RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Much has been said about the divisions in America today.  Though there have always been areas of disagreement, it seems as though today we are more divided than we have been in a long time.  And it seems that in our present situation(s) everything has boiled down to politics.  Many of us, myself included, have lost friends, or at least have to some extent distanced ourselves from long time acquaintances.  This is painful, especially when those from whom we have distanced ourselves are family, or fellow Christians.

Much of the conversation has gone from dialogue or even debate, to simply name - calling or pigeonholing.  Our temptation when called names or when disagreed with is to either return insult for insult or to distance ourselves.  (It's so easy to simply hit "unfriend" on our phone or computer that we find it easy to do the same with real person-to-person relationships.)  Yet we all know that we are losing something in this process.

One way that some use to avoid conflicts is to simply refuse to discuss "religion and politics." I have heard this recommended much of my life from those who feel they are taking "the high road."  But these are the issues that actually have meaning.  If we avoid all topics that could lead to controversy, our conversation becomes rather meaningless and we are left with discussions about movies, TV, sports, food or similar matters - things which are enjoyable but superficial.  (And discussions of these matters are not themselves free from controversy).

I feel that the issues of the day need to be discussed, especially by those who claim to be Christians - followers of Jesus Christ.  But how do we have discussions when many of us hold passionately to opinions that are diametrically opposed?

So I felt that I needed to write out my personal positions underlying my political and ethical opinions.  My thinking is that opinions are subject to change, but the bases for the opinions should not.  Or at least they should be very very difficult to change.  These positions, I feel should be the starting points for dialogue.  If my reader(s) and I can agree on these, we have a chance for agreement on other issues.  I realize of course that many will not agree with all (or even any) of these, but at least they will know where I'm coming from.

* First of all I am a follower of Jesus Christ.  He through his death on the cross and his resurrection has guaranteed me eternity with him and with God . I have committed my life to him as my Savior and Lord (even though I fail him often).

* I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and must be, when correctly interpreted, the standard by which I judge all matters, personal, ethical and political.  The follower of Christ is a partaker of what is known as the New Covenant as presented in the portion of the Bible known as the New Testament and is not bound by the laws given to Israel under the Old Covenant as elaborated in the Old Testament, although the Old Testament presents much having to do with God's character and His dealings with humankind.  The New Testament presents us with many moral and ethical teachings, though all fall under the Law of Love, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

* Yet I consider myself a thinker who is liberal as opposed to conservative, in the sense that my thinking is not bound by tradition or authoritarianism.  I believe that "all truth is God's truth" and I am open to new thinking.  I do not believe this is contrary to my faith in the truth of Scripture, but it does leave me open to new insights and interpretations.

* I believe that God is sovereign in all matters, including human government.  This does not necessarily however, imply that He approves of the actions and behavior of various human governments.  Both the Old Testament and New Testament tell us that God does hold the nations of the world accountable to certain moral standards.

* We who are followers of Christ are citizens of two Kingdoms.  Our first loyalty must be to the Kingdom of God, although we are also citizens of "the Kingdom of the world," of which America is a part.

* The United States of America is not a "Christian Nation," there is no such thing.  The only nation that could be called "God's nation" was the Old Testament nation of Israel.  Much of our conflict in today's discussion is due to the confusion of three separate entities:  the USA, the New Testament Church and the Old Testament nation of Israel.  Also we need to remember that the New Testament gives no standards as to which form of government or economic system we are to follow.

The above are my "rules of engagement."  The reader is free to disagree with these, but please remember, this is where I'm coming from.  Feel free to challenge these if you desire.  We can still have dialogue, as long as we know and respect one another.  I can supply Scripture references for the above claims if desired.

MISPLACED ALLEGIANCE

The American embassy in Israel has been moved from Tel Aviv - where many nations still have theirs - to Jerusalem.  Though many students of American foreign policy believe this to be an unwise move, many feel that this was the right thing to do and has been too long in coming.  The nation of Israel claims Jerusalem to be its capital, though many Palestinians claim East Jerusalem is, or at least should be their capital - the capital of the Arab West Bank.

Our President claims that this move will ultimately lead to peace in the Middle East, without (of course) specifying how this is to occur.  Mr. Trump is lauded as a hero in Israel, with great ceremonies commending this move by America and its President.  Speakers in these ceremonies include prominent "Evangelical" preachers.  Meanwhile the conflict between Israel and its neighbors seems more volatile, while deadly demonstrations by Palestinians are carried on.  (Of course the "deadly" applies to the Palestinians, not the Israelis - 50+ Palestinians dead and innumerable wounded.)

Many in the American Evangelical community are rejoicing in this action, some seem almost giddy.  Why is this?

A large number of Evangelical Christians hold to a theological system known as Dispensationalism, even though many who hold this position may never have heard the word.  Dispensationalists take pride in "rightly dividing the Word of Truth," in noting the distinctions made in the Scriptures.  To some extent this is an excellent way to interpret the Scriptures.  But sometimes Dispensationalists make distinctions where the Bible is not that clear.  And they also at times carry those distinctions to illogical conclusions.

Dispensationalists distinguish (as do many Christians) between God's Old Covenant people and His New Covenant people, between the nation of Israel of the Old Testament and the Church of the New, between Judaism and Christianity.  They do not however see the Church (Christianity) as a continuation of God's promises, expanded to include both Jews and non Jews who believe in Christ. They seem to ignore Paul's words, "So then, know this; that those who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7).

Dispensationalists see Israel as a people set aside until the end times when God will again deal with them.  "And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob'" (Romans 11:26; Isaiah 59:20).  And many see the birth of the present (secular) nation of Israel in 1948, and the following events  as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.  According to Dispensationalist eschatology (the doctrine of last things) the nation of Israel, scattered for millennia, must be back in their land and undergo seven years of "Great Tribulation" before Jesus returns.  The recent move is seen as one more step in that direction.

And this eschatology has led some (not all) Dispensationalists to a strange devotion and commitment to a foreign nation.  Some even refer to themselves as "Christian Zionists."  Many American Dispensationalists appear to place their loyalty to Israel above their loyalty to their own country.  The nation of Israel is regarded not simply as an American ally in the Middle East, nor even as the homeland of a people who have been homeless for 2,000 years.  Israel in the land is regarded by them as the fulfillment of prophecy.  To disregard Israel is considered to be akin to heresy.

And so many Dispensationalists and other Evangelicals demand that the U. S. government support Israel both financially and militarily.  A great part of the pro-Israel lobby is in fact, not Jewish but "Christian."  There are even "Christian" organizations that support Israel and even promote the sending of Jews back to the land.

But why is this?  Though I no longer consider myself a Dispensationalist, even when I thought I was one I had second thoughts on this position.  If Israel's return to the land is a fulfillment of prophecy - and I'm not sure it is - then God is the principle Actor in this drama.  Does He need the help of well-meaning American Evangelicals?  Why should we rejoice over this nation?  Why should we seek to protect it?  Do we expect to prevent the "Great Tribulation"? Or are we actually hoping to bring it on?

When the New Testament was being written, the land of Judea, at that time a Roman province with similar boundaries, was going through political turmoil.  Their conflicts led to a revolt against their Roman overlords, ultimately leading to the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jewish people.  Jesus prophesied these occurrences, and some think the Book of Revelation may also speak of these.  Yet nowhere are Christians of that day urged to support Israel financially or militarily.  In fact the Biblical writers Paul and Peter urge submission to the very government that would soon destroy their homeland.

The New Testament is clear as to what our obligations as followers of Christ are to our fellow human beings:  we are to love them as we love ourselves; we are to "go and disciple all the nations."  Distinctions are not made as to which people or which nations deserve our concern.

Peter says that we - the church - are "a holy nation, a people for His own possession."  It is this "nation" to which our allegiance belongs.

THE STRUGGLE TO SHAPE AMERICA

That's the subtitle of the 600+ page book that I finally finished reading.  The full title is The Evangelicals - The Struggle to Shape America by Frances FitzGerald.  Though the book was at times tedious (to me) it is a book well worth reading for anyone concerned about where the Church in America is at present.

As I have long considered myself an Evangelical Christian, I felt that this book was a necessary read, especially as the title seems to be almost an oxymoron, and in itself, I believe, is illustrative of the false dilemma that the evangelical church finds itself in.

The author, we are told, "is a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award and the Bancroft Prize, among others."  She is a prolific author of a number of non-fiction works, though this is the  first I've read.  She is now on my list of authors for future reads.

Ms. FitzGerald does not (to my knowledge) herself claim to be an Evangelical though she has written extensively on the subject.  This is what attracted me to her book.  I strongly believe that we Evangelicals desperately need to get outside of our box and see how we are perceived by others.  The book should not be a threat to the fearful, as she attempts to be objective and even appears to be mildly sympathetic.  The photo on the jacket of her sitting casually in her blue jeans before a wall of books is, I'm sure, designed to put the reader at ease: she is erudite, but relaxed and non threatening.

In her introduction, she tells us "This book is not a taxonomy or attempt to describe the entirety of evangelical life, but rather a history of the white evangelical movements necessary to understand the Christian right and its opponents that have emerged in recent years" (page 5).  In my opinion, she has accomplished her purpose well.

Ms. FitzGerald is quite thorough in covering the movement in America.  She begins her narrative with accounts of what are known as "The Great Awakenings" of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and moves on to the growth of the revivalist churches  - Methodists and Baptists - and the movement away from the older, historical denominations.  From there to the divisions over slavery in the antebellum period, then to the revivalism and the liberal/conservative divides of the late 19th century.  These movements - the first two American centuries - are covered quite briefly before she moves to the 20th century, which period occupies the remaining chapters of the book.

The first half of the 20th century - the period preceding the Second World War is, as the first two centuries, covered in a bit hastier fashion, serving as an important prelude to the post war activities.  It is however in this period we see the Fundamentalist/Modernist conflict and the great divisions in the church  - the early Pentecostal movement and the founding of smaller separatist Fundamentalist groups as well as their colleges and seminaries.  Of course the Scopes' "Monkey Trial" is seen as a significant marker, Darwinian evolution and German "higher criticism" being seen as factors contributing to the conflict.

After WW2 the narrative slows down and becomes more detailed.  It is here that Ms. FitzGerald seems to see the beginnings of modern Evangelicalism:  the Billy Graham crusades, the National Association of  Evangelicals, Christianity Today magazine and other periodicals, a movement away from the rigid Fundamentalism of earlier years, yet without abandoning its theological distinctives.

Though much of the prewar history was familiar to me, it is postwar history that seized my attention as more personal; I found much in these pages that I could relate to, having lived through the period covered.  I suppose I would call myself  a "seeker" during those early postwar years, and then a convert in the middle  '50s.  I was involved in a Fundamentalist  church for 11 years, then having escaped that , a Bible church which was less combative, less legalistic, but still holding the same theology.

Two major, seemingly incompatible, schools of thought had effects on Evangelicalism in those years and still do.  These theologies have, to a great extent spread into most of Evangelical thinking, and are held in different variations, even  by many who would never claim the labels:

-  Dispensationalism, which had its beginnings in the early 19th century, has been around so long that its teachings are accepted by many is essential to Evangelicalsm.  Briefly Dispensationalism holds that God has dealt in different manners with different groups during various "dispensations."  We are presently in the "dispensation of grace" or the Church Age.  However God has set aside the nation of Israel, to be dealt with in a future "Great Tribulation" {Ms. FitzGerald mistakenly adds an s to the word) immediately preceding Christ's "premillennial" return. This is the form of Evangelicalism with which I am most familiar, having spent most of my life as a Dispensationalist.
- Reconstructionism  (also known as Dominionism) holds that God's Law, given to the Nation of Israel, is actually meant for all nations to be subject to and the task of the church is to somehow bring this about, leading to the Millennium - 1,000 years of peace at the end of which Christ will return.

It would seem obvious that these two schools of thought should be incompatible, Dispensationalism seeing the situation as inevitably getting worse and worse and Reconstructionism seeing it as having the potential for getting better and better.  Yet it seems to me that elements of both are held by much of Evangelicalism, leading to a sort of schizophrenic theology and thus to a schizophrenic politics.

The last half of the book is involved with the growth of actions of the Christian right and the interesting cast of characters that we all know so well:  Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and James Dobson, as well as brief narratives of lesser but colorful characters, such as Jim and Tammy Fae Baker, Jimmy Swaggart and other televangelists.  She also deals here with the fact that many Evangelicals have disagreed strongly with the views and actions of the Christian Right:  Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, Gregory Boyd and others who are often regarded as progressives, though I believe they are simply striving to be more biblical in their ethical and political views.

I must confess that I have been naive.  Though I have always attempted to keep myself somewhat aloof from the Christian right, I have found many, perhaps most of my Christian friends and family sympathetic with their views and so I have tried to not become too outspoken.  I had been unaware of how great was the constant meddling of these people in the affairs of state.  I had thought that what I read in the news magazines and heard on TV a bit exaggerated, that their picture of Evangelicalism was a stretch.  We're not really like that.  But we are!  The massive quantity of data is all there.

The Christian right has lost its way; the political power that was gained during the G. W. Bush years has drained away any spiritual power.  Evangelicalism has lost its Evangel - its good news!  We are too busy trying to do as the subtitle says:  struggling to shape America.  Christ and His commission have been left behind!

I highly recommend this book to any who want to understand how we, the Evangelical church in American got to the sad state we are in today.

My two major criticisms:

- Ms. FitzGerald has underestimated the power of racism in America.  Even though she mentions its influence throughout, I feel she hasn't considered how powerfully it has affected much of the thinking and many of the actions of the right.
- She doesn't devote anywhere near the space to the Obama years and what follows as I would have liked (another 100 pages?).  I believe that the politics of today have been greatly affected by the theology and racism of the Right - both religious and other.

SQUIRREL ANSWERS

A Sunday School teacher posed the following question to her class of children:

     "I'm thinking of something that is furry, has four legs and a bushy tail and collects nuts for the winter. What is it?

     Hands shot up immediately.  "Jesus!" shouted one little girl.

     "Jesus?" said the teacher.  "Why did you say Jesus?"

    "Well," was the reply.  "It sounded like a squirrel but this is Sunday School, so I knew the answer was Jesus!"

 

I believe that this little tale is the source of the occasional usage of the expression "Squirrel Answers" by my daughter Sherry, with whom I am in frequent communication.  While I felt I agreed with her usage, I also felt I need a more concise definition.  However, Mr. Webster was of no help and  when I  googled it, all I got was pictures of little creatures and statements regarding them. I didn't think that this was what Sherry was referring to so I texted her for her definition .

 

Her reply: "That's a hard one.  I use squirrel answer because otherwise I have to give a whole paragraph.  LOL."

 

"I guess basically it's when somebody gives you a trite, by the book answer to a complex, and often personal question.  It is an answer meant to stop the conversation so it is quite often judgmental in nature."

 

"For instance you say that you're having a hard time dealing with the suffering in the world and they quote a Bible verse.  Or you say that gun control is a complex issue and they chastise you for causing strife."

 

After further thought she continued:   "However, based on the jokes that that comes from (apparently a reference to the above story) I think it's when people give you the spiritual answer they're expected to give you - with little regard to whether it's true or not."

 

Not concise, but pretty clear.

 

We're all used to hearing evasive answers from politicians and other public figures:

     "Is it true that you called the president an idiot?"

     "I will not lower myself to answering a question like that!"

 

But it is sad when Christians who are  supposed to have an answer for everyone who asks, can only give canned, evasive answers or out-of-context Bible verses.  I'm not sure why this is done, but I believe squirrel answers are symptoms of more serious problems.  If I may speculate on some of the sources.

 

First I believe that some, as the little girl in the story, assume that this is what we're supposed to do.  As children we are taught to memorize Bible verses, usually with no regard to context.  This continues into adult life.  Many Bible even have tables printed, listing various needs or problems, each followed by an appropriate (?) verse or verses.  We assume that "there's a verse for every problem" (as I have actually been told), that maturity includes a knowledge of the right verse for every situation and that all the questioner needs is to find the right verse.  But the Bible is not a magic book full of magic verses.  It's a complex book that deals with many moral issues in various contexts.  It demands thought!

 

The above types of squirrel answers may not necessarily be judgmental but often are, and whether or not, will be perceived as such.

 

Another source of these answers (related to the one above) is that the answerer believes he/she has attained a greater knowledge than the questioner and again all that is needed are the appropriate words or cliches, which are to be accepted without question.

 

But I suspect that one of the main reasons for squirrel answers is a lack of faith, a fear that shows up when questions are raised for which there appear to be no obvious answers.  I suspect that some Christians have a faith which can be easily shaken by sincere questions.  A pious canned answer can be a protection against such questions.  It can also put the questioner on the defensive.

 

But a faith in the truth and authority of Scripture, a faith in a God who is sovereign, has no need to fear questions for which the answer is not clear or is not known.  The follower of Christ has no need for fear but should take every question as an opportunity for growth in faith.

 

I read somewhere of a graffiti slogan sprayed on a wall, "Jesus is the answer!"  Below it was  sprayed in a different hand, "What was the question?"

 

(By the way: the little girl in this story was not Sherry.)

 

IN DEFENSE OF A NAME

"But if you are called an Evangelical Christian and boast in God ... being confident of yourself that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having a form of knowledge and of the truth in the Bible.  You then who teach the other, don't you teach yourself?  You who preach not to steal, do you steal?  You who say don't commit adultery, do you commit adultery?  For God's name is slandered among the unbelievers because of you ..."

- Paul the Apostle (Romans 2:17-24 - I changed a few words.)

An accused pedophile is a candidate for a Senate seat from the state of Alabama. Numerous women have come forth with allegations of his attempted relations with them when he was in his thirties and they were teenagers.  We are told that he was banned from the local mall around the same time, because of his coming on to teenage girls.

Many of his constituents are defending him in various ways, besides blaming the liberal news media, the Democrats and the establishment Republicans.  A couple of the weirder defenses are:

            "Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter, so what he (the would-be senator) did was no different."  (There is no mention of Joseph's age in the Bible, nor any mention of his being a carpenter at that time; and he didn't have sex with her till they were married and she had given birth to Jesus.)
            "This man is being 'persecuted like Jesus Christ.'"

Of course. the late night comics are having a great time with this and even the more serious newspersons seem to have problems keeping from rolling their eyes.  But, whether comics or newspersons, whether of the left or right, all refer to him and his supporters as "Evangelical Christians."

This title of course is nothing new in the public discourse.  "Evangelical Christian" is understood to be a voting bloc of the extreme right.  They stand for "values," "family values" and extreme moralism.  They are opposed to gay marriage (actually anything to do with homosexual behavior), abortion and birth control.  They want to "bring America back to God."  They are often seen (by friend or foe alike) as angry.  They feel they are being persecuted.

Wait a minute!  I object!  I have for many years considered myself an Evangelical Christian and I take exception to the accepted descriptions above!  I do not want to be identified with these.  I know that some who once would have referred to themselves as Evangelical Christians, have dropped the name, and I confess that I have been tempted to.  It's difficult having to explain that I'm not one of those guys.

So I believe we need to look at the history of these two words.  First the word "Christian."  This word is only used three times in the New Testament.  And it is not a name taken on themselves by the followers of Christ.

The first usage is in Acts 11:26:  " ... and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."  This was a formation of the name "Christ" and meant something like "followers of Christ."  Before this they had never had the label pinned on them.  The church in Antioch was the first church with a large number of Gentiles (non-Jews) and the label was apparently given by non-believing Gentiles to this new group.  It may have been a name of contempt, or at least disdain like the term "Jesus-freak" back in the 1970s.

The second time we encounter this word is in Acts 26:28.  The apostle Paul had been imprisoned for over two years with no clear charges made.  Finally he had made an appeal to the supreme court of his day, to Caesar himself.  Porcius Festus, the Roman governor scheduled a hearing to determine his actions and called in Herod Agrippa II to aid him in his determination.  Paul in making his case and giving his testimony began to preach the death and resurrection of Christ.  Though Festus accused Paul of being crazy, Paul pressed his case to Agrippa (who of course claimed Jewish ties.)  "King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets?  I know that you do."  And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian" (Acts 26:27, 28). Again, this may have been a contemptuous use of the word. Agrippa couldn't  escape the logic of Paul's argument and so, as many do today, resorted to sarcasm.

The third use of the word is in 1 Peter. Peter in this letter is urging his readers to "Keep your behavior excellent (or beautiful) among the Gentiles" (2:12a).  He admits that "they slander you as evildoers" (2:12b).  And then he tells them, "if you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.  By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evil-doer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God" (4:14-16).

The label was apparently used derogatorily by those outside the faith in New Testament times and continued to be used that way for some time; to be a Christian was even considered a crime.  All this changed with the legalization of the faith by Constantine and somewhere the word Christian became a word used with pride.  If we fast forward a thousand years or so, we find that the word had become an adjective.  All Europe had become "Christian," if only in the cultural sense.  Today much of the world, including America considers itself Christian.

And what about the word "Evangelical"?  Well the earliest use I know of is from the 16th century.  It was originally used of the followers of Martin Luther and then spread to the other Reformers.   It seems to have been essentially synonymous with "Protestant."  But the roots of the word go way back before the word Christian, even before the Christian era.  It is derived from the Greek word euaggelion, which means, simply "good news" and is found around 75 times in the New Testament.  Also used in the New Testament are the words euaggelizomai, "to tell or proclaim the good news" and euaggelistes, "a bearer (or preacher) of "good news."  (By the way our English word "gospel" - god spell has the same meaning.)

Though the word "evangelical," like the word "Christian" has become more of a cultural term in Europe.  In the United States it has kept much of its original flavor

My Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition defines evangelical in a number of ways, but I believe the following definitions describe how we have historically understood ourselves.

"Evangelical:  1) of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel esp. as it is presented in the four Gospels. 3) emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual."

There is no mention of a voting bloc, or of anything political.  I'm sure the 12th Edition will correct that oversight?

So I will continue to refer to myself as an Evangelical Christian.  And I will use it in the sense given above.  I am a Christian - a disciple - a follower - of Jesus Christ.  I am an Evangelical - one who has been saved by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ and who believes in the authority of Scripture.

To my friends and others on the right:  Please make sure your Evangelicalism has to do with your faith in Christ and your desire to live by the authority of Scripture and not with your Pharisaic moralism or right wing politics.  Please try to live your lives by the example of Christ and the leading of the Spirit.  And when you fail please don't make excuses, don't hesitate to repent and confess your sin.  And please don't accuse your accusers; don't play the martyr!

And to my friends and others on the left:  Please recognize that there are many Evangelical Christians who attempt to live as Christ would have them live.  And when you see or hear of some who call themselves Evangelical Christians but fail to live up to Christ's example, remember that we, like you, are still imperfect sinners.  And when you see some who are behaving in open hypocrisy , if you must label them as Evangelical Christians, at least put quotation marks around the label! 

THOUGHTS ON RACE BY AN OLD WHITE GUY

Nine years ago, on November 3, 2008, the United States elected our first African American President, Barack Obama.  Uni and I were overwhelmed with excitement that Tuesday evening as we watched the acceptance speech of the man we had voted for.  We had been ministering across racial lines for years and had felt that in our own small way we had made some contribution toward what was then known as "racial reconciliation."  We felt that Barack Obama's election was a great step forward for our nation and the church in America.  We soon found out that we were overly optimistic in our assessment; in  fact we found out the very next evening as we attended our (all white) church's Wednesday evening service. 

We had mixed emotions over the negative comments we heard; our joy became mixed with grief and anger.  What we had seen as something beautiful was perceived by many in my (white Christian) circle as something ugly.  By Friday I had assembled my thoughts enough to publish the following post which I am here republishing in its entirety:

IS GOD STILL ON THE THRONE?

Back in 1960, I was a fairly young believer and attending what I regarded then as a Bible-preaching church. It was an election year, my first in which I’d get to vote for president. The Democrat candidate, Senator John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic was running against Richard M. Nixon, a Quaker and well-known Communist hunter.

Meetings were held at various churches, fundamentalist and others, including the one I attended, denouncing the evils of Catholicism and foretelling the horrible dangers that would befall our Protestant nation if Kennedy were elected. Not only was He Catholic, but also a liberal!

Rumors were circulated by mail and tract (I wonder what would have happened if we’d had the Internet).

Well, of course, all of us true believers voted against this horrible evil, but to no avail. Kennedy won! Fear struck our hearts! America was doomed! But few, if any, of our fears were realized.

When Barack Obama was campaigning for election, rumors were spread, only now we have the Internet.
-- He’s a secret Muslim.
-- He’s an Arab.
-- He “pals around with terrorists.”
-- He’s not even an American.
-- He’s going to promote gay marriage.
-- He’s going to take our guns away.
-- And, of course, he’s the anti-Christ!

And a few truths:
-- He’s a liberal (so were the signers of our Declaration of Independence).
-- He’s black (actually, he’s mixed-race)!
-- His middle name is Hussein.

The evening that Obama gave his acceptance speech huge crowds gathered in cities across the nation. Uni and I were moved to tears when we saw the images on our TV screen. Blacks and whites embracing; tears rolling down the cheeks of older black people.

A half-century after the Civil Rights Movement, after the demise of Jim Crow (our American version of apartheid), an African-American was elected President of the USA. We felt it was a great moment in the history of our nation, a demonstration that “all men (really) are created equal.” It was truly historical. Here was a moment all Americans, whether Democrat or Republican, whether black or white, no matter whom they’d voted for, could celebrate.

But such was not the case. Instead, we were told by our Christian friends (and others) that the reactions we witnessed were the same sort of reactions that the anti-Christ will get when he appears; that America may no longer be a “Christian nation” (whatever that is!). A friend of mine was told that the second coming must be near because of this.

This strange mixture of fear, eschatological zeal, far-right politics, and I believe, downright racism is unbecoming to those who name the name of Christ.

And even those who claim that they are not afraid say something like, “Well, we have to remember, God is still on the throne.” Apparently though in their thinking, the throne is wobbling and God is barely hanging on!

Our God is Sovereign! He reigns! He sets up rulers and takes them down. He has a purpose in setting up Barack Obama. Perhaps the church through this will learn a little more tolerance, as some of us did 48 years ago.

Bill Ball
11/7/2008

Knowing that very few of my friends and acquaintances read my blog, I felt that I needed to get these thoughts out to as many as I could,  so I e-mailed it to everyone in my address book.

I waited in fear and apprehension for the replies.  Though only a small number replied, I felt relieved when I read them.  Very few were hostile;  some expressed agreement;

some even seemed to share my feelings; most of them expressed what I at the time optimistically considered "qualified agreement" (See:  YES HE IS.)  I now feel that I was incorrect in this assessment.  Today, as I re-read these replies I understand most of them as attempts (sincere or insincere) to be irenic or conciliatory, perhaps out of respect (or pity?) for me.

I believe that the last nine years have demonstrated that my early optimism was misdirected.  We have made little, if any, progress toward racial reconciliation in America and in the church;  in fact I fear that we've actually gone backward.

For the eight years of Barack Obama's presidency we saw animosity toward him running high, and I strongly believe that much, if not most of it was racially motivated.  Why else would congressional leaders state that their goal was to see him fail?  Why were there so many conspiracy and "birther" theories?  Why the increase in the number of racially motivated and white supremacist hate groups - the Klan, the neo-nazis?

And the situation has not improved since Barack Obama left office.  Racism now seems to have become official American policy.  White supremacist groups are more open and even accepted. And the church at best looks the other way.

Many of my white Christian (and other) friends will sincerely deny that all of these people and actions are or were racially motivated. Perhaps some weren't, though I suspect that many people are simply refusing to look inside.  We fear what we may find.

Uni and I are brokenhearted!  And please do not accuse me of being "political."  This is not simply a matter of politics, but a matter of right and wrong.  It's a matter of the church being the church, of actually loving our neighbors.

WOMEN, MEN AND JESUS

It seems that lately we are being regularly subjected to reports of sexual misbehavior of prominent men.  Women are becoming more and more open to relating tales of sexual abuse by men, especially those in authority or power over them (These are only the latest.):

            A network executive.

      
            A network commentator - one who has often spoken with "indignation" of the misbehavior of others.

            A beloved comedian - one who has in the past been held up as an example of "family values."

            A movie mogul.

            The President of the United States - who has boasted of sexually assaulting women and calls it simply "locker room talk."

            And, of course, various lesser personalities - politicians, preachers, coaches.

Sadly, while women are seemingly becoming bolder and more open to tell - even to bring lawsuits - this masculine behavior itself is nothing new.  I can remember hearing boasts from my high school acquaintances and fellow office workers. We tend to accept this behavior as "just the way things are."

But while this may be "the way things are," it's not the way things should be!  And when it gets close to home, when we hear or read reports even from those women dear to us, then perhaps it's time for us men to examine our own attitudes as well as our behavior toward the "opposite sex." Are we behaving as though we lived in a patriarchal society. Do we condescend? Do we regard women as somehow simply there for our own pleasure and convenience? How should we behave toward women? What is the proper Christian view on a man's treatment of women?

I've been leading two Bible studies at our church.  One is a study of the family in the Book of Genesis, which I've entitled, "Dysfunctional Family Values."  We've been looking at man/woman and family relationships in this book and find the characters just as broken as those of today.  I've studied and taught this book before, but this time I was hit with the frequency of the appearance of tragic (abused?) female figures:

            Hagar, the Egyptian slave girl, forced to have sex with the aged Abraham and to become the "surrogate mother" of his child, only to be rejected and driven away into the desert.

            Leah, the unattractive older sister forced unloved into a polygamous relationship.

            Dinah, the 11th of 13 siblings and only girl. Raped and then given in marriage (apparently without her consent) by her brothers who then slaughter her husband and all his family.

            Tamar, who lost two husbands and then resorted to prostitution, and after being impregnated by her own father-in-law, threatened with death for becoming pregnant.

And again we tend to accept these stories as "just the way things are."  After all, the society of those days was patriarchal.

But my other Bible study is in the Gospel of John.  It is here we find the One who treats women with respect and dignity, at times revealing truths about Himself to them that He had not even revealed to the 12 men in His inner circle:

            The Samaritan woman he meets at the well - a woman considered by Jews as of an inferior race and a false religion - a woman who had apparently been bounced from one man to the next and was currently on her sixth.  Besides breaking tradition by talking to her, Jesus asks to drink from her water jar, breaking taboo after taboo.  It is to this woman he reveals that the worship of God is a spiritual matter not to be confined to a particular location. And He told her that God was seeking such worshippers. God was seeking her!

            The woman caught in adultery, brought to Jesus as a test case. After silencing and sending off her accusers ("Let the one without sin cast the first stone.") He turns to her and asks "Where are your accusers?" and sends her off with assurance that He does not accuse her.

            Mary and Martha whose brother Lazarus, Jesus raises from the dead. It is to Martha he makes the amazing claim, "I am the Resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live even if she dies..." Then he personalizes it with, "Do you believe this?"

            Later it is Martha's sister Mary who anoints His feet with expensive perfume. And Jesus defends her action to Judas and the others.

            His own mother Mary, for whom He takes concern even while dying on the cross.

            And, of course, Mary Magdalene, the first person to whom he appeared after his resurrection in a tender moving scene.

I don't believe we men need a book or a list of rules telling us how to relate to women. I believe we simply need to follow Jesus' example, to ask, "What would Jesus do?" - and then do it!

PROPHETS AND KINGS

When I first read the story of Micaiah and Ahab in the Bible many years ago, I could hardly believe what I was reading - not because it sounded too fantastic or unbelievable, but because it made me laugh.  Would God record a story so hilarious in His Word?  Apparently so.

Micaiah the prophet is only mentioned in one story in the Old Testament, but for some reason his story is told twice.  It's recorded in First Kings, chapter 22, verses 1-28 and in Second Chronicles, chapter 18, verses 1-27.  Both versions are essentially the same, with small variations in the details.  Read them both.

Though I still enjoy this story as a favorite, still see the humor and irony in it, and still see its relevance, I have found it even more relevant to our present situation in America.  If the reader will bear with me I'll try to tell it in my own words.

The nation of Israel had been divided into two separate kingdoms, both populated by the LORD's covenant people.  The northern kingdom still bore the name Israel, but had begun with an apostate religion, while the southern kingdom named Judah, had held on to the worship of the LORD, at least outwardly.  As our story begins, the kings of the two kingdoms had come together for some kind of conference, Ahab of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah.  We are told elsewhere something of what these two kings were like.

"Indeed there never was anyone like Ahab who sold himself to do evil in the sight of the LORD, at the instigation of his wife Jezebel.  He acted very abominably in chasing after idols ..." (1 Kings 21:25, 26)

"Jehoshaphat ... walked in all the way of his father Asa and did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD." (1 Kings 22:42, 43)

Though these two were clearly poles apart in their morals and religious beliefs their kingdoms had been united by the marriage of Jehoshaphat's son with Ahab's daughter.

Anyway at this conference, Ahab made a huge feast at which he attempted to persuade Jehoshaphat to unite with him to go to war with Aram (present day Syria) at a place called Ramoth-Gilead.  Jehoshaphat was in agreement.  "I'm with you; my people are as your people."  But Jehoshaphat wasn't quite ready; he said, "let's inquire for a word from the LORD."

So we're told that Ahab brought in about 400 of his prophets to give their opinions.  And of course, as religious leaders often do when given political prominence, these sycophantic soothsayers sucked up to this narcissistic king.  When he asked, "Should I go up to battle or should I refrain?" they all of course immediately assured him of victory.  Interestingly, at first they did not use the name of the LORD (Yahweh) but said, "the Lord (Adonai) will give victory," or "God will give victory."  Were they a bit afraid to cite the LORD as their source.?

Jehoshaphat seems to have been unimpressed.  "Wait a minute, isn't there a prophet of the LORD that we can inquire of?"  Apparently he was able to see through these phonies.

 
"Well yeah" said Ahab, "there's one more, but I hate him cause he never prophesies anything good about me, only evil" ("fake news?") His name is Micaiah Ben Imlah."

Jehoshaphat said, "Please don't say that your majesty!"

So Ahab called an officer to fetch Micaiah.  He knew where to find him; was he already in jail?

The officer told Micaiah that everyone was speaking favorable (flattering?) things to the king and that if he knows what's good for him he'll do the same. Micaiah simply answers, "What the LORD gives me is what I'll speak."

Meanwhile the 400 were going through their acts, reassuring Ahab that victory was his.  One change - they began to use the name of the LORD for their assurances.

So Micaiah, contrary to what Ahab was expecting, lays it on thick.  When Ahab asks him to give his opinion he says, "Go up to battle; you'll succeed because the LORD will give you victory!"  But though his "prophecy" agreed with all the others, Ahab was not pleased!

"How many times do I have to tell you to speak only the truth in the name of the LORD?"

Catch 22!  The king wants the truth!  The king wants you to say nice things!  How does one do both?  This sounds so -well - modern.  Truth is that which I want to hear.  Truth is that which reinforces my prejudices.  Truth is that which pumps up my ego.  And yet Ahab apparently knew that all his prophets were lying to him except this one lone man standing in front of him.  And he didn't care.

The story goes on. Micaiah then cuts loose with an account of his vision of the LORD and how the LORD is using Ahab's prophets to deceive him so that he would die in battle.  A heated dialog follows:  Ahab, Micaiah and one of the other "prophets."  Finally Ahab has Micaiah thrown in jail on bread and water ... "until I return safely."

Micaiah's final words were, "If you return safely then the LORD hasn't spoken by me!  Listen all you people!"

The story goes on.  Ahab, though attempting to keep safe by making Jehoshaphat his decoy, is killed in battle.  We're not told what happened to Micaiah; apparently he spent the rest of his days in jail on bread and water.

Though the story still strikes me as humorous, with a clown king who wants both truth and flattery at the same time when this is utterly impossible, it also is one of the best examples of a follower of the LORD who is unafraid to speak truth to power (albeit with a bit of sarcasm).

When I read stories in the Bible - or anywhere else - I often picture the characters as people I know or know of.  And I must confess that my picture of king Ahab looks a lot like Donald Trump.  And some of the prophets look a lot like the prominent "Christian" leaders who gather around him

We have a president whose concept of truth, like Ahab's is that which feeds his ego.  And sadly he has many "prophets" performing for him.  He has an advisory circle of preachers and televangelists who have apparently no effect on his  ethics or morals.  Some still tell us to "give him a chance;" some assure us that he's God's man; more and more excuses.

Are there no Micaiahs around?

SOME THOUGHTS ON HONORING THE FLAG

For years Uni and I lived in a two-story townhouse in Houston.  From an upstairs' window we could look down on the street behind us which was filled with neat single story homes.  In the yard directly behind us was a large American flag flying from a tall pole.  It flew day and night, rain or shine.  When we first moved in, the flag looked brand new - bright red, white and blue.  But as the years passed, the flag grew worn and frayed around the edges.  Then it began to turn gray.  Pieces of it seemed to disappear.  After more years all we could see was a worn gray rag flying from the pole.  It grew smaller and smaller until one day it was gone.

In the mall the other morning, we saw a pleasant looking middle-aged lady carrying an umbrella that looked like an American flag, stars and stripes and all.  It was wet and dripping from the rain.

We see people today wearing garments that appear to be made from American flags.  Even shorts, so they can sit on Old Glory.  We see flags waved in TV commercials, especially preceding national holidays, which seem to be becoming nothing more than opportunities for sales.

I suppose all these folks believe they are patriotic, honoring and respecting our flag by displaying it boldly.  Are they?  I don't believe so!  I was taught as a child and later as a Marine Reserve, that the American flag is to be treated with respect, even reverence. There used to be rules for its proper display.

And then there are those who display a Confederate battle flag boldly, sometimes right alongside Old Glory.  Displaying a flag that represents a traitorous rebellion against the United States does not seem to me to be honoring the flag.  And again these folks feel that they are patriotic. Are they?

Some - mostly African American - NFL players have refused to stand while the National Anthem is being played; some kneeled; some simply sat on the bench.  They said that they were doing this to protest injustice.  Many of their white teammates have joined them.  And these people were immediately condemned as dishonoring the flag, often by those same persons who had dishonored the flag in the ways mentioned above.  They were even called SOBs by our President who said they should be fired!.

I suspect that this sort of righteous indignation is not only pure hypocrisy, but it is fueled by racism.  The men who kneeled were not dishonoring the flag but demanding the "liberty and justice for all" that that flag stands for.

I believe the flag is to be respected.  I still stand for the National Anthem, but I also believe that those who kneel have every right to do so; in fact, I believe they are honoring the flag much more than those who treat it as a rag or an article of clothing, or an umbrella.  I suppose that someday I may find myself kneeling with them.

But while the American flag is to be respected and honored, it is honored for what it stands for, not as a salute to "the military" as many contend.  Nor is the flag to be treated as an object of worship.  It should have no place in a church sanctuary.  It should not be wrapped around the cross.  I believe that when we confuse our Christianity with some sort of display of "patriotism" we are committing blasphemy.

Jesus demanded that we love Him over every other human relationship (Matthew 10:37).  I would think that includes our country and its flag.  He demanded that we take up our cross and follow Him (verse 38).  He didn't tell us to take up our flag.