Niebuhr On Democracy
Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once commented:
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's capacity for injustice make democracy necessary."
Government in Christian preaching often reflects God's ordained order for society, emphasizing justice, authority, and the prevention of chaos (Romans 13:1-4). Illustrations typically use imagery of rulers, societal roles, and the tension between oppressive control and righteous governance to convey its spiritual and practical implications.
Scripture Is Best Voter Guide
Proverbs 29:2Scripture provides guidance for Christians in deciding which candidate to support on Election Day, Texas pastor Ed Young Jr. told his congregation. It was the second part in a sermon series Young has dubbed “Politicked.” The pastor of Fellowship Church in Grapevine gave five categories believers should examine about each political candidate.
“Once we ask ourselves these five questions and once we answer them, then we’ll be ready to vote for the right person,” he said.
The five categories are:
• Character.
“Everything begins with character,” said Young, pointing to Proverbs 29:2: “ ... If we elect righteous leaders, our government will be righteous, and if our government is righteous then the laws will be righteous.”
Christians should take a political candidate’s private conduct seriously, Young said.
“Character can be defined as who you are when no one’s looking,” he said. “ ... For a long, long time, people have said, ‘Who you are in private does not really affect who you area in public office.’ ... That’s absolutely, friends, nuts, because who you are in private is who you are. Who you are in private is who you are in public.”
• Conviction.
Reading from Proverbs 28:1 -- which says the “righteous are bold as a lion” -- Young said, “We need to elect lionesses and lions in this day -- people who are not politicians, but people who are statesmen, people who are leaders.” That conviction, he said, must be based on God’s Word.
He mentioned the “gay agenda” as one area where society is moving away from scriptural teachings.
“God has told us from cover to cover that there is only one context where sex should be enjoyed and practiced and celebrated -- marriage.... The Bible tells me and it tells you that during the end of time ... what is right [will be viewed as] wrong and [what is] wrong [will be viewed as] right.”
Referencing those who compare the homosexual movement to the civil rights movement, Young said, “I’ve known a lot of former homosexuals but I’ve never met a former African American.”
• Courage.
“Does this candidate display courage?” Young asked. “Can you look at this candidate’s life -- the history of him or her -- and say, ‘You know what? He stood up for courage there. She stood up for courage.’ ... Courage is the God-given ability to stand.... Conviction is belief. Courage is behavior.”
Pointing to Proverbs 11:3, Young said, “The other day I heard a candidate being interviewed, and here’s the response the candidate made to a question on morality, ... ‘Well, for me as a Christian.’ ... That was a relativistic answer. ... The relativist says, ‘What’s right for you is true for you and what’s true for you is true for you.’”
Giving an example of the absurdity of relativism, Young said someone could say, as part of the relativistic worldview, “What’s true for me is to fly airliners into the sides of skyscrapers and kill hundreds and hundreds of people.”
• Compassion.
Giving the biblical definition of compassion, Young read from Proverbs 31:8-9, which says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” He also read from Proverbs 24:11, “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.”
Abortion, Young said, is an issue where a political candidate must show compassion.
“We’re taking the lives, of ... 3,200 babies a day -- taking the lives of developing babies -- when you’ll get thrown in prison and pay an astronomical fine if you disturb the eggs of developing sea turtles,” he said. “What’s right is wrong and [what’s] wrong is right.”
• Constituency.
Young said examining who supports and opposes the candidate can help determine who to support.
“I can meet your friends, without even meeting you, and tell you what kind of a person you are,” Young said. “Who applauds this potential candidate and who opposes them? We better wake up and smell the coffee, here, friends. If the mainstream secular media supports a candidate or an issue, there is a great chance that something is sideways, [and] you better look at that one very, very closely. Who opposes them? Who is for them?”
Big Government and Religion: An 'Inverse' Relationship
Could the rise in government spending — from economic stimulus to health care reform to education spending — endanger the vitality of religion in America? That’s a question University of Virginia Professor W. Bradford Wilcox discussed recently in the Wall Street Journal.
Wilcox zeroed in on a fascinating study entitled “State Welfare Spending and Religiosity.” The study’s authors, Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde, found an “inverse relationship between religious observance and welfare spending.” Put more simply, the more a government spends on welfare, the fewer people go to church.
This is why it is that church attendance is so low in welfare states such as Denmark and Sweden compared to countries like the U.S. and the Philippines — where government doesn’t provide cradle-to-grave assistance.
Anthony Gill hits the nail on the head. “For many centuries,” he writes, “average citizens and local communities have often relied upon the support of religious organizations to meet their various social needs, including assistance for the poor, counseling in times of crisis, and education for the young.”
But as the government grows, it elbows out the church and other voluntary associations. So Gill writes, “Many people have found that they can get the same services from the government without having to give a time commitment to the local church.”
Now, we would like to think that most people don’t stay in church just because they get can get help in times of trouble. But the truth is that many people first encounter the Church when they are in need: at a crisis pregnancy center, a soup kitchen, or in counseling for drug abuse or alcoholism. So as Wilcox writes in the Wall Street Journal, “Many of those who initially turn to religious organizations for mutual aid end up developing a faith that is as supernatural as it is material.”
Now, as Wilcox points out, there are other factors behind declining church attendance in America. But the recent turning of the body politic toward government as the answer to all our problems does not bode well for the Church.
Nor does it bode well for the future of American democracy.
In his classic book, Democracy in America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at how Americans could accomplish almost anything through voluntary associations — especially churches. They built schools, hospitals, sent missionaries all over the world. He wrote, “I frequently admired the boundless skill of Americans in setting large numbers of people a common goal and inducing them to strive toward that goal voluntarily.”
De Tocqueville doubted that government could ever accomplish all that American citizens could do through their associations. But he also warned that if government should supplant the good work of these associations, the American people would ultimately end up dependent upon government. And this, he said, would imperil not only American democracy, but “civilization itself.”
In times of trouble, it’s natural to echo the question of the Psalmist: Whence cometh my help?
Sadly, it seems that more and more Americans these days would answer, “It cometh from Uncle Sam.”
________
Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
The American Creed
The great British intellectual G. K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”
Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands and the peasants who inhabited those lands.
But America was — and is to this day — different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or, as Chesterton said, on a creed.
And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I’ll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn’t wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.
Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking — indeed, revolutionary.
Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66 percent of American adults have no idea that the words, “We hold these truths . . .” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45 percent of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.
As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we re-embrace the American creed.
America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot’s “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, “The pot must not melt.”
Abraham Lincoln understood this so very well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”
So tomorrow, go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie.
But here’s an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and your neighbors.
Listen — and thrill — to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are the words Americans live for and, if necessary, die for.
________
Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Adios, Christmas: Controlling Language and Minds
I recently met a man who left his native Cuba when he was eleven years old. He came from an upper class family and remembered Cuba as a very beautiful country where the people got along well with one another.
Fifty years later, he finally got a chance to go back. Sure, he knew that Communism had impoverished the country, but nothing prepared him for the shock of seeing first hand what had become of his native land. The country has been totally sapped of its energy and strength and resources. People get a ration of food for a month that only lasts them two weeks; so the rest of the time they lie, steal, borrow, beg, whatever they have to do to get food.
It wasn’t only the diminished standard of living that shocked him: He told me about the extent to which the church has been suppressed by the Castro brothers. In fact, not only is freedom of religion severely curtailed in Cuba, there is an effort to expunge words and phrase that contain references to God!
An obvious is the Spanish word for “goodbye,” adios. It literally means “to God.” So, this gentleman told me, it is now suspect. In fact, there is a whole host of other common Spanish idioms being expunged from the language-expressions people had used all their lives. And they’re being expunged precisely because they refer to God. In Cuba, as in any totalitarian state, you can get into serious trouble for using the words and expressing ideas banned by the government.
Listening to him, I realized that our culture is doing something similar right here at home: shape people’s beliefs and attitudes by controlling the language they use. The pressure may be more subtle, and the people doing the controlling may be private, not governmental actors, but the goals and effects are the same.
The effort is on obvious display during Christians. Case in point: for seventy years, Tulsa has held a Christmas parade. Now, no one would ever mistake the parade for a church service: Santa Claus plays a far bigger role than the infant Jesus.
Yet even this watered-down reference to Christ was too much: in the last year, “Christmas” was dropped from the title in favor of “holiday.” If “Christmas” is too much for what is arguably the buckle of the “Bible Belt,” where can you use the phrase?
If you think that this is much ado about nothing and that “happy Holidays” is a perfectly acceptable substitute, you’re missing the whole point. The issue here isn’t avoiding offense - it’s redefining the terms of our discussion, eradicating or at least marginalizing any references to God in the public square. It’s to make people think twice about invoking God, even in passing, in public. Once you control their language, you control the way they think and behave.
The irony is that the approved word “holiday” is itself derived from “holy day!” All of this linguistic nonsense is another reminder of why Christians need to reclaim Christmas. The larger culture may be intent on taking Christ out of Christmas but, that’s all the more reason for us to place Him at the center of ours.
And may you and yours have a blessed Christmas, and a happy holy-day season.
________
Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
What Interest Does the Government Have In Marriage?
If you’ve paid any attention to the public discussion on the nature of marriage in the past few years, you’ve no doubt heard the call from some for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and just leave it to religious folks.
This has caused many to ask two key questions:
1) Is marriage primarily a Christian institution?
2) Does the state have any real interest in marriage?
These are questions that all Christians should know how to answer and why. They address the very nature of what marriage is and does.
Is marriage primarily a Christian institution?
In a word, no.
Marriage is vitally important to Christians, given that our Bibles begin with a wedding in Genesis and end with a very different type of wedding in Revelation. And the primary narrative of God’s redemptive history through the Old Testament and into the New is Him seeking His faithless bride with full abandon. But marriage is a common-grace that God gives to all peoples. It transcends religion, law, culture, socio-political boundaries.
If marriage were primarily a Christian institution, you would find it only existing in times and places where Christianity has had influence. But this is not the case. Anthropologists tell it exists in some form everywhere we find people throughout history. And they are unable to establish any real starting point for it in human experience. From their measures, it just seems to have always been, as one leading scholar explains, “from primeval habit” -- almost as if it started with the first two humans! Like water is to the human body, marriage is to human culture. God created both water and marriage, and He made it so that they are essential to human thriving.
To say that marriage is primarily a religious institution is to miss appreciating what marriage has been in the long history of human experience. It is a human institution given to all peoples at all times by God’s design. At the same time, Christians have a great deal to say about what marriage is, what it represents in the divine sense, how we can make it work and how it should be cared for by couples, families and communities because of the important place it holds in our faith.
If marriage is not fundamentally a religious institution, does the state have a particular interest in certifying marriages?
It does because marriage serves an essential social function. Aristotle in his Politics explained that marriage creates the first essential and most fundamental human society. And from marriage stems the family. And from the nuclear nature of man, woman and children stems the extended family, from there, the village with many extended families together. From the village arises the town and from towns, the state.
No society anywhere has discovered a way to keep a cohesive, productive, safe, economically viable community without marriage. Marriage is a community’s most basic bonding agent, calling man and woman to commit to one another and their larger kin group. It calls them to work together to establish a common life and livelihood. It calls and compels them to monitor and govern each other’s behavior: sexually, economically, emotionally and publicly. And this is done by linking men and women into lifelong, exclusive and duty-bound domestic and sexual unions. No other social union does this.
The commitment that marriage requires changes who we are as people and our sense of duty to others. Cohabitation and friendships are not as likely to create this type of personal change.
So what interest does the state have? Consider the money a government spends on all types of social welfare support. The overwhelming majority stems from a marriage failing to form or falling apart after it’s formed. Sociologists tell us that people who are married are unlikely to live in persistent poverty. Cohabitors and single parents are much more likely to live in poverty. And poverty drives so many other serious social problems. Married adults are less likely to be in trouble with the law for violent or drug-related crimes compared with either single or cohabiting peers. Domestic violence for both adults and children is significantly reduced in homes where wedding rings are present. Children who grow up with married parents are dramatically more likely to be physically and psychologically healthy, do well in all measures of educational attainment, graduate from college, and become gainfully employed. These are the kind of citizens of whom every state needs more.
Married adults and their children are less of a drain on a state’s social services and welfare rolls, sometimes by half to three-quarters. Married men and women earn and save more money than their single or cohabiting peers. They are therefore able to pay more taxes into state coffers and produce more goods for the community.
If you are the governor of a state or the president of a nation -- and you know the social research -- you will have a deeply pragmatic interest in marriage. It helps boost nearly all of the good things your state needs to thrive. And it costs you nothing. The government has an interest in both marriage and babies not because it is sentimental about blushing brides and beautiful new bouncing babies.
Marriage and married parenthood provides the productivity and stability every community needs. And babies raised by stable, married moms and dads become the tax-payers, inventors, health-care providers, educators, industry leaders, problem-solvers and community leaders that every society needs. This is exactly why all cultures, regardless of their politics, religion, economy or beliefs find they cannot do without marriage.
Marriage is, among many things, society’s most fundamental intrinsic and pragmatic social good.
Why Your View of Politics May Be Wrong
Luke 4:6Your view of politics -- or, more specifically, the role of Christians and Christianity in politics -- is probably wrong (at least at times).
Don’t be offended; my views over the years also have been wrong -- and I must continually resist being seduced by some wrong thinking about this matter.
Some readers got no further than the headline of this editorial, deciding the subject matter is of little to no interest, illustrating at least one wrong view of politics. Others aren’t reading these words because they firmly believe Christians’ involvement in politics is not only unnecessary, but also actually harmful to a godly life -- yet another incorrect way for Christians to assess politics.
Those faulty views and others could play a significant role this election year. With the general election just under three weeks away, this is no time for Christians to hold and propagate misunderstandings about politics and government.
A sure guide to understanding this matter is theologian Wayne Grudem and his book, “Politics According to the Bible” (Zondervan, 2010). Before explaining the biblical demands of Christian citizenship, Grudem outlines “Five Wrong Views About Christians and Government.” They are:
• Government should compel religion. This view is easy to set aside in modern-day America, since, as Grudem notes, there are no responsible Christian voices today arguing for this perspective. Still, it’s a position with which Christians should be familiar since it is the predominate view among some in the world, especially in Islamic nations.
Grudem notes several biblical teachings that demonstrate this view is incorrect. In Matthew 22:20-21, Jesus answers the Pharisees who attempted to entrap Him concerning the matter of taxes. “In Jesus’ statement about God and Caesar, He established the broad outlines of a new order in which ‘things that are God’s’ are not to be under the control of civil government (or ‘Caesar’),” Grudem argues.
• Government should exclude religion. This is the view promoted by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, among others. Grudem notes many public policy consequences of this view, including attempts to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, banning prayers at public events, and prohibiting students from religious activity in schools. Additionally, these advocates argue laws against abortion, for example, are unconstitutional because they would codify religious dogma in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
“These arguments ... make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law,” Grudem writes. That Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign against racial discrimination was based on his biblical views did not make the laws that resulted from his campaign constitutionally suspect, Grudem cites as one example.
Grudem also notes this false view would invalidate the religious reasoning that is evident in America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which cites God twice in its first two sentences, and it would remove religious influence from public life. “Therefore, the ultimate goal of this viewpoint is not only the destruction of all belief in God, but also the complete moral disintegration of a society,” Grudem writes.
• All government is evil and demonic. This view, along with the next one, seems to be growing. Grudem reviews and critiques the arguments of Minnesota pastor Greg Boyd in Boyd’s book, “The Myth of a Christian Nation,” which has been influential among some younger pastors. Grudem summarizes Boyd’s argument that the realm of government is Satan’s and the use of governmental power is worldly, contrary to the way of life taught by Jesus.
Boyd primarily relies upon Satan’s claim during his temptation of Jesus that all authority “has been delivered to me” (Luke 4:6). Grudem answers, “Do we believe Satan’s words that he has the authority of all earthly kingdoms, or do we believe Jesus’ words that Satan is a liar and the father of lies?” He goes on to cite a number of passages (Daniel 4:17; Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14) that teach government is part of God’s design.
Boyd’s “government is evil” perspective causes him to embrace absolute pacifism. “Boyd has wrongly taken one of the ways that God restrains evil in this world (changing hearts through the Gospel of Christ) and decided that it is the only way that God restrains evil (thus neglecting the valuable role of civil government). Both means are from God, both are good, and both should be used by Christians,” Grudem writes.
• Do evangelism, not politics. I believe this is the most widely held incorrect view of Christianity and politics, and it can be related to the previous view. Since there is little to no redeeming value of Christian involvement in government, Christians should only invest efforts in evangelism as the surest means of changing society. At first, this view may seem correct -- even spiritually superior. It’s not.
Grudem argues that this perspective comes from “too narrow an understanding of ‘the Gospel’ and the kingdom of God.... ‘The Gospel’ in the New Testament is not just ‘trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven’ (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message.) No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life!” citing Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).
Just as no one would question that churches have a duty to teach their people about God’s will for their families, businesses and educating their children, Grudem says it is also the responsibility of pastors to teach about God’s expectations for government, noting that some Christians are even called by God to influence government.
“When did people in the United States stop owning slaves? It was not when the Gospel had been preached throughout the South, but after the U.S. government made it illegal through the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. That happened when many Christian abolitionists influenced the government of the United States to change its laws,” Grudem writes.
Grudem cites a lengthy list of historical examples of Christian influence on government resulting in the protection of human life and improved human conditions. “If the Christian church had adopted the ‘do evangelism, not politics’ view throughout its history, it would never have brought about these immeasurably valuable changes among the nations of the world,” Grudem writes.
• Do politics, not evangelism. Although some critics of the Religious Right insist that this is its implicit agenda, virtually no responsible evangelical leader believes that politics is the ultimate answer to the problem of humanity. The incorrect view that Christians should concentrate on politics to the exclusion of evangelism is actually the perspective of the liberal “Social Gospel” movement, Grudem notes.
Grudem rightly cautions that those who argue for greater Christian involvement in politics and government: “If we (and I include myself here) ever begin to think that good laws alone will solve a nation’s problems or bring about a righteous and just society, we will have made a huge mistake.” Amen!
If the five incorrect views are to be rejected, what is the proper understanding of Christian involvement in politics and government? In answer, Grudem offers the “significant Christian influence on government” viewpoint.
Grudem says his alternative “is not compulsion (view 1), it is not silence (view 2), and it is not dropping out of the process (views 3 and 4), nor is it thinking the government can save people (view 5).”
Instead, “The ‘significant influence’ view says that Christians should seek to influence civil government according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible (when rightly understood). But while Christians exercise this influence, they must simultaneously insist on protecting freedom of religion for all citizens.” He also contends Christians engaging government should do so in a “winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, [and] persuasive” manner while not compromising the “truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word.”
It seems every four years it’s said the presidential election is the most important in our lifetime (or similar hyperbole). Although the 2012 election does seem to be very pivotal, I’ll leave it to others to evaluate such claims -- with the knowledge that God is sovereign whatever the result.
Still, Christians have a biblical duty to be properly informed about and engaged in our government, including the means by which we choose those who will lead us. Especially during an election year, pastors have an opportunity to help their members understand this duty and not be misled by wrong thinking on this vital matter.
Resisting the Reins of Power: the Legacy of George Washington
If you pay much attention to what goes on in Washington, D.C., you’ll observe that no one voluntarily gives up power. They cling to it the way a drowning man clings to a life preserver.
I thought about that as I considered whom to include in my book, “7 Men and the Secret of Their Greatness.” I’d always admired George Washington, but until a few years ago I had no idea that he’d done something that would make no sense to modern political leaders: He voluntarily gave up incredible power — twice. In doing so he changed the history of our fledgling nation.
After eight years of war, America had won its independence from Britain. Everyone wondered what General Washington would do next. Perhaps, as one of his officers suggested, he should become King George I of America. But Washington would have none of it. As I write in 7 Men, “His attitude toward the idea that he should grab the reins of civilian power is dramatically illustrated in an incident that reveals ... the singular greatness of George Washington.”
By war’s end, the mood of the officers of the Continental Army had turned ugly. They were angry because Congress — which was broke (by the way, some things never change) — was unlikely to honor its promise to compensate the soldiers for years of service.
In March of 1783, an anonymous letter made the rounds in Newburgh, New York, where Washington’s men were quartered. If Congress did not guarantee back pay, the letter threatened, “the army would disband,” even if the war continued. This was a serious threat, because the peace treaty would not be signed for another six months. And if the peace were signed, well then, the army would simply refuse to dissolve, a clear threat to Congress.
As I write in 7 Men, in effect the leaders of the Newburgh Conspiracy were “proposing tyranny and treason both.”
Washington got wind of the plot, and at noon on March 16 he arrived at the officers’ meeting and made directly for the podium. First, he rebuked them for their selfish plans, appealed to their honor and love of country and urged them to be patient.
But what happened next may have changed the course of history. Washington reached into his pocket and pulled out a letter from a Virginia Congressman. He began to read it aloud, appearing to stumble over the words. The general then reached into his waistcoat pocket and took out a pair of spectacles.
Washington apologized for the delay, saying, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind.”
In an instant, the mood of these battle-hardened officers was utterly changed. Some of them wept openly as Washington read the letter, and then quietly left the room. The temptation to crown Washington king and wrest control from Congress had been dealt a death blow.
Washington’s refusal to seize power after defeating the most powerful empire on earth absolutely amazed King George III of England — and it still amazes us today, and it certainly should — as does his decision to voluntarily give up the presidency after eight years. These were among the greatest acts of one of history’s greatest men.
________
Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Fighting For Our Way Or the Way?
As a Christian living in a very post-Christian San Francisco, I have found myself questioning the way the Christian community engages culture.
With the debate over gay marriage and other issues related to homosexuality, the cultural divide over abortion, the odd Christianization of war policy and gun control, and the fight for Christian symbols in school, government, media and marketing, it seems that many Christians tend to connect the collective moral fiber of our country to our laws, our politics or our media -- that Christian principles somehow give us a “Christian” identity as a country.
We clearly like to be in the majority and like culture to validate our faith and our moral decisions. We like to be popular. Yet nothing in the Bible points to a Christian majority or cultural acceptance of our beliefs.
Rather than sweeping majorities, popular influence and laws that line up with Scripture, we are promised to be odd, persecuted outcasts who leave all, die to all, endure all and serve all for the cause of Christ. We are not called to lead people to shiny churches designed to meet all their needs. Our calling is not to clean up society or legislate morality or overthrow government, or to tie tax and survivor benefits to the biblical truth of marriage. We are called simply to reach the world with the amazing love of Jesus Christ, to help reconcile a lost and disconnected world back into relationship with God through Christ.
Christianity’s rise to power and cultural influence caused us to fit comfortably into culture, rather than standing out from culture. We faced little opposition to our bold assertions of our belief system. In many parts of our country Christianity and church were entrees into business and society. As culture began to shift from Judeo-Christian values, we reacted and began to look less and less like Jesus. We asserted our rights instead of understanding that Christianity stripped us of rights. We demanded acceptance instead of graciously enduring rejection. Some of us, meanwhile, began to redefine our Christianity to create something more palatable for society.
We forgot that God is not concerned whether a country looks or acts Christian any more than He is concerned about whether a person looks or acts Christian. He is concerned about the hearts and souls of people.
The rise of cultural Christianity created many Christian lives that were just like secular lives, but with added rules and a “get out of hell free” card. There is a very real possibility that many who claim to follow Christ will fall away as Christianity becomes less and less culturally acceptable.
But as the ranks of professing Christians become smaller, my prayer is that our smaller numbers would become more focused on shining the light of Christ in a very dark world. What if instead of fighting for the culture to validate us, we did what Jesus told us to do and turned the other cheek and loved those who hate and persecute us? What if we, with no strings attached, began to use our God-given gifts of leadership and creativity and finances and time to truly seek the welfare of our cities? What if the world saw Christians really living differently?
We have perhaps claimed a different moral standard, but have we really lived differently? Have we forgiven when the world says to seek revenge? Have we loved sacrificially and unconditionally when others have hated us? Have we respected our leaders even when they do not honor our beliefs? Have we shown mercy to those both deserving and undeserving of mercy? Have we fought for all people, even those whose lives are in great contrast to biblical principles, to be treated with dignity?
The body of Christ stands before an open door of opportunity as the world moves further away from cultural Christianity. The door is open for amazing growth, hope and testimony. The door is open for a true, living orthodoxy. We don’t follow Christ because we get tax benefits or because the Ten Commandments hang on the courthouse walls. We follow Christ because Christ is worthy of our following and because we desire to be part of the work He is doing all over the world.
Perhaps, in the end, we will see lives radically changed. And all these issues that distract us will assume their proper place. And we, fully reconciled to the living God of the universe, will succeed as God’s agents to this world -- walking others into the beauty that is the life reconciled to God through Christ.
________
Mike Goeke, associate pastor of First Baptist Church San Francisco, has been in full-time ministry since leaving his law practice in 2001.