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.

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.

LIVING FOR JESUS IN TRUMP'S AMERICA

I haven't posted anything for quite a while.  After the election in November, I posted three angry rants for which I make no apology.  My feelings have not changed much since then except to go from anger to befuddlement.
 

I'm befuddled at the thinking of some persons I know, for whom I had had great respect - even some who had quite an influence on me in my life as a Christian.  And there were some others whom I had thought that I had influenced.  I've seen their posts and shares on social media and have wondered where they are coming from - an alternative universe?  They praise our new president Donald Trump as God's man for America.  They praise the "testimonies" of Trump's minions; they seem to see a new and brighter day for America - and apparently for the church.

Yet whenever I turn on the television news I see and hear a ranting, lying, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic bully, a man whose speech and behavior is completely opposed to every-thing a follower of Christ would stand for.  And his minions support him in  this.  We're told that the lies he used last week were actually the fault of the "news media" or someone else.  And, of course, we have this great new phrase, "Alternative facts."

I could go on and on about the bizarre looniness that our new president and his minions spout.  I could go on and on about my fears regarding his actions in the next few weeks and years, but all anyone has to do is turn on the news to hear and see this circus.  I am afraid for my country.

But America is not my greatest concern.  Our nation has gone off in the wrong direction many times in the past and so far we as a nation have survived.  And even if we don't, I realize God is sovereign.  And I realize that my hope is not in America.  It may be that we who follow Jesus will have to stand alone -  even in America!

My greatest concern is for the Church of Jesus Christ and my relationship to it.  I'm speaking of the total visible church - what Paul calls "the body of Christ" and to which I belong.  I cannot understand the fact that so many who claim to be followers of Christ are infatuated with a hateful, narcissistic playground bully.

I hope that the reader will understand - this post is not simply a rant against our president or a complaint about America.  It is an expression of the dilemma I - and many of my fellow American Christians face:  how do we live for Jesus in opposition to our ungodly national leaders and not find ourselves in opposition to the Church of which a great share are infatuated with these leaders - of which church we are a part?

There are some, I fear, who feel they should separate themselves from that Church.  But we can't if we belong to Jesus Christ.  We may separate from a particular organized group (and I have done that in the past) only to find the same situation in another group.  Do we isolate ourselves from others totally? We cannot do that.

I love the Church; I love the local group of which I am a member.  I have many Christian friends in this city and others all over the world with whom I communicate.  How am I to react when our conversation turns to their love affair with Trump?  Or when it turns to their hatred for our former President?  When I find it easier to talk with my unbelieving friends than with my brothers and sisters in Christ?

I know I am not alone, that there are many who have not drunk the Kool-Aid, who have  the same dilemma I have: following Jesus demands of us that we refuse to compromise truth and yet demands that we act in love.

WHITE TRASH

I have been mystified by the seemingly bizarre phenomenon of the rise of Donald Trump.  Here is a man who is (or at least claims to be) a multi-billionaire, who lives a sexually immoral life and boasts about it, who makes racist, misogynistic remarks, who mocks those he considers losers, who contradicts himself constantly (sometimes in the same sentence).  And yet he is adored, even worshipped (?) by a large number of the American people who are ready to make him our next president.

Even if we ignore the large number of blindly committed Republicans and the power greedy religious leaders, we are still left with a huge number of devoted trumpists.  Who are these people?  Are they really just "a basket of deplorables" as Hillary Clinton says?

When I heard about the book White Trash:  The 400 Year Untold History of Class in America, I felt I might find some answers or at least insights.  I was not disappointed.  This is an alternative history that ranks up close to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and while it does not go into the depth of detail of Zinn's book, it does fill in much detail and gives a different perspective from the history we learned in school.

The author, Nancy Isenberg, is the T. Harry Williams Professor of American History at LSU and is the author of other non-fiction books as well as a regular writer for Salon.com.  Though the book covers much material in its 300+ pages, reading it was never boring.  In fact I found it a real page-turner.

This is not a book about heroes.  It does not paint our founding fathers as exemplary.  It does not glorify the "American dream."  We are not, nor were we ever, a "city on a hill."  Rather we are given a history of the underclass, of those who are to a great extent, ignored by the writers of history.  It is as well, a history of the attitudes of those who did "make history" toward those regarded as inferior.

The underclass has always been with us, and we might even say that our nation was begun as a dumping ground for the poor of England and elsewhere in Europe.  They were always there - on America's frontiers, fighting her wars.  As Ms. Isenberg tells us, "Long before they were today's 'trailer trash' and 'rednecks,' they were called 'lubbers' and 'rubbish' and 'clay-eaters' and 'crackers' -- and that's just scratching the surface" (page 2).

The author traces the history of these people through the centuries -- and they were and still are, as she reminds frequently, still with us; and they are us.  The colonizers and early settlers, the squatters on the frontier were there at the beginning and were part of the westward movement of American "civilization."

There were periods of our history when these people were looked down on as an inferior breed; racism and classism were not that far apart.  The history goes on through the frontier settlement, even our first (but not our last) white trash president, Andrew Jackson.  The antebellum south was populated with these, and it was there when racism and classism were played against each other.  It seems that one way of keeping the lower classes in line was - and still is - is to give them some to look down on.

The author relates the history  of the eugenics movement in this country and the talk of "good breeding."  It seems that Hitler was not that far removed from some of the thinking in America.  While no one would advocate his extreme "solution," it was thought that the problems of the lower classes could be dealt with by proper breeding, even "eugenic sterilization."

The history is traced through the depression, the dust bowl, the "war on poverty," but always bringing to mind those on the bottom rungs.  Though at times the "country boy" or the "redneck" gained popularity, such as with country and country rock music, it was often double edged.  Much of our pop culture was thinly disguised mockery.  TV programs such as "The Beverly Hillbillies," "The Dukes of Hazzard," even "Andy Griffith" portrayed the lower classes as ignorant and uncouth.

So where is this book going?  Ms. Isenberg in her final chapter tell us, "If this book accomplishes anything it will be to have exposed a number of myths about the American dream, to have disabused readers of the notion that upward mobility is a function of the founders' ingenious plan, or that Jacksonian democracy was liberating, or that the Confederacy was about states' rights rather than preserving class and racial distinctions" (page 313).

As far as the question I raised at the beginning of this post, she answers it well.  I asked "who are these people (the followers of Donald Trump)?'  Her answer:  "Today as well we have a large unbalanced electorate that is regularly convinced to vote against its collective self-interest" (page 313).

We have people in America - white people - who feel beaten down.  They feel the system has failed them.  The political party that at one time was their hope, has ignored them.  They, as we all do, "need" someone to look down on, someone to blame.  And we have a demagogue who has found a way to take advantage of this need.  It has worked many times in the past.  They are taught to fear and at the same time to revile Mexicans, Moslems, blacks, gays, feminists and that black man in the White House.

But these are not people to look down on as simply "a basket of deplorables."  They are real people with real needs.  They are a part of my background, even my family.  What this book has done for me is convict me of my own classism.  In my abhorrence of racism I have found myself using derogatory terms such as are used in this book, to put down those I consider racist.  How often have I referred to them as rednecks or crackers or hillbillies or trailer trash?

When Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, He was clear that that term "neighbor" included everyone, even those who are unloving and unlovable.

Father forgive me for not loving my neighbor.

A LOVE AFFAIR GONE WRONG

" ... that the living may know that the Most High is Sovereign over the Kingdom of Man and grants it to whom He wishes, and He sets over it the lowest of men" (Daniel 4:17).

These words were spoken to Nebuchadnezzar, the great world ruler of his day, one year before he was driven mad.  We may see them as an ancient rebuke to a man, arrogant in the belief that all of his great realm was the product of his own doing.  We may fail to see that it is a truth as relevant today as it was two and a half millennia ago.

Today we see and hear in the world many Nebuchadnezzars, "speaking loud boasts of folly" (2 Peter 12:18 ESV).  And in the good old USA we have a loud mouthed contender for President who fits the description.  It seems that daily some new arrogant racist remarks spew from his lips.  And he is now the candidate of one of our two major political parties.

It wasn't long ago that Donald Trump was considered by many to be an anomaly, a rich source of material for the late night comics - nothing more.  The pundits and talking heads were predicting his disappearance from the Presidential race at any moment.  The pundits are no longer making predictions; their speculations are presented with great caution.  The comedians are getting sharper and more pointed in their comments.  Will this man become our next President??  If so, the statement quoted above will be verified.

As one who has been attempting for the last 60 years to observe and interpret American politics and history from a Christian and biblical perspective, I have been trying to wrap my head around all of this.  Presidents and Presidential candidates have come and gone, but never anything quite like what we are now seeing.  How is God working all of these things for good?  How should I as a follower of Christ, react?

Some pundits and even scholars have cautiously predicted the possible collapse of the Republican party  That's doubtful; we've heard similar predictions about one party or the other every election cycle in my memory.  But perhaps what is happening will lead to the collapse of the Religious Right, or at least the (illicit?) love affair between many Evangelical Christian leaders and the Republican Party.

To the embarrassment of many followers of Christ we have heard for years those who are (or believe they are) our spokesmen making authoritative political pronouncements, even to the point of endorsing Presidential candidates.  We have winced as we have heard people whom we have respected - even admired - inserting their foot in their mouths.

And here we are today - Republican leaders doing their little two-step:  "Donald Trump may be a hateful racist bigoted bully who seems to have no concept of truth, but we'll still endorse his candidacy."  Really?  Well, what about those on the Religious Right, some of whom have already given him their blessing?  Are they going to do the same?  Or will they (we} finally realize that they (we) need to keep their (our) mouths shut and get back to the business that Jesus left us here to do - making disciples, loving our neighbors?

I can't predict what will occur on election day or in the four years following.  I do hope, however, that somehow God will use whatever He sovereignly brings to pass to purify His church and to get the church in America (myself included) back on course.

            SEE:   I'm a Member of a Voting Bloc?

                        She's a Good Hearted Woman

 

 

THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH

There have been a number of remarks on the internet and elsewhere concerning President Obama's talk at the National Prayer Breakfast.  Quite a few (mostly from the right) have been negative, some questioning or even denying the President's faith, yet a few giving him reasonably high grades.  A Google search brought up many comments, but I finally found the talk itself and listened/watched the full 24 minutes.
 

After this I went back and attempted the same with some of his critics though I couldn't bring myself to finish most of them.  I even came across Glenn Beck's rant.  (There are apparently still some who take stock in this guy's rantings!)  As I listened to these tirades the question crossed my mind as to whether they and I had observed the same talk - but, of course, we had.

The main points of most of these criticisms was their assertion that he had compared Islamic terrorism with Christianity or that he had said bad things about Christianity and/or  America, which in the minds of many of the critics were the same entity.  He was criticized for not spending more of his talk attacking ISIS and Islamic terrorism.  It was even claimed that his confessions of America's and of Christianity's faults were evidence that he is not a Christian or a patriot.

The President spoke of the fact that many evils have been committed in the name of Christ.  He mentioned the Crusades and the Inquisition.  He talked of the slave trade and Jim Crow laws and how the Bible had been used to justify these evils.  He even used the word SIN a few times and over and over again emphasized our need for humility.  He talked about the need to practice the Golden Rule and to love our neighbors.

Did these negative critics forget the context of these remarks?  This was a Prayer Breakfast!  Barack Obama was not there to speak as the Commander-In-Chief, giving a Patton-like pep-talk urging his hearers to get out there and kill those _______'s.   Barack Obama was speaking as a follower of Jesus Christ, urging himself and his hearers - most of whom were professional politicians and national leaders - to live out their faith in their particular circumstances.

Perhaps the critics are unfamiliar with the kind of Christian context this was supposed to be.  I have had many experiences and attended many different kinds of Christian meetings and worship services, so I suspect that I know the type the critics are used to:  the preacher rants about the sins and evils of those out there - those terrorists, those abortionists, those homosexuals, those cultists, those liberals.  It's easy to condemn those on the outside - they can't say anything.  And the preacher gets many "Amens!" from those on the inside.

But there are other types of worship services - services where believers gather to worship God and to recognize their need for His grace, services that even begin with confession, with sermons that speak of ­­­our sin and need, more than of the sins of those out there.

Yes, we can find areas for criticism in the President's talk.  We may dislike his slow deliberate style, his lack of dogmatism (I don't.), his occasional misquoting of Scripture.  But these are petty.  We must remember too that even though in this talk he was speaking simply as a follower of Christ, he also recognized his need, because of his position, for being "politic" in all his words.  But I do not believe that in speaking of "our" sin rather than "theirs," he was in any way comparing Christianity unfavorably with Islam in any of its manifestations.

I think that NY Times columnist David Brookes - himself a conservative and a Christian said it best:

"I think if the President had come as an Atheist to attack religion and to attack Christianity, the Republicans would have a point - that's not what a President should be doing.  But that is not how he came ... He's come as a Christian.  And the things he said - I've never met a Christian who disagreed with what he said - that the religion has been perverted, that we have to walk humbly before the face the Lord, that God's purposes are mysterious to us.  This is not some tangential weird belief - this is at the core of every Christian's faith and every Jew's faith and so what he said was utterly normal and a recognition of historical fact and an urge toward some humility.  And so I thought the protests were manufactured and falsely manufactured."  (PBS News Hour, 2/5/2015)

ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH?

A recent action by a Republican senator from Texas has stirred up comments in both the secular and the religious media.  Ted Cruz of Texas was booed off the stage while addressing representatives of the suffering and persecuted Christians in the Middle East.  From the bits of his speech that I heard, it sounded like he was attempting to turn the rally he was addressing into a pro-Israel rally.  While he was speaking of persecution of both Christians and Jews, he received what sounded like a reasonable amount of supportive applause.  But as he continued speaking, his theme kept moving toward the idea of the nation of Israel being the Christians' best hope and the applause became more and more interspersed with and finally replaced by boos.  He ended up walking off the stage with the statement,  "If you will not stand with Israel then I will not stand with you!"

Though this bizarre behavior seemed to defy explanation, many attempts were made.  A few that I felt were well done were:  http://theweek.com/article/index/267993/ted-cruz-and-the-most-cynical-despicable-political-stunt-of-the-year and
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/267950/speedreads-ted-cruz-booed-off-stage-while-defending-israel.

So how do we explain this?  And with whom should we side?  Before attempting to answer the second question, I felt that I needed to attempt to seek Senator Cruz' motives for seemingly shooting himself in the foot, and to figure out why there were those who agreed with him and even condemned his hearers. Many thoughts were given by various bloggers and pundits.

Some attempted to blame his audience by simply accusing them of anti-Semitism.  But a look at what's happening in the Middle East gives the lie to this thinking.  The church there is undergoing horrible suffering under militant Islam.  They suffer for their faith in Christ and not for their political allegiance even though they are mostly Arab peoples.  They are caught in the middle - between Sunnis and Shiites, between Israelis and Palestinian Muslims.  This explanation seems to be simply another case of blaming the victim.

Another more plausible explanation is that these Christians are different.  Cruz is an American and reputed to be from an Evangelical background.  The Christians he was addressing and their brand of Christianity have always seemed a bit suspect to American Evangelicals (of whom I am one).  They have strange rituals and customs and dress.  Their faith doesn't seem compatible with our born-again Bible thumping.  It's too "spooky" for us.  So it is easier to question the reality of their faith.

Another possible way of explaining Cruz' actions - though admittedly more cynical - is to "follow the money."  The pro-Israel lobby is undoubtedly much more powerful than this group of suffering Christians and can do much more for the Senator.  Perhaps both of these last two motives were involved in Cruz' behavior.

I'll suggest another possible motivating factor which occurred to me as soon as I read about this.  I confess that I don't know that much about Cruz' religious/theological background, but I do know a bit about the theological thinking of many in the Evangelical world, a way of interpreting the Scriptures that I believe has led many to agree with Mr. Cruz.

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 see the Church (Christianity) as a continuation of God's promises, expanded to include both Jews and non Jews who believe in Christ.  "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 present (secular) nation of Israel 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.

And this eschatology has led some (not all) Dispensationalists to a strange devotion and commitment to a foreign nation.  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 we find many followers of Christ ignoring the cries of their persecuted brothers and sisters in favor of a foreign political unit.  And agreeing with Ted Cruz' statements.  Brothers and sisters it ought not to be so.

See:  CONFESSIONS OF A (FORMER) DISPENSATIONALIST
(http://billball.blogspot.com/2013/07/confessions-of-former-dispensationalist.html)

IT'S A MIRACLE!

Those who follow political events in our country know that a miracle occurred this past week in the Republican congressional primary in Virginia.  At least, this is what we're told.  Representative Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, the second most powerful Republican in the United States House of Representative, lost the nomination to a relatively unknown Tea Party candidate, David Brat, a college economics professor with little, if any, political experience.  Cantor had spent huge amounts of money on his campaign while Brat had spent very little.  Cantor had allegedly spent more on steak dinners alone than Brat had spent on his entire campaign!

What was the reason for this huge upset?  The winner made it clear:  it was, he told the cheering crowds, "a miracle of God"!  His followers apparently accepted this explanation, taking no credit for their campaign work or even their vote.

We hear the word "miracle" thrown around quite frequently.  Many people attest to witnessing or experiencing miracles in their lives - some on rare occasions, others frequently.  It seems that God is actively at work in the lives of His people.  And this was one of those times God was clearly at work in a congressional primary.

The talking heads, of course, did not accept this explanation of the huge electoral upset.  In fact, most seemed to ignore it.  They suggested that it had to do with immigration reform.  Cantor had actually taken a position on this issue and even talked of compromise with the President!  In one discussion, a pundit questioned whether there might have been possible ethnic/religious reasons for the vote.  After all, Cantor is Jewish and his district is heavily Bible-belt "Christians."  The other pundits disagreed.

No one seemed to see the irony in the description of the upset by some as "David versus Goliath."  That particular "upset," as I recall, was of a Jew defeating a Gentile.  The Virginia upset was a Gentile defeating a Jew.

I have a couple of problems with the claim made by the primary victor.  The first is the sloppy use of the word "miracle."  We need to define this term.  The New Testament uses a number of words to describe acts that we would term miracles:  "signs," "wonders," "works of power."  All speak of extraordinary and unusual acts, usually accredited to God.

Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines Miracle as 1:  an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.  2:  an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology gives this definition:  "... the biblical concept of a miracle is that of an event which runs counter to the observed processes of nature" (page 723).

So by these definitions, was the primary upset a miracle?  Well, only if we stretch Webster's definition #2 and leave God's name out of it.  Even David's defeat of Goliath doesn't quite qualify.  I know that some folks see a miracle in every unusual occurrence.  This is just part of the "Christianese" that many use.

But if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle!

But my second problem with the claim is that this was "a miracle of God."  Seriously?   I believe this is a violation of the Third Commandment.  "You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7a).

Who does this guy think he is, enlisting God's special intervention?  "What are you up to, quoting My laws, talking like we are good friends?" (Psalm 50:16 - The Message)  Is God really against immigration reform?  Is God in favor of T.P. economics?  Or did God perhaps want to replace a Jew with a pious professing Christian?

"The LORD will not clear of guilt the one who uses His name in vain" (Exodus 20:7b).

WILL GOD JUDGE AMERICA?

My previous post (CHRISTIANITY AND MORALITY?) brought forth comments that spurred my thinking further on some issues raised.

Bob's thoughts on God's judgment of nations were especially thought provoking: "Don't misunderstand; I believe that if a country (or an individual) follows God's principles, it can only benefit them. But God is not in the business of moral reform. He's in the business of creating new creatures in Christ Jesus

Sin surely causes death, and God warns about that. Jonah warned Nineveh that in 40 days their sins would cause Him to destroy them. The Canaanites' sins had reached the point of destruction during the time of Moses. And Sodom and Gomorrah had clearly reached the saturation point (though for reasons other than what we've often been taught).

But what sense would it make for God to prompt a culture to moral reform without the message of eternal life? It seems clear (at least to me) that his warnings were given so that people would remain alive to hear about His grace.

However, we can't warn of impending doom because we're not God. We have no idea, for example, where the United States stands on God's spectrum of sin (though we hear about it all the time)."

Of course Canadian Atheist's comment on Bob's comment was as would be expected: "Sounds extremely superstitious to me."

Bob's parenthetical remark that "... though we hear about it all the time" is so true.  Preachers, especially those on the right and those who fancy themselves as experts on biblical prophecy are often heard ranting on this topic.  Every natural disaster is interpreted as a sign of God's wrath, usually in regard to sexual sins, especially homosexuality.

Of course, those on the secular left often have similar sounding messages, only without God being mentioned.  Global warming, the gun culture, racism are often invoked as signs of the downfall of America.

But does God hold nations accountable?  Does He hold the United States of America accountable?  Will God judge America?  If so, by what criteria will our nation be judged?  I do not believe these are simply "superstitious" questions.  I do not believe they are only on the minds of preachers on the far ends of the spectrum.  Questions like these were on the minds of some of America's great leaders and thinkers.

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia (1784).

"Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.  Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'" -- Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address (1865).

Both were pondering the horrible sin of human slavery.  It is doubtful, of course, that Jefferson's Deistic thinking led him to imagine an apocalyptic judgment on America.  And Lincoln's enigmatic faith seemed to lead him to believe that the Civil War itself could be God's judgment.

The prophets of the Old Testament pronounced judgments on the nations around them, often seeing those judgments worked out by other nations.  Even God's covenant nation of Israel was not exempt; in fact, judgment seems more pronounced against that nation.

The New Testament does not seem as concerned with the nations as with the human race as a whole and with individual human beings.  However, there are a few passages that do stand out, most having to do with the end of this age.

One that I have written on before is Matthew 25:31-46 (SHEEP OR GOATS).  Jesus is speaking of His return in glory to reign on earth.  The nations are to be gathered before Him and are to go either into His Kingdom or into eternal fire.  The criteria are not given as their sexual conduct or their violence; they are judged solely on their treatment of those whom Jesus terms "the least of these" -- the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the unclothed, the prisoner.

Is the good old USA going to be there?  Which way will they (we?) be sent?

So Bob, I agree with your comments.  I'll not attempt to ascertain "where the U.S. stands on God's spectrum of sin."  But I do believe that God holds this nation accountable.

My task, however, as a follower of Christ is primarily to follow Him, to hold myself accountable and not be preoccupied with America's destiny, but the destiny of the people of America that I am in contact with.

See also:  THE TWO KINGDOMS.

OUR FEARS

In a comment on my previous post, Barbara said (among other things):  “I, too, am dismayed at the outpouring of vitriolic messages from the right.  To me those messages speak of a deep seated fear.  A fear of living life as it comes; a fear of their neighbor (in the widest sense of the word); a fear of their faith being challenged.  A question for you:  What are your thoughts on this fear being racist based?”

Barbara:

            Thanks.  I always appreciate hearing from my (and Uni’s) long-time friend.  I recognize that you have “had some practice” in facing whatever life sends your way.  And I believe that practice has given you some discernment.
            I totally agree with your summation of fears quoted above.  I’ve heard these fears expressed in many ways:  through conversation, through reading, through listening to commentary on radio and TV (though I can’t take much of that at one time).  And I believe that all of these fears are, as you seem to imply, facets of the one deep-seated fear, “A fear of living life as it comes.”  So here are some of my thoughts.

Life has been coming at all of us pretty fast.  Most older Americans, I suspect are going through what Alvin Toffler wrote about decades ago when he coined the term “Future Shock” – a continual state of culture shock, due to constant change in our environment, whether it is in the areas of technology or other aspects of our culture.  Change seems to occur more rapidly than we are able to assimilate it.

Most of the people I rub shoulders with – my neighbors, family, and fellow church people – look, behave and even think a lot like me.  We’re all part of the largest sub-culture in America and in Oklahoma where I live, we’re the majority.  We’re white, “Christian,” middle-class, hard-working and patriotic and we’re afraid because we see that our group is rapidly shrinking in relationship to other groups.  And so we’re afraid of losing control.

Please note:  I write the following as a member of a group.  When I say “we,” I am trying to speak as one of the members of this group would, even though in much of my thinking I have separated myself from them.  And of course, I am speaking in generalities.

There are two broad areas of change that I believe have drawn the greatest negative reactions and have moved many of my contemporaries radically to the right.  Of course, these changes and the fears they engender overlap.  One of these two is the vast change in the religious makeup and thinking of our country.

Barbara spoke of the “fear of their faith being challenged.”  I hear this all the time.  “The trouble with America is that we’ve forgotten God” or “we’ve lost our Christian heritage” or “This all started when we eliminated prayer in school,” etc., etc.

This fear is fed by a number of sources.  One is the threat of science.  Many of the current scientific theories call into question our religious theories and biblical interpretations.  Instead of recognizing that all truth is God’s truth and attempting to understand and reconcile truths, we have declared war on science (even though we describe this war as science’s war on religion).

Another feeding source for this fear is what is perceived as “revisionist history.”  Historians, both popular and scholarly are calling into question our mythology about “Christian America.”

Another perceived threat to our faith is the huge influx of immigrants who don’t worship as we do.  Our new neighbors may not be “Christians.”  They may be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or something else.  They have different religious symbols and wear different garb.  And even some of those who are Christians, don’t worship God in the same way that we do.  (Isn’t it great that God brought the mission field to our own country?  Now we don’t have to go abroad to do “The Great Commission” – Uni)

And, of course, these new neighbors don’t look like us, which brings up Barbara’s question about my “thoughts on this fear being racist based.”  Yes!  This I believe is the second area of change that threatens.

Whites (males) have always been the dominant group in our country.  They were our Founding Fathers.  They wrote our great documents and fought our early wars.  While there were those in America of other races, they “knew their place.”  It mattered not that some were in this land before we were and others were here because we brought them here to serve us; we were still “top dogs.”

But now things are different.  This past year there were more non-white babies born in the United States than white, for the first time since white people took over.  The majority of immigrants (documented or undocumented) is non-white.  In many of our major cities whites are a minority and it is projected that by mid-century, if not sooner, whites will be a minority in the entire U.S.  It doesn’t require a great knowledge of math to understand that one day we will no longer be the ones in charge.

And now we have an African American president!  I recognize that not all opposition to him is race-based, but I know that racial fears have much to do with the downright hatred expressed toward Barack Obama.

The racism sometimes slips out in some of the rantings against him.  The ideas that he was not born in the USA or that he is a “secret Muslim” are not simply the contentions of a few kooks like Donald Trump, they are actually held by many ordinary people.  The accusation by the Republican presidential contender that more people are now on food stamps is not simply a statement about the economy, it is a subtle implication that the President is doling out our tax money to his lazy Black friends.

And, of course, there are the facts that white-supremacist hate groups have multiplied dramatically in our country since President Obama was elected and that gun sales have increased dramatically.  My acquaintances on the right would, of course, sincerely and honestly deny any connection with the extreme edges of right-thinking, but at the same time little is spoken of this evil.  Muslim terrorists are feared and hated, but “Christian” terrorists are ignored.

Again, please note that I am speaking in generalities.  I am not speaking of particular individuals.  I recognize that there are many sincere Christians who are Republicans by conviction.  I am not accusing them of sinning.  But I am asking that they recognize what is happening in our country.

And I must confess that I too have fears.  I fear for my country.  I fear that the gap between rich and poor will continue to grow and that the economics being advocated on the right will contribute to that growing gap.

I fear the racism that lies beneath the surface which rears its ugly head too often.

And I especially fear for the church.  As great portions of the church become associated with right-wing politics our witness to the gospel of Christ becomes more and more compromised.

I recommend “Racial Politics” by Jim Wallis, Sojourners, 11/2012.

WHY DO I VOTE THE WAY I DO?

According to the statistics and the experts who do the math, my vote in the upcoming election is completely predictable.  I’m a 75 year old married white male, evangelical Christian who lives in the red state of Oklahoma.  I should be voting for Mitt Romney and the whole Republican ticket and platform.  Most of those who are my contemporaries in age are voting accordingly.

So why am I not going to do so?  After all, I am reasonably financially conservative; I hold to and attempt to live by biblical moral standards.

Well, of all of the above listed terms used to describe me as a voter, I feel that only two are of any real importance in influencing my vote – my age, and more importantly, my faith.

First, let me talk about my age.  I was born during the great depression, though I can’t remember it.  I grew up during the Second World War, the Cold War and the Korean War.  I have seen presidents and political parties come and go.  I have lived in the industrial North and the growing South.  I am now observing the 18^th presidential campaign in my memory and will soon cast my 14^th presidential ballot.  I long ago learned that promises made are not necessarily promises kept and that the fears held by those who voted for the defeated rarely come true.

I have also learned that a president is, to some extent held captive by various entities:  Congress – whether a majority of his own or of the opposing party – and the various special interest groups and lobbies that control much of the cash needed for election and reelection.  The president does not stand alone.  He is a member of a party and for him to accomplish much he must have the backing of his political party.

I have also learned that a president’s ideals and moral posture are not always in the same proportion as his qualities of leadership and the ability to get things done.  Some of our most brilliant leaders have been moral failures while some of our most moral have been at best second rate.

And I have learned that while nearly every candidate presents him (or her) self as some sort of populist, not all are.  An appeal to “the people” is just one of those necessities for election.

So I must say that my age, my experience, my simply living through it and my study of political history, especially that of my lifetime, have definitely affected my hopes for any one man.  I am, to a certain extent skeptical, perhaps even cynical.

However, the most important factor influencing my vote is my understanding of and submission to a biblical worldview.  I believe that God, through the Bible, makes demands on me as a follower of Jesus Christ – demands which I cannot, in good conscience, ignore.  There are certain biblical doctrines that especially bear on my vote.

First is the doctrine of original sin and/or its related doctrine of total depravity.  As Ecclesiastes 7:20 says:  “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins!”  Or as Paul says (Romans 3:10):  “There is no one righteous – not even one!”  This means that our choices will always be between sinners – fallible persons.  There is not and never will be a great champion riding in on a white horse – that is, until Jesus returns!  (Revelation 19:11ff)

A second doctrine we must remember is the doctrine of the two kingdoms.  While we as followers of Christ are ultimately members of the Kingdom of Heaven, we are also members of whatever earthly “kingdom” God has placed us in and have certain obligations placed on us as member of that kingdom.  And as citizens of a representative democracy, we have the obligation of voting – of taking part in the selection process, whether or not a president or his party is totally to our liking.

Whether we call this a choosing of the greater good or of the lesser of two evils, it is not as many see it, a clear choice between good and evil as many of my friends on the right perceive it.

Which brings me to my first disagreement with my right-leaning Christians friends – the absolutist painting of all who disagree as evil while ignoring the flaws and inconsistencies of their own party.  The fawning over hate-mongering talk radio and TV hosts and conspiracy theorists.  The passing around of rumors, lies and half-truths on the internet (which I receive regularly).  It is of no avail to defend these actions by claiming that the other side does the same.  (“Nya-nya - he hit me first!”)

Those on the right claim abortion as the number one sin of America.  While I may not agree that it is number one, I do agree that it is horrible.  It is the taking of an innocent human life.  But in the nearly 40 years since Roe vs. Wade, little has been done to limit the practice – by either party.  I suspect that the pro-life position has been cynically used by many on the right as a rallying cause merely to get votes.  Especially when their presidential candidate has vacillated on his position.  And I fail to see what can actually be done to prevent people from making the wrong choice.  Remember the 18^th amendment?

Their other rallying cry is the so-called homosexual agenda.  Again I agree that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual sex is sin; but it also lists adultery, extra-marital sex and easy divorce as well.  We in this nation long ago realized that laws against such sexual behavior were unenforceable.  Why are we hung up on this one?  And while I feel that “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms, I see no advantage in denying them some legal and financial protection, call it what you may.

While I strongly believe that the government, Federal, state or other cannot eliminate or even regulate these perceived evils, there is another evil or more exactly group of evils that I believe government can and must bring under control – that is the oppression of the poor and underprivileged.  In fact, I believe that, to some extent, human government is responsible in a positive way for care of the poor.  While the New Testament statements in the Epistles regarding government do not specifically mention care of the poor, there is much to point to as an aspect of what Paul says, “it is God’s minister to you for good … they are God’s ‘liturgists,’ devoting themselves to this very thing” (Romans 13:4, 6).

Jesus’ judgment of the nations in Matthew 24:31-46 points to His heart concern for the way the nations treat those in need.  Or we could take James’ blistering attack on the oppressive rich in James 5:1-6.  The Old Testament is full of God’s heart for the poor and those in need.  Passage after passage in the Mosaic Law, as well as the prophets illustrate God’s compassion for the poor, the alien, the widow and the orphan as well as His blazing anger against those who mistreat them.

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.  You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.  If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.  If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep?  And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.”  (Exodus 22:21-27 – ESV)

Where are those on the right who cry out against these injustices?  Instead we hear anger against the so-called “welfare frauds,” against those who receive “entitlements,” against “the 47%” who allegedly receive and don’t pay their fair share, ignoring all the while the fact that it is the large corporations with their over-compensated officers that receive the greatest amounts of government largesse.

Our economy crashed for a number of reasons, but it did not crash because of too much government aid to those in need.  One major factor was the financial transactions of banks and Wall Street firms – companies and individuals, who made big money by manipulating it, while contributing nothing.  (See:  THE BIG SHORT and GREED.)

I am not an economist.  But I can see that for me to vote for a party that wants to take us back to the financial policies that brought us down, that is more concerned for the wealthy than for the poor and middle-class would be more than irresponsible – it would be a sin.