Book Review: Believe Me

I had seen John Fea's book, Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump (2018), featured on Eerdman's Facebook and Twitter feeds. I had never heard of him, but there was enough present in those short social media posts to intrigue me. Fea is an evangelical and chair of the history department at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, a historian who writes about "the intersection of American history, religion, politics, and academic life" (from his blog), no doubt appropriate preparation for writing a book of this sort.

In Believe Me, Fea explores Donald Trump's popularity among American evangelicals--81% of them anyway. Along the way, he addresses the inconsistencies that many conservative religious leaders have demonstrated over time in their responses to different presidents, Clinton and Trump, for example, giving an unlimited pass to one while wanting to burn the other at the stake. Fea shared this example from a 1998 letter from James Dobson (a Trump supporter) questioning Clinton's morality: "As it turns out character DOES matter. You can't run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don't respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the book of James, the question is posed 'Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?' (James 3:11, NIV). The answer is no." In my opinion, those who fail to see the hypocrisy in this statement are blind.

When Fea wrote of "the evangelical politics of fear," I resonated with the phrase. I think he is right when he suggests that fear drives many of the political viewpoints and voting practices among evangelicals. We place our hope not in God, the All-Sovereign, but in compromised earthly powers, especially those who tell us what to be afraid of and how they are the only ones who can fix it. The fear-mongering is reminiscent of Richard Dreyfuss's Senator Rumson in 1995's The American President. I was grateful that Fea is a historian; he was able to trace the roots of these fears to the 17th century up into the 21st century, with particular attention to the civil rights movement.

His thoughts on Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again," were also beneficial. He commented that as a historian, he was less interested in the definition of great than what Trump means by the word again. To what era is Trump referring? And from whose perspective? It remains nebulous. Fea rightly draws the distinction between history and nostalgia, noting that "nostalgia is closely related to fear." Fea writes, "Sometimes evangelicals will seek refuge from change in a Christian past that never existed in the first place. At other times they will try to travel back to a Christian past that did exist--but, like the present, was compromised by sin."

In his conclusion, Fea calls evangelicals to three things: hope, not fear; humilty, not power; and history, not nostaligia.

I found Believe Me to be an insightful, timely book and I cannot recommend it highly enough. Unfortunately, I suspect most of the 81% will not even consider reading it; it's something that Trump would quickly dismiss as "fake news." As Americans, we tend to prefer political propaganda propagated by Twitter, Facebook, and our preferred news networks than actually digging in, with humility, to consider what might be true. As Christians, whose primary citizenship is in an eternal kingdom, we cannot afford to do this any longer.

I cannot think of a better way to conclude this book than with the quote that first intrigued me: "The Court Evangelicals have decided that what Donald Trump can give them is more valuable than the damage their Christian witness will suffer because of their association with the president."

This is a really important book. Believe me.

Five-fifths human: My reflections on cruelty and a call for confession

Prior to the 2016 election, emotions ran high. People across the nation expressed strong feelings about their preferred candidate and why the other candidates were unacceptable, unelectable, or deplorable. People seemed at least as committed to the defeat of the opposition as to the election of their own person. We now stand five days post-election and tempers run hotter than they did in the weeks leading up to the election.

Since Tuesday, we have been the unfortunate witnesses of so much hatred and violence. Crimes against people of color, gays and lesbians, and different religious backgrounds seem much more abundant than normal, and they already occur entirely too frequently. These incidents are not only happening among adults, but are infecting our children and schools too. The KKK has been circulating and recruiting with increased fervor.

Yet, that's not all. Multiple videos have surfaced of those who have been assaulted for their stance on Trump. One heart-wrenching video of a mother emerged. She packed her elementary-aged son's suitcase and kicked him out of the house amidst his flood of tears for voting for Trump in a school election.  Flags burn. Cities burn. None other than Garrison Keillor, author of the Prairie Home Companion, wrote an article for the Chicago Tribune entitled, Donald Trump won. Let the uneducated have their day. "Don't be cruel" he urged readers--his fellow "liberal elitists"--after he had devoted several paragraphs to maligning the intelligence of who he perceives to be the uneducated Trump voters, or as he suggests, "those without books on their shelves."

My fellow Americans, this isn't okay.

In 1787, a compromise was reached between the Southern and Northern states called the "three-fifths compromise." For purposes of taxation and representation, free citizens were counted as a whole person whereas "all other persons" (in other words, slaves) were counted only 3/5. They were considered less than fully human.

Are we coming again to a place where we have lost sight that human dignity is endowed by the Creator? Are we living in a time when we deem others to be "less than human?" Thankfully, on a federal level, each person (at least each person born alive and at least on paper) is recognized as fully human. One's citizenship is not reduced due to color, creed, or character.

Sadly, as individual Americans, I am not sure that we believe in equality anymore. Recent words and actions betray our beliefs that others are less than human, that there are people less deserving of dignity, respect, and kindness than others.

Again, fellow Americans: This. Isn't. Okay.

I am calling upon all who read this to take an honest inventory of your heart. Ask yourself, which people do I think are inferior to me? Who is less deserving of my respect? Who, in my thoughts and feelings, is less than fully human? Ask yourself, does my disapproval of another's behavior end up infecting my view of them as a person deserving of dignity?

Be honest. Pretending you are sinless in this not only harms others, but it harms your own soul. Healing can only begin with honest confession.  King David reminded us that God doesn't despise brokenness and contrition (Psalm 51).

From there, please stop acting as if you are better than others. In your disagreement, seek to listen and understand. Seek to comfort and restore. And, as Tim McGraw has so recently reminded us, "always be humble and kind."

Reflections on the Dawn of a New Presidency

The people have elected Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States of America. For over 200 years, our constitutional republic has persisted and we have made it through yet another election.

I want to offer a few reflections on the dawn of the 2016 election to my Christian brothers and sisters. Perhaps your candidate won. Perhaps your candidate lost. Perhaps you didn't even cast a vote. Regardless, how now shall we live?

First, 1 Peter 2:16-17 reminds us, "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." Friends, our freedom lies not in our worldly citizenship, but flows from Christ's finished work. Live as people who are free. Yet in that, serve others and, as Peter reminds us, 'honor the emperor." Treat elected officials with honor, even if you did not vote for them.

Second, our sovereign is already on the throne. God was, is, and always will be head over all. God is not surprised by these election results. Nothing falls outside of His plan. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "Besides Jesus, nothing has any significance. He alone matters."

Third, pray for the government. Not just today, but as often as you think about it. "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." -1 Timothy 2:1-2

Fourth, you will meet people who are scared about the election results. There are those who believe that this election signals doomsday, the apocalypse, or the coming of anti-Christ. In light of that, they are frightened. Love them well. As the verse from 1 Peter says above, "live as servants of God." One of the best ways to do that is to love the people around you--friends, neighbors, coworkers.

Fifth, Christians, we remain salt and light. Matthew 5:13-14 reads, "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. You're the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." We need to continue to boldly proclaim the truth of the Kingdom of God. When those truths are hard, we cannot be unafraid to say them. We need to be those who live with joy and beauty as citizens of God's kingdom. We are ambassadors for Christ. When people look upon us they see what Jesus is supposed to be.

Sixth, be more concerned about God's reputation than your own. Too often, as Christians, we conform ourselves to the surrounding culture or are afraid to speak truth when truth is necessary. In 1 Corinthians 4 Paul basically said, "I don't give a whit what other people think of me. I don't even care what I think of me. What matters is what God says." Don't worry so much about how the world views you; give more attention to how God views you.

Seventh, Micah 6:8 tells us to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God." There is still work to be done. Become advocates for the unborn, the downtrodden, and the marginalized in society. Love your neighbor.

Finally, "whether you eat, or whether you drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31

fortissimo on tympanum

A never ending drum roll
fortissimo on tympanum
media induced hyperacusis
cacophony demanding.

The Times, the Blaze, and Fox
who can shout the loudest
MSNBCNN
our world is never soundless.

Each clamors for attention
lone arbiters of truth
"The others are deceptive
about the voting booth."

"We alone are honest
you we'll never fail,
We tell you what you want to hear
the 'objective' holy grail."

But train yourself to listen
not to him who talks the most
but to the One who made the world
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

His voice is always present
a legato melody
"Turn down the volume on the world
and you will hear from Me."

selling our birthrights for a pot of stew

Yesterday, someone asked me why my only political posts have spoken out against Trump. Although not technically true, I think I understood the nature of his observation. Here are few thoughts that have been rattling around in my head. Consider them for what they're worth.

Voting for Hillary has never been an option for me, not even for the briefest moment. I disagree with her on most policy issues, and especially the issue of sanctity of life. Her desire for protection for abortion even until very late term makes bile rise in my throat. I find her behaviors reprehensible regarding Benghazi and the email scandal to name just a couple. There has never been a time in this election or prior when I have thought that Hillary Clinton is a good idea for our country. I still wouldn't waste the ink to cast a vote for her.

I have voted Republican in every election I have voted in, not because I am a party guy, but because historically, the views of the GOP have generally matched my own. I have certainly had points of disagreement with various candidates, but nothing that I have found to be disqualifying. That has changed this year with Trump. I have enumerated these concerns ad nauseam before and I won't recount them now. If you are a brave soul, feel free to go back into my Facebook or Twitter history and see what I have written.

The reason I have spoken out about Trump so vociferously is that he is supposed to represent MY party. He is supposed to espouse the values that I hold dear. When I have told people that I am a Republican and a conservative, that has traditionally meant something. It doesn't anymore. Now I find that my party's candidate makes a mockery of what I want my leaders to stand for. Republicans, Trump isn't what we bargained for. Or maybe he is, and now I, along with thousands of others, are politically homeless.

I have been particularly disappointed in the dogged support of Trump by several well-known evangelical leaders. These (mostly) men who have historically stood on principle and family values, calling us to a higher moral plane have abandoned principle, often with rhetorical misdirection (e.g., calling Trump's words "dirty talk" or "locker room talk" instead of sexual assault) and promises that he'll get better.

I remain passionate about my resistance to Trump because of what evangelicals have resorted to in his defense. They have overlooked that he has been vulgar and narcissistic sputtering out hateful invectives against anyone who disagrees with him. Too many Christians are selling their birthrights for a pot of stew.

Christian friends, Clinton will be undeniably terrible for the cause of the Republic. I acknowledge that clearly and consistently. BUT, Donald Trump threatens deep harm not only to the nation, but more importantly, to the cause of Christ. When James Dobson says that Trump has accepted Christ but that he is a "baby Christian", he shines a light on Trump not just as a representative of America, but as a representative of Christ. A watching world sees a man who appears unrepentant, hateful, and self-centered and thinks, "so that's what a Christian is." And yet we fail to weep.

So, briefly, there is no risk of people associating Clinton with biblical Christianity, but there is an immanent risk of people assuming that Trump must be what Christians look like. That conclusion is unthinkable.

O how terrible for those who confuse good with evil, right with wrong, light with dark, sweet with bitter.-Isaiah 5:20

Finally, brothers and sisters, fill your minds with beauty and truth. Meditate on whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is good, whatever is virtuous and praiseworthy.-Philippians 4:8

a better Way, a better Truth, a better Life

I was deeply bothered by the audio clip of Trump yesterday. It seems to be yet another example that his lewdness knows no bounds. I wrote a deeply personal blog post today that I decided not to share. I was concerned enough about the content that I shared it with three people I really trust: my wife, my best friend, and my mother. Ultimately, though what I wrote is important and authentic, the detailed account is unnecessary for a general audience and potentially harmful for a young one. I don't want to risk harming those I love. 

But let me say this. Too often in my life, I have engaged in sins of omission and commission when it comes to women. I have treated women poorly and I have failed to defend them when I should have.

Men, we CANNOT continue to be party to a culture that debases women. We do not have the luxury of justifying ourselves by saying "all men do it." To all of the girls and women I have ever known, forgive me for the ways in which my thoughts, words, and actions have harmed you.

Dads, we need to teach our children that women are not sexual playthings. We live in a culture that tells us they are. If you listen to the culture, and even to our current presidential candidates, you will begin to believe it. Too often, I have failed to stand against the tide of sexual indecency. Forgive me for not consistently demonstrating what God calls men to be.

Men, Trump's words and behaviors have given us an opportunity. We can fail to speak out because we know we have done the same things. We can tacitly support Trump by laughing at the things he says and does.

Or we can humbly confess that we have failed to honor women and take a stand. We can say that we will not be part of a culture that continues to degrade and demoralize women. We can choose to move strongly against a hypersexualized culture. We can give ourselves in love and service to those who have no voice in a culture that tells them their beauty lies only in their sexuality. We can show by word and action, that there is a better Way, a better Truth, and a better Life.

Men, let's take a stand.

Should Christians vote for Donald Trump? A response to Todd Starnes

A dear friend emailed this morning and asked my thoughts about an opinion article on Fox News by Todd Starnes entitled Should Christians vote for Donald Trump? On the counsel of another dear friend, I have intentionally backed off on my #NeverTrump rhetoric, though I still hold to that viewpoint--I've just not been as public about my opinions. In response to my friend's brief question this morning, I ended up writing a 1500+ word essay about Starnes's opinion piece and some of my current thoughts. For those interested, here's what I wrote, adapted slightly.

Thanks for linking to this article. My answer will probably be much longer than you bargained for, but I had an hour to think on my way up to Rice Lake this morning.

[Another friend] and I have had some long conversations over the issue of “never Trump”. About a week or two ago, he and I spoke for over a half-hour about this issue. His primary concern was that I was getting too focused on the #nevertrump idea. He was right and so I have intentionally backed off on posting much stuff about Trump, though I do keep up on what is happening politically. 

I would also want to say that who we vote for isn’t a jar one issue. Believers on different sides of this issue can be thoughtful and perhaps come to different conclusions. It is not something I am willing to divide with people over and, in confession, some of the things I have said about it have been divisive.

So, to the article. I have many thoughts about it, which I will try to communicate clearly, though I will also probably follow some rabbit trails.

First, the article was posted on Fox News, which for several months has been very pro-Trump.  It is not necessarily a bad thing for them to take a position, but I think it is important to recognize that this pro-Trump piece is coming from what has seemingly become a pro-Trump organization. The Drudge Report, another conservative bastion, has also been very pro-Trump. On the other hand, several other conservative sources have been generally opposed to Trump such as the Daily Wire, the Federalist or National Review. So, there are different opinions amongst conservatives on whether or not casting a vote for Trump is a good idea. 

Starnes stresses his concern that evangelicals will stay home on election day. There will be some who stay home; there always are. However, many of the people that I know that are #neverTrump still plan to vote, certainly in elections other than the presidency (e.g., congress), but even in the presidency but perhaps for a third party candidate.  The author asks whether our only option is to throw in the towel, and I don’t think that is what any of us would say that we are doing. Citing Samuel Rodriguez, he wrote “it is silly to not talk of voting for either candidate, every single Christian should vote.” Perhaps. I know some Christians who would say that we don’t need to vote. I believe I should and so I will, but I also don’t feel limited to voting for one of the two candidates currently in the front running.  

The author also cited Charles Spurgeon who famously said “of two evils, choose none.” I think those are wise words from probably one of the most respected gospel preachers in history. We need to pay attention to Spurgeon’s idea here, even if we disagree with it.

Franklin Graham is cited in this article, who also tells us to vote, reminding us to vote for the candidate who best supports biblical values and then goes on to say, “in some races, you may need to hold your nose and choose.”  I wonder which biblical values he is speaking of? A commitment to life? At best Trump has been an inconsistent supporter of the pro-life movement. Building a wall to keep out foreigners? That seems to be less grounded in a biblical worldview, at least as far as I read it. Or targeting family members of terrorists. Also, from my vantage, not really a gospel-centric value.

But what about biblical character? Is Graham concerned about those biblical values or just the ones that fit the conservative-Republican agenda? For me, character matters, even if it seemingly hasn’t to some conservative commentators.

Interestingly, when he arrives at the question of “should Christians vote for Trump?” he speaks of an “all star panel,” though the entire panel is made up of those who are in support of voting for Trump. What about Russell Moore? Or Charlie Sykes? Or Ben Sasse? When a person seeks to put together a panel like this, it is unfair to stack the deck without any dissenting voices, in my opinion.

I agree with Richard Land (one of the all-star panel) who said that it is up to each Christian to decide who to vote for, but I disagree that we cannot consider a third party vote. Will it be successful? Probably not, but it will be a principled response.

Rodriguez said that he is voting “life, family ethos, religious liberty, limited government.” I admit those are important issues, but I don’t think that Trump has consistently supported them. For example, does Trump's support for religious liberty extend to Muslims or just Christians whom he is trying to woo to his campaign.

Huckabee? Ugh.  I have been a fan of Mike Huckabee for a long time. I have a signed copy of one of his books on my shelf at home. But…but. First, the choice to include him on this panel when he is a “potential running mate” certainly is biased in favor Trump. If he thinks he might be chosen as a potential running mate, why would he speak against Trump? He wouldn’t. Huckabee described Trump as open to dialog. I haven’t really seen it, frankly. I’ve seen him attack the character of those who oppose him.

Further down in the article, the author asked this question, “what’s a good Christian to do?” (Interesting question, choosing to include the word good--who is good except God?). He then goes back to Graham who says “pray.” Indeed. Graham indicated that part of their “decision America” campaign is not to support a candidate, though earlier comments he made in this article would hint that he means Trump. I agree with Franklin about the necessity of prayer, while I still disagree about Trump.

Even though the author’s bias shines through the article, the final two paragraphs are frankly uncalled for. He wrote, “Donald Trump could walk the aisle at a Billy Graham crusade, while waving a King James Bible and singing ‘amazing grace’ and it still wouldn’t be enough to convince the holier than thou club.

“And for all you folks quoting Spurgeon—I would offer this rebuttal: not to vote is to vote.”

This conclusion is simply unnecessary. To refer to #neverTrump people as “holier than thou” is mean-spirited and does not help the case he is trying to make. I told [our friend] recently that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. Not only does Trump have a history of concerning characterological and political viewpoints prior to the election, many of them have continued through the campaign cycle. 

Regarding the statement “not to vote is to vote”: I’m getting tired of hearing it, frankly because it isn’t true. I understand what the author (and anyone else who has said it) is trying to communicate, but there is a difference between a principled decision to not vote and actually casting a vote for Hillary. The phrase is offered to shame those who, like me, are choosing to abstain from voting for either one of them. 

Romans 1:29-32 says, “They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” As Christians, I think we need to give heed to what Paul is saying here. Trump has shown himself to be malicious, slandering, insolent, haughty, boastful, an inventor of evil, and ruthless at least. I full admit that I have done these things and more. But Paul is pretty strongly criticizing those who “give approval to those who practice these things.” When we cast a vote affirming a candidate, we are giving approval, even if we say we are just choosing the better of two evils (a point I am not convinced to be true). For me, I will not be a party to that.

One of the statements that has repeatedly come up for those who are planning to vote for Trump is to state that he isn’t perfect, but that we are all sinners. I fully acknowledge the truth of that statement. Reluctant Trump supporters also rightly point out that we will never elect a perfect president. Again, I agree. But as I was driving today I was struck by this fact—I am not comfortable casting my vote for someone I am not comfortable calling my president.  Although I disagreed with Mitt Romney on a number of things in 2012, I was still comfortable enough to accept him as my president, as the one who would represent me and my nation before the world, that he earned my vote. I cannot say the same about Hillary and I cannot say the same about Trump. 

Two Purposes of the First Amendment

When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.  The first purpose was that there would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states.  To say it another way: there would be no “Church of the United States.”  James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.  He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because “the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”

Nevertheless, a number of the individual states had state churches, and even that was not considered in conflict with the First Amendment.  “At the outbreak of the American Revolution, nine of the thirteen colonies had conferred special benefits upon one church to the exclusion of others.” “In all but one of the thirteen states, the states taxed the people to support the preaching of the gospel and to build churches.” "it was not until 1798 that the Virginia legislature repealed all its laws supporting churches.” "In Massachusetts the Massachusetts Constitution was not amended until 1853 to eliminate the tax-supported church provosions.”

The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today.  It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion.

Those were the two purposes of the First Amendment as it was written.

As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States v. Ballard case in 1944: "The First Amendment has a dual aspect.  It not only 'forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship' but also 'safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.'"

Today the separation of church and state in America is used to silence the church.  When Christians speak out on issues, the hue and cry from the humanist state and media is that Christians, and all religions, are prohibited from speaking since there is a separation of church and state.  The way the concept is used today is totally reversed from the original intent. 

Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

Gage: Liberals have no books

Gene Veith points to an article from Yale professor that liberals have abandoned their previous intellectual tradition, whereas conservatives still recognize the importance of ideas.  Before you call foul, this article was written by a liberal professor.

Is Christianity socialistic?

RC Sproul wrote a challenging essay today entitled "Obamacare: Taking Our Medicine".  He begins by writing, "It is true enough that the church is worldly. Like the world’s younger brother we follow a few steps behind the spirit of the age, mimicking its swagger. That truth, however, ought not cause us to miss another truth- that the world follows the church. Jesus tells us in the Sermon on the Mount that believers are salt and light, that we act as a preservative to a world swirling in a maelstrom of moral entropy. How easy it is to diminish this truth, to reduce it down to 'Be nice, so your neighbor will be nice.' The truth is, however, not only that the broader world becomes a less moral place when we behave in less moral ways, but that the connection runs deeper still. When we fail at X, odds are the world will fail at X, spectacularly. And in ways we won’t like."

If you look at many denominational assemblies (e.g., conventions), there is a continual slide away from the authority of Scripture in a relatavistic morass. Rather than acting as "a preservative to a world swirling in a maelstrom of moral entropy," the church enters the whirlwind themselves by refusing to take a stand. 

He goes on, "Of course we want our socialism in small doses, just like campers like tent- encroaching camels in small doses. We have bought into the notion that it is fitting for the state to tax us all, to finance health care for the aged. We have bought into the notion that it is appropriate for governments to tax us all, to finance education not just for them, but for eighty percent of our own children. We have bought into the notion that the state should tax us all and guarantee our mortgages, underwrite our college loans, supplement our retirements. The country is embracing socialism because the church has embraced socialism. We have lost our savor, and are baffled at the stench all around us. We tear our clothes, tossing ashes into the sky, angry at the government for merely doing more of what we have asked it to do."

I echo his closing prayer: "I hope and pray we will never actually see Obamacare become a reality. I pray still more that Christians would cease asking Caesar to give us our daily bread. I pray still more that the church would honor the eighth commandment. I pray still more that we would recognize and repudiate socialism whenever and from whichever party it rears its ugly head. I pray the servants of the King will one day come to love the liberty He came to preach. I pray we would be free men."

Politics and scripture twisting

"Raise your hand if you’re offended by politicians and church leaders using the Bible like a wax nose."  So begins Mike Horton's latest essay on the misuse of holy Scripture for political gain.  I was struck by this recently as I listened to President Obama talk at the presidential prayer breakfast--a tendency to twist scripture. 

To be clear, people of all political persuasions do this and it is unfortunate. Here are some of Horton's thoughts:

[Regarding the Rich Young Ruler]--"The tragic fact of this story is that those who invoke it against Republicans miss the point as badly as the rich young ruler. In fact, we show ourselves to be uncomfortably like the rich young ruler when we deflect the point to others—The Rich—and imagine that Jesus is suggesting that the Roman government should redistribute their income. The truth is, we are the rich young ruler and if we’re looking for “the one thing” we supposedly haven’t done to possess one more possession (eternal life), the command is for us to sell everything we have and give it to the poor. Have the invokers of this story done that? If they haven’t, then they don’t have a right to use the story against the “bad guys."

[On socialism versus small government]--"It’s not just that Bible doesn’t give us enough data on small government versus socialism; it’s not written to a society that would have known what these economic arrangements were in the first place. It’s completely anachronistic to expect the Bible to address economic systems that would evolve through centuries of Western history."

Read the whole thing here.  

Free course on the constitution

I came across this link to a free course on the US constitution, if you are interested.  Click here.

Obama's twin gospels

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post puts a finger on recent news out of Washington, tying together the frayed ends of Obama administration policy.  Krauthammer, like many of us, recognizes the inconsistencies in the Obama administration. Like a traveling band of actors, they seem most willing to adjust their show to most please the audience at hand. 

Krauthammer writes,

To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.

The contradiction is glaring, the hypocrisy breathtaking. But that’s not why Obama offered a hasty compromise on Friday. It’s because the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his re-election. Sure, health care, good works and religion are important. But re-election is divine.

 Read the whole thing here. 

Christianity and Taxes

Gene Veith shares some interesting insights on the president's recent statements at the presidential prayer breakfast, where he uses scripture to defend his position of taxing the rich.  He quotes Mary Theroux as saying, "Yes, that Jesus was always looking for ways to make Rome more powerful!" and then goes on to remind that, "The text that the president cites (Luke 12:48), in context, does not refer to taxes, but it can apply to money as to everything else.  A person who has received much FROM GOD has much that is required BY GOD.  Not the federal government!   The president here is putting the federal government squarely in the place of God!"

Read the rest here. 

Presidential prayer breakfast: A review

World Magazine has a good summary of the presidential prayer breakfast. I would commend the whole article to you.  However, I have a few thoughts. 

I was glad to read that Eric Metaxas was the keynote speaker. From what I have gathered he spoke boldly about Jesus, proclaiming him as "the enemy of dead religion."  He went further to speak out boldly against abortion. He apparently noted that the Germans of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's time (Metaxas wrote a biography of Bonhoeffer) viewed some people as less than human, just as many do today. 

Obama also spoke. He apparently cited several Bible verses in support taxing the rich in support of the poor, which are taken out of context to be sure. Without a doubt, the Bible is a strong advocate of caring for the poor and loving the least of these, but that is a mission of the church, not the government.  Plucking verses out of scripture without keeping all of God's word in view is bad exegesis.  The president also apparently aligned himself with Catholic Charities, claiming his administration has linked arm in arm with faith-based groups across the country.  I suspect that Catholic Charities may not view it in the same way. 

Where are the March for Life pics

Mollie, at Get Religion, shares an interesting, apparently annual trend among some news outlets. In a photo slideshow at CBS entitled "Activists hold annual march for live on Roe v. Wade Anniversary", none of the pictures of the pro-life advocates, though they likely outnumbered the pro-abortion protestors 1000 to 1. I have not kept up on these trends; what I can say is that I looked through this slide show and indeed, none of the pictures show the activists their slideshow was supposed to be about. 

She cites, Elizabeth Scalia, who writes, "Unfortunately, the 'big picture' is hard to come by, particularly if you’re looking for 'big pictures' of this well-attended march. We have reached a remarkable era of photojournalism, as demonstrated by the once-noble Washington Post — one where a half million people can march, the headlines can call it “thousands” and the pictures show you none of it.

"Someone asked me on Twitter, 'why don’t they just report the truth' and I thought, 'because they have given themselves wholly over to a lie, and they fear the truth. Having built up the lie for so long that it’s become their foundation, they know they cannot withstand an assault by the truth.'

"So they have become truth-phobics, our mainstream media. They can’t tell you the truth about anything, anymore — they can only do whatever it takes to sustain the narratives they’ve constructed. …

"You want the truth? You think you deserve it? The press can’t handle the truth; they can’t bring it to you. The New York Times just ignores inconvenient truth, entirely.

"That’s why 250 people camping out in a park gets thousands of stories, while half-a-million marching on Washington does not get reported at all, or if it does, the pictures are cropped; the attendees are caricatured, mis-named and under-represented while their opponents are over-represented."

Read the whole thing here.  

God's Sovereignty in Politics

The Republican primaries are in full swing with Mitt Romney taking both Iowa and New Hampshire. Perhaps he is your candidate. Perhaps not. (If you are a Republican, he will be soon enough).  Maybe you do not care who wins because you are an Obama backer. Whatever the case, people can get really worked up about politics. It used to be every 4 years. Now it seems that every few months, people are getting hot under the collar when it comes to politics. 

On the one hand, I am glad to see people demonstrating more civic interest. It seems that we are finally coming out of a long period of apathy.  People are making their voices heard. On the other hand, as Christians, we need to have a biblically grounded perspective.

As I was reading this morning, two passages highlighted God's sovereignty in establishing rulers and kingdoms. As Daniel is again interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, he ultimately has to share some bad news with the king, essentially that he would lose his kingdom for a time. In Daniel 4:25, he says, "you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. You shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven periods of time shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will."  Make sure you appreciate the end of the verse.  God rules the kingdoms of men and he gives those kingdoms to whom he will.  God oversees all governments.  He establishes all thrones by his sovereign hand. 


The second passage I read this morning was from Acts 4:27-28.  The gathered believers prayed, "for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."  In this prayer, we learn that Herod and Pontius Pilate, who together approved the murder of Jesus, were predestined to their positions by the sovereign God of the universe.


Sometimes, when someone not to their liking is elected, I think Christians believe that God is in heaven shaking his head at our stupidity. I think Christians believe that God wishes we had chosen more wisely.  But God's sovereignty leaps from the pages of scripture from the beginning to the end.  Obama is president because God allowed him to be.  Romney won the first two primaries because God sovereignly ordained him to do so. Scott Walker is facing a recall election in Wisconsin because God permits it.  Whether he is recalled or not will ultimately be a part of God's sovereign design. 


So as Christians, we should get out and vote. God ordained that process too.  We should speak passionately about the issues, ideally grounding them in biblical authority. But we must recognize that God is ultimately in control not only of the final outcome, but the details as well.

Daily Reading: Matthew 19, Numbers 22, 1 Corinthians 6, Revelation 3, Song of Solomon 5, Psalm 144, Proverbs 25, 1 Chronicles 26, Daniel 4, Acts 4