such a way that my integrity will be intact on the other side.  I know that many of you will disagree with me on one or more of my points.  I have little interest in arguing.  I'd rather encourage.  Do what is right; at least try.
 

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Questions, Seeking Answers: Our Current Political Situation



I have been watching the US political drama--as in soap opera--from afar. The nation of Palau, where I spent the last four months has a close relationship with the United States. For four decades following World War 2 Palau was part of a trust territory overseen by the United States. Since Palau became the fourth smallest nation in the world, Palau continues to maintain close ties with its big brother. Palauans can serve in the United States military, can go in and out of US borders with the same freedom as US citizens, are eligible to receive educational assistance, and the nation's only post office has a US zip code, 96940. Much of the island nation's government structure is modeled after America's.

A few weeks ago I had an interesting conversation. A friend and I had gone to a modest, but nice,
restaurant for lunch. It is owned by one of Palau's former presidents. As we were finishing out meal, Former President Nakamura, sat down at our table. He and my friend are well acquainted. He proceeded to introduce himself to me, and an interesting conversation ensued. Before long a question came up. "How," Mr. Nakamura wanted to know, "did the greatest nation on earth and two of the greatest political parties on earth come to this?" The "this" he referred to was the unfolding presidential campaign. The question is even more pointed now that what was only possible a few weeks ago has become all but a sure thing.

Just about every time I watch a news cast, or read a political article I see the statesman from the other side of the world looking at me with a gentle smile. His question haunts me. Indeed, how did we come to this state of affairs? The question would be troubling enough if I lived in a land ruled by a king, where the succession of leadership is determined by who is born to whom and when. In my land however, since I am involved in the choice of those who lead my nation, I have too admit that the current state of the state is not just an interesting point for discussion. It is a matter of personal responsibility.

Following the past few election cycles, I've seen bumper-stickers that proclaim, "Don't blame me. I didn't vote for ______." I suppose I could adopt that philosophy. "I'm right; if only people would have followed my example. . . ." Yes, in my land I am not only the ruled; when I go to the polling place I am the ruler. I do need to cast that vote responsibly, but is that all? How active should I be in politics? Is our current situation a confirmation of Burke's famous pronouncement? It would appear that evil will triumph in the current election cycle--the only question is which flavor of evil. Is the explanation that good men have done nothing? Am I one of those good men who spent too much time sitting on their hands?

I have a number of questions, and few answers, maybe we can help each other. I welcome your comments.

  • Some have adopted an attitude of fatalism. A friend recently posted an article by a friend of his that began, "The fact is, and this is a biblical fact...If Donald Trump is our next President, he will be there because the hand of God is on him to put him there." The same can be said about Hilary or, for that matter, we could just as well say, if the Ayatollah of Iran successfully seizes power over the USA and establishes a new caliphate it will have taken place within the sphere of God's sovereignty. Existentialist Albert Camus, in The Plague, sets up a dilemma. A plague had come. The priest in the story concluded that the plague had come has a result of God's judgment. Therefore to oppose the plague was to oppose God.
    In Old Testament Israel a particularly unscrupulous king murdered his way into power, I ask myself, "Why did God allow Jehu to become King?" My answer is, "Because Israel deserved to have Jehu for her king." (2 Kings 9-10) Still if Jehu had been running for office instead of riding in on a reign of terror, I wouldn't have voted for him. It is not right to choose evil.
  • What are the limits of what one can do with a clear conscious. I am told that Hitler was nice to little children. Is that virtue sufficient to earn my vote. Even those candidates who are very admirable are not perfect. Is there ever a mortal who is worthy of my vote. Theologian Andy Naselli thinks out loud on this one. His thoughts are worth considering. http://andynaselli.com/can-you-vote-for-donald-trump-with-a-clear-conscience
  • Russel Moore takes on the question that seems to dominate the conservative end of the current political discussion. Should a Christian vote for the lesser of two evils? You should read his thoughts, but in brief his answer is "No."  
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/march-web-only/should-christians-vote-for-lesser-of-two-evils.html
  • It is a bit more general but Steve Cornell has some thoughts on Christians engaging with culture. Clearly how we vote is one of those points where our Christian worldview stands toe-to-toe with the culture where we live.
    https://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/four-reactions-to-culture/
  • Sometimes when things are bad it is good to remind yourself of some conclusions you came to when things weren't quite so bad. I reread this old piece and I think the me that is wondering what to do today needs to hear the me that spoke a while ago.
    http://howardmerrell.blogspot.com/2012/08/politics-lets-let-church-be-church.html 
I'm still thinking about the President's question.  I add another one:  What am I going to do about it?

I look forward to hearing from you.


Sunday, February 3, 2013

I have observed the shift these two writers talk about--Evangelicals, and others who share their conservative ethical views,  are increasingly looked upon as the enemy.  How could you miss a societal change that obvious?  The phenomena Colin Hansen and Steve Cornell talk about is growing all around us.  The recent flap of Lou Giglio is one example.  These articles ask what we should we do about it?  Hunker down or go on the offense?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/30/dare-to-be-immoral/

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/dare-to-challenge-the-intolerance/


Friday, February 1, 2013

Two News Stories with brief comments:

I just saw these two stories.
Both raised reaction in me.  This blog gives me a place to let my thoughts out:


"A pastor created a huge backlash on Reddit when he [Get it right C.T., it's "she."] left a note on a St. Louis Applebee's restaurant bill refusing a gratuity to a server." (here & here)

I offer this tip, to pastors everywhere.  Be generous.  And to "Pastor" Bell, Ms. Welch, the waitress, did not ruin your reputation!  You did, when your lack of character allowed you to write that note to the lady who had just waited on you and your guests.

AND:
In a major policy reversal, the Boy Scouts of America made a statement that the organization will probably allow professed homosexuals to hold leadership positions in the organization. (more)

I'm surprised, though I probably shouldn't be.  
I'm disappointed.  
I know some fine people involved in scouting--folk who are trying to keep roles, relationships, and responsibilities in order.  This will make things harder for them.
This also reinforces a conclusion of mine.  The church--those of us who are willing to live out and die for the truth of God's word--is going to have to stand alone.  I'm not saying that we should not try to preserve as many allies as we can for as long as we are able.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be sad when a cultural friend packs up and heads home.  I am saying that our situation is rapidly becoming identical to that of the First Century Christians in Corinth.  We are going to be called on to make decisions and take stands that no one around us will understand, or support.  We are going to have take seriously the Apostle Paul's admonition:
   “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14–18, NASB95)  

I know the language sounds harsh.  It is Paul's not mine.  We have lived in a place and time where our culture has supported our Christian values.  That has been eroding.  It appears that the deterioration has reached a tipping point.  At this point I'm not speaking as an old Fundamentalist--though I am thankful for what my heritage has given me.  I write as a sad observer.