Matthew 24:37, "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
By now all of us have seen the horror that unfolded in Florida on Wednesday. 13 students gunned down by a former classmate. Whether it be this shooting, or Las Vegas, Ft. Hood, Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Columbine, or any other of a growing list, the result is always the same. Innocent people dead, and unanswered questions as to why.
As I've engaged on social media, in conversations, listened to the radio and watched the news reports, almost everyone keeps asking that question. Why? I've heard many accounts of how when folks went to school, parking lots were full of pick ups with gun racks, and guns, in the back, yet no one shot up the school. I grew up in such a time in suburban Greenville, SC. We carried knives, in the school, in to class, yet no one was stabbed. Sure, we had fights, what high school doesn't, but nothing like this. That was just a generation ago. This phenomenon is something that has really emerged over the last 25 years. Sure, there was Austin, Texas in the late sixties, but that was an isolated incident then. Now, this is so commonplace, they just seem to run together. So why?
Many say it's guns. There are over 300 million legal guns in the United States, almost one for every citizen. Now, I'm all for the Second Amendment, but do I think there could be some changes to our gun laws. Yes, I do. When an 18 year old can legally buy an assault rifle, but can't legally drink a beer, I think that's insane. I'm not a gun owner, though I know multitudes who do own, some own private arsenals. Personally, I'm not sure what other purpose an assault rifle has than to kill another person, but that can be said of handguns as well. But friends, the United States has ALWAYS been a well armed nation, so why this regular occurrence of mass shootings now? Guns have always been accessible. Why this proliferation of mass shootings over these last 25 years?
Some say it's the video game culture that mandates violence and death to win the games. That these games have created a numbing to actual death. We didn't have these games when I grew up. We went in to the woods and played Army and shot BB and pellet guns at each other. Is it really much different? Heck, our play games were far more dangerous in reality. So why this now?
Some are saying it's mental illness. Is mental illness a new thing? We could probably list many, many things that could contribute to these mass shootings, but none will answer the question as to why?
The verse from Matthew 24 at the top of this blog is a part of what is called the Olivet Discourse, covering Matthew 24-25. Here Jesus is teaching about His return, and one of the things He says is before He comes, it will be like it was in the time of Noah. We don't have much detail from the bible of this time, but we do have God's opinion of these times. In Genesis 6:5-6, the bible tells us; "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." Yikes! That was, well, I'm not sure how long ago, but a LONG time ago! And you want to know what hasn't changed? The heart of man! Since the fall of man in the garden at Eden we read about in Genesis 3, this has been humanity. Jeremiah the prophet, speaking for God in Jeremiah 17:9. tells us that the heart of man is "deceitfully wicked." That only God can know it, the good it is capable of doing, and the astonishing wickedness.
The purpose of this blog, for the most part, is to try to apply the bible, God's word, to the world we live in. As I look at scripture, this is the answer to that question......why? You see, all of the things that have been mentioned repeatedly these last 25 years have always been present for the most part, in some form. What hasn't changed is the human heart. If a person is intent on killing masses, he doesn't need a gun. Terrorists killed nearly 3000 citizens on 9/11 with box cutters to commandeer jet liners. The last church I pastored was in a small town named Chesterfield, SC, population 1500. There a student was arrested with enough explosives to level the local high school, and that was his plan. He could have killed hundreds had he not been caught. You know what was happening right before he was caught? Christians from all the local Southern Baptist churches were prayer walking the high school in preparation for a county wide revival we were to be conducting in the gymnasium. Coincidence? I think you could guess where I land on that! Evil people are going to do evil things, regardless. They will find a way.
And you know what else Jesus said in Matthew 24? In Matthew 24:8, after giving a partial list of things we can expect to see before He returns, Jesus says; "All these are just the beginning of sorrows." That phrase literally translates to "birth pangs," what we would call labor pains. In other words, when you see these things, when the world begins to resemble the "days of Noah," where evil was rampant, think of it as labor pains. What happens with labor pains? The contractions begin lightly, but as birth grows closer, they grow stronger, more painful, and more frequent. Is that what we're seeing?
I don't have a concrete answer for that, as Jesus also told us in this discourse no one knows exactly when He will return. But I do know before His return, evil will grow worse and worse, because He tells us that.
There really are no words to comfort the families of these victims, or any of the other countless acts of evil we seem to witness on a regular basis. My prayer is we'll see it for what it really is, and not focus on secondary causes. These mass shootings happen because there is a heart problem. It's called sin. Evil. If you want to know the root cause of why, look no further than that. And there is only one way to defeat evil, and that is through the blood of Jesus Christ, and the forgiveness that He alone offers, "by grace, through faith." Those who knew Him that were killed on Wednesday have now overcome this wicked world through Him. They have victory. Do you?
In the end, that's the only answer to the evil of this world.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Monday, February 5, 2018
Political Toxicity, the Media, and the Church
Recently, a famous talk radio host was asked an interesting question. Syndicated conservative talker Rush Limbaugh was asked by a self identified liberal caller, "is there any objective media source from which I can get news?" Limbaugh's answer was obvious to anyone with a TV, radio or internet access. "No."
We live in an age where everything from the media and government comes from a particular perspective, a distinct ideology. This is nothing new. Partisanship is as old as life itself. People have always taken sides, and always will. It's just today, with the emergence of alternative media through the internet, we are flooded with more sources for "news" and opinion than ever before. Our natural tendency to lean one way or another is reinforced more stridently than ever, and according to Limbaugh's opinion on the matter, there really is no place we can go to find information not tainted by an ideological leaning. I agree with that opinion. So how do we as the church proceed in a world where presented truth is almost certainly coming from a distinct ideological perspective? To me this is one of the most important questions we have to answer. Because if we become drawn in to partisan political battles and allow those to override our true mission, we become "of the world," and our witness to all people becomes as tainted as the political climate in which we live.
I've been a member of four churches since I was saved at age 39 in 2003. The first in lay leadership, the second as bi-vocational staff, and the third and fourth as pastor. The first three were monolithic in their political leanings. Like most conservative Christians, those that profess and believe the word of God is our final authority, those leanings were distinctly conservative, and thus Republican. Politics really wasn't a controversial subject as nearly everyone leaned the same direction. Then in 2011 I came to my fourth church, one in a highly culturally diverse community with an equally diverse political perspective. The difference in the church was astounding. Political discussions became highly divisive. I found myself in a position where I had to examine how we handled things as a church. Our mission is to reach all people, but political opinion stood in the way of that, as when conversation turned to that subject, the body of Christ became divided.
It's a tricky situation, as all of us come with ideological leanings. But one thing is crystal clear from scripture; God desires us to be united, not divided. How can this be accomplished in such a toxic and divided cultural and political climate? As always, the bible does have the answer.
One of the rather obscure apostles was named Simon the Zealot. The term zealot, according to many scholars, was associated with the Jewish freedom movement of Jesus' day. These were people who sought political freedom from the oppression of Rome. For Israel to become an independent nation again, something it had not been since the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C. From that point forward, Israel was always under the rule of a foreign nation politically.
Many scholars believe that several of the apostles belonged to this movement. Yet Simon alone is tagged with the name "Zealot." Perhaps he was the most zealous in these beliefs. Yet these beliefs did not align with the message of Jesus. Jesus tells us in John 8:31-32 that true freedom comes from abiding in His word and knowing truth, and that truth "shall make you free." We may not have much information on Simon, but one thing we can be sure of is that he followed Jesus, denied himself, and turned from his cultural and political view of freedom and to Jesus' view of what freedom truly is. Simon the Zealot can teach us a lot.
Before Jesus's ascension to heaven, the apostles asked Him a question in Acts 1:6. They asked, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" For Jesus to establish His kingdom would mean freedom from the oppression of Rome. It was of keen interest to all of them. Jesus' answer is telling, and instructive for us. In Acts 1:7 he tells them it is not their place to know the "times or seasons" of the Father, then in Acts 1:8 Jesus repeats their mission on earth, the Great Commission. While on earth they are not to concern themselves with "political," issues. We are to serve His kingdom, not an earthly one. The apostles went on to establish His church that was divorced from the politics of the day, an incredible achievement. You simply do not find evidence in scripture of the apostles or the early church becoming entangled in the political battles of the day, and like today, they were plentiful. It's a real balancing act!
You see, the political battles of then, and now, involve issues we must engage in. Israel was oppressed by Rome, and the bible teaches us we as God's people are to minister to the oppressed. To stand up for them. It's how we minister to them that is important. Our focus must be on His heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. No nation, or political party, has the answer for what all people desperately need. Jesus! Micah 6:8 tells us that we are to "seek justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God." We must do this! But we can never do it if we allow ourselves to be overcome with our personal political ideology, and allow that to permeate the church. When we do, we alienate many whom we are called to reach with the gospel and love of God. We create a worldly stumbling block to the mission we are called to carry out.
Our works to minister in areas such as race, immigration, the poor, and many others must be kingdom focused, not driven by political ideology. If they are not, we cannot sow the seeds we are called to. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay straw, each one's work will become clear, for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so, as through the fire."
It is extremely challenging to block out the noise created by the politically toxic climate, tainted by a biased media, in which we live. It requires a full submission to the cause of Christ, denying ourselves and our own ideological leanings. But it is possible.
Simon the Zealot shows us this!
We live in an age where everything from the media and government comes from a particular perspective, a distinct ideology. This is nothing new. Partisanship is as old as life itself. People have always taken sides, and always will. It's just today, with the emergence of alternative media through the internet, we are flooded with more sources for "news" and opinion than ever before. Our natural tendency to lean one way or another is reinforced more stridently than ever, and according to Limbaugh's opinion on the matter, there really is no place we can go to find information not tainted by an ideological leaning. I agree with that opinion. So how do we as the church proceed in a world where presented truth is almost certainly coming from a distinct ideological perspective? To me this is one of the most important questions we have to answer. Because if we become drawn in to partisan political battles and allow those to override our true mission, we become "of the world," and our witness to all people becomes as tainted as the political climate in which we live.
I've been a member of four churches since I was saved at age 39 in 2003. The first in lay leadership, the second as bi-vocational staff, and the third and fourth as pastor. The first three were monolithic in their political leanings. Like most conservative Christians, those that profess and believe the word of God is our final authority, those leanings were distinctly conservative, and thus Republican. Politics really wasn't a controversial subject as nearly everyone leaned the same direction. Then in 2011 I came to my fourth church, one in a highly culturally diverse community with an equally diverse political perspective. The difference in the church was astounding. Political discussions became highly divisive. I found myself in a position where I had to examine how we handled things as a church. Our mission is to reach all people, but political opinion stood in the way of that, as when conversation turned to that subject, the body of Christ became divided.
It's a tricky situation, as all of us come with ideological leanings. But one thing is crystal clear from scripture; God desires us to be united, not divided. How can this be accomplished in such a toxic and divided cultural and political climate? As always, the bible does have the answer.
One of the rather obscure apostles was named Simon the Zealot. The term zealot, according to many scholars, was associated with the Jewish freedom movement of Jesus' day. These were people who sought political freedom from the oppression of Rome. For Israel to become an independent nation again, something it had not been since the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C. From that point forward, Israel was always under the rule of a foreign nation politically.
Many scholars believe that several of the apostles belonged to this movement. Yet Simon alone is tagged with the name "Zealot." Perhaps he was the most zealous in these beliefs. Yet these beliefs did not align with the message of Jesus. Jesus tells us in John 8:31-32 that true freedom comes from abiding in His word and knowing truth, and that truth "shall make you free." We may not have much information on Simon, but one thing we can be sure of is that he followed Jesus, denied himself, and turned from his cultural and political view of freedom and to Jesus' view of what freedom truly is. Simon the Zealot can teach us a lot.
Before Jesus's ascension to heaven, the apostles asked Him a question in Acts 1:6. They asked, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" For Jesus to establish His kingdom would mean freedom from the oppression of Rome. It was of keen interest to all of them. Jesus' answer is telling, and instructive for us. In Acts 1:7 he tells them it is not their place to know the "times or seasons" of the Father, then in Acts 1:8 Jesus repeats their mission on earth, the Great Commission. While on earth they are not to concern themselves with "political," issues. We are to serve His kingdom, not an earthly one. The apostles went on to establish His church that was divorced from the politics of the day, an incredible achievement. You simply do not find evidence in scripture of the apostles or the early church becoming entangled in the political battles of the day, and like today, they were plentiful. It's a real balancing act!
You see, the political battles of then, and now, involve issues we must engage in. Israel was oppressed by Rome, and the bible teaches us we as God's people are to minister to the oppressed. To stand up for them. It's how we minister to them that is important. Our focus must be on His heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. No nation, or political party, has the answer for what all people desperately need. Jesus! Micah 6:8 tells us that we are to "seek justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God." We must do this! But we can never do it if we allow ourselves to be overcome with our personal political ideology, and allow that to permeate the church. When we do, we alienate many whom we are called to reach with the gospel and love of God. We create a worldly stumbling block to the mission we are called to carry out.
Our works to minister in areas such as race, immigration, the poor, and many others must be kingdom focused, not driven by political ideology. If they are not, we cannot sow the seeds we are called to. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay straw, each one's work will become clear, for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so, as through the fire."
It is extremely challenging to block out the noise created by the politically toxic climate, tainted by a biased media, in which we live. It requires a full submission to the cause of Christ, denying ourselves and our own ideological leanings. But it is possible.
Simon the Zealot shows us this!
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
What the Heck Just Happened? Election 2016
In August of 2015, I must say I saw this coming. That's not to pat myself on the back or declare myself some modern day prophet, but to me, the frustration, and yes, anger, of much of what is often described as "middle America" was painfully obvious, and I really didn't understand why more did not see it. Maybe most didn't want to see it. I wrote a few blogs on it and after the debates critiqued them on Facebook. I reached the conclusion in the fall of 2015 that it would come down to Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton and that Trump would be the eventual President. He now is. So what the heck happened?
Evangelicals turned out for a morally challenged, many times lewd, crude and obscene candidate in numbers not seen since 2004. They saw no other choice. With the most openly hostile candidate to the unborn in the history of our nation as the opponent, and the Supreme Court on the line, Evangelicals held their collective noses and voted for the vile man who in the last debate gave the most impassioned defense of the unborn of any Republican candidate ever. Last night was a victory for those who view abortion as the greatest national sin in our history. May Donald Trump be a man of his word on it.
The political and media establishment was laid bare like never before with it's corrupt, elitist underbelly exposed and rebuked. I said this long ago, Donald Trump is not a Republican. He was a third party candidate who was smart enough to realize that apart from our corrupt two party system, you cannot win the Presidency. Through Trump's antagonism with both major political parties and the media, he began to reveal the utter mess that our system was through the primaries. How money had corrupted seemingly all involved. How the media instead of reporting the news attempted to shape it and make it depending upon their ideology. Through the providence, and I do believe that's what it was, of leaked emails, we saw behind the tattered curtain of the ruling elite and their willing minions in the media exactly how broken, and far from it's intended ways, our system has become. Yesterday America said no more. Whether true reforms in our system take place is still in question. They are desperately needed. It is time for term limits. It is time to remove the graft from political office where people go to Washington broke and return home millionaires. At no point since 1994 has this had a better chance of happening. It needs to happen.
Republicans are not the winners here. As I watch Paul Ryan as I write this, I still don't think he understands. Republicans were rejected just as much as Democrats. It is all of Washington that was rejected. These people DID NOT want Trump as President. They still don't. But they have little choice now. I'm sure over the next few months and year we'll hear of Republican unity on several issues where it is possible. But make no mistake, the Republican Party of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and the neoconservative, is officially dead, and Lazarus isn't walking out of the tomb. If this really is a movement as Trump declares, conflict within the Republican Party is coming and it will be intense.
The Clinton era of sleaze, lust for power, and the politics of personal destruction is mercifully over. As much as many consider Trump unfit to be President, and there are legitimate reasons that is so, Hillary Clinton is equally repulsive. The lack of honor and integrity, and the legacy of corruption and scandal has been a blight for many years. The very fact that this sleaze has been swept under the rug for political expediency and election results by the Democratic Party for 25 years is emblematic of how far from our moorings our system has drifted.
There is an insurgency in our nation and the world around us. Across the globe people are standing up, voting, and screaming that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Bernie Sanders, whom the Democratic political machine basically rigged the system against, led an insurgency from the left, just as Trump did from the center-right. Ideologies may differ, but the message is the same. How we are doing things is not working and is no longer acceptable. The problem with insurgencies is while they more often than not can identify the problem, enacting the repairs is a far different challenge. This is the dilemna that faces President Donald Trump.
The system is rigged, and guess what, it always has been. The rich and powerful have always ruled and they will not release their grasp on the levers of power without an all out war. There is an entitlement mentality among this ruling class that disdains the exact message that has been clearly communicated from the masses in this election. Last night was a revolution without muskets, but holding the ground gained will not be easy. In our nation, while independence was gained in the Revolutionary War, it was almost lost just a short time later in the War of 1812. The battle has just begun, and there is no limit to what those who lust for power and wealth will do to swing back the pendulum to the what they believe is their rightful place. For all who truly desire "equality and justice for all," know that revolutions are not events, but marathons. And they are bloody.
Racism and sexism were not what was in play. Hillary Clinton was not rejected because she was a woman. She was rejected for all I've cited above and many other things. Barack Obama was not rejected because he was black. Far more people voted for him, many of whom voted for Trump last night, than either of these candidates. His agenda was rejected on many levels, especially in regards to the sky rocketing health care premiums under Obamacare and his embrace of social liberalism. Immigrants either from war torn areas of the world or across our southern border were not rejected because they are Muslim or Mexican. People see what's going on in Europe through unfettered, open immigration, and want to do everything possible to keep that from here. People want the laws of the land as far as illegal immigration enforced. Those who seek to rule by division trumpet those things, but they simply are not the case. Do some undesirable elements fall under the Trump tent. Yes, no doubt. Are they what drove this? Not even close. This was not a race war that happened last night, or a gender war. It was a culture and class war.
I could go in to many other things. We'll definitely see the continued battle between liberalism and conservatism; big and small government; what to do about immigration, terrorism, health care, and multitudes of other issues. But those are the minutia. What happened last night was bigger than all those things.
Is Donald Trump the right man for the job? Can he be a providential wrecking ball that God uses like many unlikely figures in the bible? Is he King Saul, or Cyrus, or something in the middle? Is he in over his head? Is our nation ripe for judgment? No one knows except God.
As Christians we've allowed this election to divide us, and that is sinful. I've long felt Christianity is to politicized, that we look to Washington, the Supreme Court, and the things and ways of the world for change instead of the only One who can truly change, Jesus Christ. Our nation's and world's problems were not solved last night, only revival in God's church and a spiritual awakening in the land can heal and truly lead to a better world. Can we surrender to that, humble ourselves, pray as never before, seek His face and turn from our wicked ways from within ourselves, through the power of the Holy Sprit, apart from God's rod? I pray so. I fear not.
This world is far from God, and we alone stand as salt and light to it. O' church, hear the Lord's plea! Be transformed instead of conformed, and unite as one body for Him, not behind failed human ideology that can never succeed. Our hope is not in any of this, but in Christ alone. Last night didn't change that one wit.
Evangelicals turned out for a morally challenged, many times lewd, crude and obscene candidate in numbers not seen since 2004. They saw no other choice. With the most openly hostile candidate to the unborn in the history of our nation as the opponent, and the Supreme Court on the line, Evangelicals held their collective noses and voted for the vile man who in the last debate gave the most impassioned defense of the unborn of any Republican candidate ever. Last night was a victory for those who view abortion as the greatest national sin in our history. May Donald Trump be a man of his word on it.
The political and media establishment was laid bare like never before with it's corrupt, elitist underbelly exposed and rebuked. I said this long ago, Donald Trump is not a Republican. He was a third party candidate who was smart enough to realize that apart from our corrupt two party system, you cannot win the Presidency. Through Trump's antagonism with both major political parties and the media, he began to reveal the utter mess that our system was through the primaries. How money had corrupted seemingly all involved. How the media instead of reporting the news attempted to shape it and make it depending upon their ideology. Through the providence, and I do believe that's what it was, of leaked emails, we saw behind the tattered curtain of the ruling elite and their willing minions in the media exactly how broken, and far from it's intended ways, our system has become. Yesterday America said no more. Whether true reforms in our system take place is still in question. They are desperately needed. It is time for term limits. It is time to remove the graft from political office where people go to Washington broke and return home millionaires. At no point since 1994 has this had a better chance of happening. It needs to happen.
Republicans are not the winners here. As I watch Paul Ryan as I write this, I still don't think he understands. Republicans were rejected just as much as Democrats. It is all of Washington that was rejected. These people DID NOT want Trump as President. They still don't. But they have little choice now. I'm sure over the next few months and year we'll hear of Republican unity on several issues where it is possible. But make no mistake, the Republican Party of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and the neoconservative, is officially dead, and Lazarus isn't walking out of the tomb. If this really is a movement as Trump declares, conflict within the Republican Party is coming and it will be intense.
The Clinton era of sleaze, lust for power, and the politics of personal destruction is mercifully over. As much as many consider Trump unfit to be President, and there are legitimate reasons that is so, Hillary Clinton is equally repulsive. The lack of honor and integrity, and the legacy of corruption and scandal has been a blight for many years. The very fact that this sleaze has been swept under the rug for political expediency and election results by the Democratic Party for 25 years is emblematic of how far from our moorings our system has drifted.
There is an insurgency in our nation and the world around us. Across the globe people are standing up, voting, and screaming that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Bernie Sanders, whom the Democratic political machine basically rigged the system against, led an insurgency from the left, just as Trump did from the center-right. Ideologies may differ, but the message is the same. How we are doing things is not working and is no longer acceptable. The problem with insurgencies is while they more often than not can identify the problem, enacting the repairs is a far different challenge. This is the dilemna that faces President Donald Trump.
The system is rigged, and guess what, it always has been. The rich and powerful have always ruled and they will not release their grasp on the levers of power without an all out war. There is an entitlement mentality among this ruling class that disdains the exact message that has been clearly communicated from the masses in this election. Last night was a revolution without muskets, but holding the ground gained will not be easy. In our nation, while independence was gained in the Revolutionary War, it was almost lost just a short time later in the War of 1812. The battle has just begun, and there is no limit to what those who lust for power and wealth will do to swing back the pendulum to the what they believe is their rightful place. For all who truly desire "equality and justice for all," know that revolutions are not events, but marathons. And they are bloody.
Racism and sexism were not what was in play. Hillary Clinton was not rejected because she was a woman. She was rejected for all I've cited above and many other things. Barack Obama was not rejected because he was black. Far more people voted for him, many of whom voted for Trump last night, than either of these candidates. His agenda was rejected on many levels, especially in regards to the sky rocketing health care premiums under Obamacare and his embrace of social liberalism. Immigrants either from war torn areas of the world or across our southern border were not rejected because they are Muslim or Mexican. People see what's going on in Europe through unfettered, open immigration, and want to do everything possible to keep that from here. People want the laws of the land as far as illegal immigration enforced. Those who seek to rule by division trumpet those things, but they simply are not the case. Do some undesirable elements fall under the Trump tent. Yes, no doubt. Are they what drove this? Not even close. This was not a race war that happened last night, or a gender war. It was a culture and class war.
I could go in to many other things. We'll definitely see the continued battle between liberalism and conservatism; big and small government; what to do about immigration, terrorism, health care, and multitudes of other issues. But those are the minutia. What happened last night was bigger than all those things.
Is Donald Trump the right man for the job? Can he be a providential wrecking ball that God uses like many unlikely figures in the bible? Is he King Saul, or Cyrus, or something in the middle? Is he in over his head? Is our nation ripe for judgment? No one knows except God.
As Christians we've allowed this election to divide us, and that is sinful. I've long felt Christianity is to politicized, that we look to Washington, the Supreme Court, and the things and ways of the world for change instead of the only One who can truly change, Jesus Christ. Our nation's and world's problems were not solved last night, only revival in God's church and a spiritual awakening in the land can heal and truly lead to a better world. Can we surrender to that, humble ourselves, pray as never before, seek His face and turn from our wicked ways from within ourselves, through the power of the Holy Sprit, apart from God's rod? I pray so. I fear not.
This world is far from God, and we alone stand as salt and light to it. O' church, hear the Lord's plea! Be transformed instead of conformed, and unite as one body for Him, not behind failed human ideology that can never succeed. Our hope is not in any of this, but in Christ alone. Last night didn't change that one wit.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Election 2016: Lady and the Trump
As the news came in tonight that Ted Cruz was officially suspending his campaign, clinching what was already basically clinched, that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for President, an old baseball quote ran through my mind. Multiple time, former Yankees manager Billy Martin was once asked about comments made about him by former Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and former star outfielder Reggie Jackson. Martin, with his usual eloquence, on whether he believed the two said, "Well, one's a born liar, and the other is convicted." Welcome to our 2016 Presidential election!
On the surface, this will be a tremendously significant election. Hillary Clinton will be the first woman ever to be a major party nominee for President. Donald Trump will be the first true political outsider, a non-politician, to be a party nominee since Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the first ever business person. That's important on many levels. But let's face it, neither of those things mean squat when it comes to being President. To be honest, I'm not really sure what really matters when it comes to being a credible President, but I know this. Character, and particularly, honesty, has to be a part of the make-up of someone who serves in the office honorably and effectively.
Both candidates have been in the public eye for decades, and so very little is not known in regards to either of them. Both are controversial and polarizing, generating strong emotions both positive and negative. Both have been ruthless in climbing the ladder of their respective professions. Both have been highly successful. And both have a long history of as Patty Loveless once sang, "trouble with the truth."
I am unsure if there is such a thing anymore as an honest politician, at least on the national level. The mere task of the rings that need to be kissed and promises made to become an elected official can easily overcome honesty. Not to mention the cash that flows to influence opinion and win an election. Our political system is a broken mess, and we the people are the ones ultimately accountable, as we are the ones who have cast the ballots for continuous corruption. The bible tells us that "you reap what you sow," and so here we are, faced with an election choice between two of the most truth challenged candidates of all time. We've brought it on ourselves.
On the Democratic side, not one credible candidate to oppose Clinton even decided to run. Hillary was anointed by the Democratic machine to be the nominee after falling in line behind Barack Obama in 2008. And in spite of this, she is still losing primaries to an avowed Socialist in Bernie Sanders. Voters under the age of 35 loathe her in her own party. Exit polls in contests that Sanders eventually lost showed the Democratic electorate trusted Sanders by margins of 80-90% over her. Hardly an endorsement of her perceived honesty.
On the Republican side, Trump is the product of the total lack of trust in the Republican party as a whole. The voters feel betrayed, and have staged a revolt. They have been lied to one to many times by those they have cast their votes for, and have decided #neveragain! So they cast their votes, in what will be record numbers, for a man who literally says whatever pops in to his head. Trump could say one thing definitively, and then ten minutes later, say the exact opposite, and it doesn't matter. The message is now received, better the liar we don't know than the ones we do.
As we look towards November, I don't think there is any doubt that we will be witness to perhaps the must dishonest, underhanded, dirty, vicious campaign in most of our lifetimes. It will be one that fits our culture perfectly, six months of reality TV on the nightly news and Internet. It will probably be highly entertaining in a morbid way, but that's not exactly what we should be looking for when it comes to a Presidential election.
And so it begins, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. Our nation, on an economic, moral and spiritual slippery slope at stake. In my mind we have one hope, reflected in the writings of the Apostle Paul in "One" Corinthians. Paul states here that "God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." We are faced with a choice between two "foolish things," let us pray God has mercy upon us.
On the surface, this will be a tremendously significant election. Hillary Clinton will be the first woman ever to be a major party nominee for President. Donald Trump will be the first true political outsider, a non-politician, to be a party nominee since Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the first ever business person. That's important on many levels. But let's face it, neither of those things mean squat when it comes to being President. To be honest, I'm not really sure what really matters when it comes to being a credible President, but I know this. Character, and particularly, honesty, has to be a part of the make-up of someone who serves in the office honorably and effectively.
Both candidates have been in the public eye for decades, and so very little is not known in regards to either of them. Both are controversial and polarizing, generating strong emotions both positive and negative. Both have been ruthless in climbing the ladder of their respective professions. Both have been highly successful. And both have a long history of as Patty Loveless once sang, "trouble with the truth."
I am unsure if there is such a thing anymore as an honest politician, at least on the national level. The mere task of the rings that need to be kissed and promises made to become an elected official can easily overcome honesty. Not to mention the cash that flows to influence opinion and win an election. Our political system is a broken mess, and we the people are the ones ultimately accountable, as we are the ones who have cast the ballots for continuous corruption. The bible tells us that "you reap what you sow," and so here we are, faced with an election choice between two of the most truth challenged candidates of all time. We've brought it on ourselves.
On the Democratic side, not one credible candidate to oppose Clinton even decided to run. Hillary was anointed by the Democratic machine to be the nominee after falling in line behind Barack Obama in 2008. And in spite of this, she is still losing primaries to an avowed Socialist in Bernie Sanders. Voters under the age of 35 loathe her in her own party. Exit polls in contests that Sanders eventually lost showed the Democratic electorate trusted Sanders by margins of 80-90% over her. Hardly an endorsement of her perceived honesty.
On the Republican side, Trump is the product of the total lack of trust in the Republican party as a whole. The voters feel betrayed, and have staged a revolt. They have been lied to one to many times by those they have cast their votes for, and have decided #neveragain! So they cast their votes, in what will be record numbers, for a man who literally says whatever pops in to his head. Trump could say one thing definitively, and then ten minutes later, say the exact opposite, and it doesn't matter. The message is now received, better the liar we don't know than the ones we do.
As we look towards November, I don't think there is any doubt that we will be witness to perhaps the must dishonest, underhanded, dirty, vicious campaign in most of our lifetimes. It will be one that fits our culture perfectly, six months of reality TV on the nightly news and Internet. It will probably be highly entertaining in a morbid way, but that's not exactly what we should be looking for when it comes to a Presidential election.
And so it begins, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. Our nation, on an economic, moral and spiritual slippery slope at stake. In my mind we have one hope, reflected in the writings of the Apostle Paul in "One" Corinthians. Paul states here that "God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise." We are faced with a choice between two "foolish things," let us pray God has mercy upon us.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Reflecting on the Tabernacle-What a Building Project has Shown Me
At the church I pastor we have been in the midst of building challenges. During the flood of October, 2015, we had a structure that housed our fellowship hall, children's ministry area and nursery severely damaged by the record setting waters. Since then we have been wading through the process of what to do and how to do it. At the end of that process, we had clear choices before us, but none of them were easy. Buildings, church facilities, can be an emotional topic. People become attached to buildings. In many cases their names are on plaques, bricks, rows of pews; stained glass windows; their relatives were involved in construction; they grew up there. This is my first journey through a "building" issue as a pastor, and I've often struggled with it. It's been frustrating at times, especially in how the loss of facilities has affected our ministry and outreach. Their is tension involved when large sums of money will be involved in rectifying the problems. Their is uncertainty. During this process I've come to reflect upon the original house of God, the tabernacle, for perspective in viewing these issues.
For those unfamiliar with the tabernacle, this was the place, designed by God Himself, for His chosen people, Israel, to come to worship Him. Contrary to the modern view of buildings, which tends towards bigger; fancier; more comfortable; modern; the more extravagant the better, God didn't seem to care for these niceties when He considered where He desired to be worshipped. Instead of a grandiose house built to cater to those who attended, God told His people to worship Him in a tent!
Wherever the children of Israel wandered, they carried His tent with them. The priests were charged with it's care and for assembling and disassembling it. God gave very specific instructions for how His tent was to be designed, handled and treated. He took His tent seriously, and expected the Israelites to do so as well. But in the end, we cannot escape the reality that for Himself; God; Creator of the universe; Savior of the world; did not instruct Israel to build Him a grand "house." He didn't design it for their comfort. He declared His tent; functional; portable; efficient; simple; would suffice.
Why? God most certainly is deserving of glory! He alone is worthy! Later in the life of Israel God would relent to the desire of King David to build Him a grand house to be worshipped in. God approved of David's desire to do so. When David's son, King Solomon, finally finished the ornate, glorious temple, God blessed the event. But even with this new, glorious temple, Solomon knew God did not need it. In 1 Chronicles 6:18, in his prayer of dedication, Solomon says; "But will God indeed dwell with men on earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple that I have built."
In this age of huge church structures with every bell and whistle, why do I think we need to remember this?
You see, God met with His people in the tabernacle, and later continued to do so in the temple. He was never concerned with how ornate the structure, or how appealing it was to man. God's concern has always been for the heart of the people who gathered to worship Him. God would later abandon meeting with His people in that ornate temple due to the hardness of their hearts. The building became nothing more than a fancy, expensive, hunk of rock, as His glory departed it. He later judged Israel and the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians. We saw this same thing happen again as a later temple was destroyed by Rome in 67 AD. It was never about the building for God!
Yet today, we seem fixated on having a bigger and better building. For many, this is the standard of whether God is present with His people. It is the thing many look at when considering where to attend church. In many cases it looks like an arms race to top the church up the street. Countless tens of millions of dollars are poured in to buildings. Beautiful, ornate, fancy structures we call the "house of God." Many seem to hold the opinion this is what God desires. What He will use for His glory.
Yet nowhere in scripture do we find this expressed by God. God has always valued people far more than brick and mortar. It is hearts for which He is jealous, not whether He has a nicer house than Allah, Buddha, the church up the street, or the Carolina Panthers. He declares you and I are the "temple of the Holy Spirit," not some address for our "church" on the mailbox. Without people loving Him without all of our heart, soul, mind and strength, their is no church, just a building.
Our witness to the world is not our real estate, but our love for one another. To many times we seem to have forgotten that.
As for us, we're nearing an end to our building issues, and my prayer is simple. I pray we have God honoring tent, and our heart is set upon people, just as His is. For no matter how spectacular the structure may be, it is His people living His way that make it His house.
Or should I say His tent.
For those unfamiliar with the tabernacle, this was the place, designed by God Himself, for His chosen people, Israel, to come to worship Him. Contrary to the modern view of buildings, which tends towards bigger; fancier; more comfortable; modern; the more extravagant the better, God didn't seem to care for these niceties when He considered where He desired to be worshipped. Instead of a grandiose house built to cater to those who attended, God told His people to worship Him in a tent!
Wherever the children of Israel wandered, they carried His tent with them. The priests were charged with it's care and for assembling and disassembling it. God gave very specific instructions for how His tent was to be designed, handled and treated. He took His tent seriously, and expected the Israelites to do so as well. But in the end, we cannot escape the reality that for Himself; God; Creator of the universe; Savior of the world; did not instruct Israel to build Him a grand "house." He didn't design it for their comfort. He declared His tent; functional; portable; efficient; simple; would suffice.
Why? God most certainly is deserving of glory! He alone is worthy! Later in the life of Israel God would relent to the desire of King David to build Him a grand house to be worshipped in. God approved of David's desire to do so. When David's son, King Solomon, finally finished the ornate, glorious temple, God blessed the event. But even with this new, glorious temple, Solomon knew God did not need it. In 1 Chronicles 6:18, in his prayer of dedication, Solomon says; "But will God indeed dwell with men on earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple that I have built."
In this age of huge church structures with every bell and whistle, why do I think we need to remember this?
You see, God met with His people in the tabernacle, and later continued to do so in the temple. He was never concerned with how ornate the structure, or how appealing it was to man. God's concern has always been for the heart of the people who gathered to worship Him. God would later abandon meeting with His people in that ornate temple due to the hardness of their hearts. The building became nothing more than a fancy, expensive, hunk of rock, as His glory departed it. He later judged Israel and the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians. We saw this same thing happen again as a later temple was destroyed by Rome in 67 AD. It was never about the building for God!
Yet today, we seem fixated on having a bigger and better building. For many, this is the standard of whether God is present with His people. It is the thing many look at when considering where to attend church. In many cases it looks like an arms race to top the church up the street. Countless tens of millions of dollars are poured in to buildings. Beautiful, ornate, fancy structures we call the "house of God." Many seem to hold the opinion this is what God desires. What He will use for His glory.
Yet nowhere in scripture do we find this expressed by God. God has always valued people far more than brick and mortar. It is hearts for which He is jealous, not whether He has a nicer house than Allah, Buddha, the church up the street, or the Carolina Panthers. He declares you and I are the "temple of the Holy Spirit," not some address for our "church" on the mailbox. Without people loving Him without all of our heart, soul, mind and strength, their is no church, just a building.
Our witness to the world is not our real estate, but our love for one another. To many times we seem to have forgotten that.
As for us, we're nearing an end to our building issues, and my prayer is simple. I pray we have God honoring tent, and our heart is set upon people, just as His is. For no matter how spectacular the structure may be, it is His people living His way that make it His house.
Or should I say His tent.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Looking for Reagan in a Reality TV World
I was a sophomore in High School when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in a landslide victory during the 1980 Presidential campaign. I didn't follow politics then. I do remember my parents, staunch Republicans, were elated that the Carter years were finally done. I remember school getting out early when an assassins bullet struck him. I remember "there he goes again," the commercials in 1984 of a great Russian bear stalking, star wars missile defense, "tear down this wall," Iran-Contra, Grenada, and a few other things. I didn't start really following politics until Bush v. Clinton and Perot in 1992.
Reagan has become the symbol of what it is to be a Republican. It's been 27 years since he left office, yet his name is revered today like he was just leaving office next year. He's become an icon, and every Republican candidate since, except maybe an insurgent like Ron Paul, has invoked his name and legacy stating they are the one to return us to the days of Reagan. Today whether it be Cruz, or Rubio, or any of the others apart from Trump, they still make his legacy a central part of their campaigns. Cruz and Rubio are 45, meaning they were 13 when Reagan was elected. Call me a cynic, but I knew very few 13 years olds who were political wonks. Yet they claim more than the others that only they can return the country to the glory days of Ronald Reagan.
But is that really possible?
I look back to those days when I was a teen, and I see a country that doesn't exist anymore. No internet; cable TV was a new thing; no cable news; no talk radio; people got their news from Walter Cronkite, not Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews. People went to church, little league games and practices weren't scheduled on Wednesday or Sunday out of respect for this. During this era people watched Cheers, The Cosby Show, and 60 Minutes. Well, we still watch that.
In those days we had a clear enemy, the Soviet Union. No one knew what AIDS was, or Trans-genders. Kids weren't shooting each other in schools, never even thought about it. Teachers could still spank a child, parents did as well. Billy Graham crusades were aired on Saturday nights. Bob Hope still visited the troops and announced the All-American football team. Bear Bryant still roamed the sidelines. People still wrote letters, and used encyclopedias.
It was a different world.
Everyone has a recollection of their "good ol' days." When examined, they are usually found as rife with problems as any other point in history. But things do change. The world has changed immensely since those heady days of the "era of Reagan." It happens. Fifty years before Reagan, the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, few owned a car, or a house, or even a phone. Radio was entertainment; newspapers were king; airlines didn't exist; marriage was by and large for life; abortion wasn't even a blip on the radar, let alone Gay marriage.
Today is as different from the days of Reagan as the 1930's were the 1980's.
We cannot go back in time. Those days are never coming back, in fact, more radical changes to our lives are on the way. It's the way of mankind, and the world. Central themes traverse time. Evil still exists, sin still swallows the world. The "heart of man" is still as "deceitfully wicked" as when Jeremiah penned those words 2600 years ago. As Jesus said we'll always have the poor with us, and there will always be rich and poor here on earth. A sucker is still born every minute, politicians will still say anything to get elected, and promise a "chicken in every pot," maybe today a Big Mac. A few things never change, but most change dramatically over the course of a generation.
The days of Ronald Reagan are gone. We live in a reality TV world where coarseness and provocative behavior draws the limited attention spans we hold. We communicate in 140 characters or less on Twitter; base our opinions on sound bites instead of context; talk on Facebook instead of face-to-face; look at our phones instead of each other; download our music and movies; attend church to watch a preacher on a big screen. Reagan was a product of his generation, who survived the depression and World War II. We are a product of Vietnam; the Civil Rights movement; feminism; free love; "Greed is good;" a fetus isn't human; White House sex scandals; and parsing the meaning of the word "is."
For us as Christians, this election should be a lesson. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, "and to the Jews I became a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law, to those whom are without the law, as without the law (not being without the law towards God, but under the law towards Christ), that I might win those who are without the law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospels sake, that I may be a partaker of it with you."
As Christians, in this reality TV world, maybe we'd be better purposed to be looking at what this election has revealed of the world that we live in, and how to relate to it, instead of looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Those days are as different from today as winter is from summer. Instead of filling our minds with the political squabbles of the day, and seeking a return to our "good ol' days," maybe we should heed the words of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 8:20, "the harvest is past, the summer is gone, and we are not saved!" That has not changed.
Reagan has become the symbol of what it is to be a Republican. It's been 27 years since he left office, yet his name is revered today like he was just leaving office next year. He's become an icon, and every Republican candidate since, except maybe an insurgent like Ron Paul, has invoked his name and legacy stating they are the one to return us to the days of Reagan. Today whether it be Cruz, or Rubio, or any of the others apart from Trump, they still make his legacy a central part of their campaigns. Cruz and Rubio are 45, meaning they were 13 when Reagan was elected. Call me a cynic, but I knew very few 13 years olds who were political wonks. Yet they claim more than the others that only they can return the country to the glory days of Ronald Reagan.
But is that really possible?
I look back to those days when I was a teen, and I see a country that doesn't exist anymore. No internet; cable TV was a new thing; no cable news; no talk radio; people got their news from Walter Cronkite, not Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews. People went to church, little league games and practices weren't scheduled on Wednesday or Sunday out of respect for this. During this era people watched Cheers, The Cosby Show, and 60 Minutes. Well, we still watch that.
In those days we had a clear enemy, the Soviet Union. No one knew what AIDS was, or Trans-genders. Kids weren't shooting each other in schools, never even thought about it. Teachers could still spank a child, parents did as well. Billy Graham crusades were aired on Saturday nights. Bob Hope still visited the troops and announced the All-American football team. Bear Bryant still roamed the sidelines. People still wrote letters, and used encyclopedias.
It was a different world.
Everyone has a recollection of their "good ol' days." When examined, they are usually found as rife with problems as any other point in history. But things do change. The world has changed immensely since those heady days of the "era of Reagan." It happens. Fifty years before Reagan, the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, few owned a car, or a house, or even a phone. Radio was entertainment; newspapers were king; airlines didn't exist; marriage was by and large for life; abortion wasn't even a blip on the radar, let alone Gay marriage.
Today is as different from the days of Reagan as the 1930's were the 1980's.
We cannot go back in time. Those days are never coming back, in fact, more radical changes to our lives are on the way. It's the way of mankind, and the world. Central themes traverse time. Evil still exists, sin still swallows the world. The "heart of man" is still as "deceitfully wicked" as when Jeremiah penned those words 2600 years ago. As Jesus said we'll always have the poor with us, and there will always be rich and poor here on earth. A sucker is still born every minute, politicians will still say anything to get elected, and promise a "chicken in every pot," maybe today a Big Mac. A few things never change, but most change dramatically over the course of a generation.
The days of Ronald Reagan are gone. We live in a reality TV world where coarseness and provocative behavior draws the limited attention spans we hold. We communicate in 140 characters or less on Twitter; base our opinions on sound bites instead of context; talk on Facebook instead of face-to-face; look at our phones instead of each other; download our music and movies; attend church to watch a preacher on a big screen. Reagan was a product of his generation, who survived the depression and World War II. We are a product of Vietnam; the Civil Rights movement; feminism; free love; "Greed is good;" a fetus isn't human; White House sex scandals; and parsing the meaning of the word "is."
For us as Christians, this election should be a lesson. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23, "and to the Jews I became a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law, to those whom are without the law, as without the law (not being without the law towards God, but under the law towards Christ), that I might win those who are without the law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospels sake, that I may be a partaker of it with you."
As Christians, in this reality TV world, maybe we'd be better purposed to be looking at what this election has revealed of the world that we live in, and how to relate to it, instead of looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Those days are as different from today as winter is from summer. Instead of filling our minds with the political squabbles of the day, and seeking a return to our "good ol' days," maybe we should heed the words of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 8:20, "the harvest is past, the summer is gone, and we are not saved!" That has not changed.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
For the Christian in Politics, Does the End Justify the Means?
Ahhhhhh, it's political season in full force here in South Carolina. New Hampshire is in the rear view mirror and my home state is now in the crosshairs of the remaining candidates in the race for President. Our roads will be littered with signs, our airwaves overrun with ads on radio and TV, our Facebook feeds full of venom from those heinous Super PAC's, and so it is for the next few weeks.
South Carolina is an interesting animal politically. Conservative yet independent, known for underhanded and bare knuckled political brawls. Over 60% of the voters are self declared Evangelicals, as we are still most definitely a religious state. Yet when it comes to politics, it seems we are often far to willing to ignore dirty, cheap and frankly dishonest tactics, overlook them in spite of their un-Christian tenor, under the mantra, "well, that's politics." But, should this be the mindset for the Christian voter or the candidate running under the banner of faith?
That's a question that has really bothered me this election cycle. As we watch a hotly contested Republican primary, we've seen the typical politics of our generation. Anything goes. Of the candidates remaining, only one is not really running with his faith as a centerpiece of his campaign, and that is Donald Trump. Yes, Trump has appealed to the evangelical vote, what Republican candidate doesn't? He's received the endorsement of some religious leaders like Dr. Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell, Jr. But he most certainly is not out there trumpeting his faith. When he has spoken of it he's been visibly hesitant and awkward. I do not consider him a religious candidate in the least. The rest however are running with a bible in hand and their faith prominent as part of their appeal to voters. And that will especially be on display here in South Carolina.
Ben Carson speaks of his Seventh Day Adventist faith eloquently and sincerely. By all accounts he seems to be as honorable a man as their is in the contest. He's simply not a good politician. By that I mean, he's way to nice and has not resorted to an anything goes approach, which means he has no prayer of being elected. It doesn't help he appears to be napping most of the time. Still, I respect his candidacy and his integrity.
Former Florida Governor Jeb! Bush does not speak of his Catholic faith as often as his brother George did of his Episcopal beliefs. Still, when he does, he does so comfortably and seemingly sincerely. Bush is in a desperate position as he enters South Carolina and it will be interesting to watch how his campaign proceeds here. How low will he be willing to go? Brother George went pretty low here in 2000 in his match-up with John McCain, even so far that rumors of McCain having an illegitimate black child, was a traitor, was crazy, his wife was a drug addict, were widely circulated via flyers and push polls. Bush went on to win the nomination and Presidency, did the "end justify the means" for an avowed born again Christian?
Ohio Governor John Kasich is an avowed conservative Anglican. He also is comfortable when speaking of his faith, though it's not a centerpiece of his candidacy. Kasich has so far run a very positive campaign and avoided the trap of the anything goes politics that are so prevalent today. With little to no organization in South Carolina, he's not a factor. I really don't even expect him to compete here, so if he does resort to politics as usual, it won't be here.
That brings us to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the two most prominent faith based candidates.
Rubio is Roman Catholic and has a riveting testimony in regards to his faith in Jesus Christ. Over the course of his life, Rubio has been Catholic, then Mormon as a teen, later an Evangelical who attended an SBC megachurch, and now has returned to his Catholic roots of which he says says he fully embraces all Roman Catholic doctrine. Rubio's political journey is as muddled as his journey in faith. He was elected Senator in Florida as a Tea Party Constitutionalist running on a strict anti-immigration amnesty platform, but almost immediately reversed course when elected when he emerged as a co-sponsor of the doomed "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill. Now, he says he no longer backs the bill he was a primary proponent of. He also is on the record as first saying in hindsight he would not have gone to war in Iraq, but later saying it was not a mistake, and has changed his positions on defense spending several times. He's had to revise the story of his parents flight from Cuba due to inaccuracies. Now, everyone is entitled to change their minds. But for one running on their faith as visibly as Rubio is, it seems the words of the bible "let your yay mean yay and your nay mean nay" should have some bearing. He comes off as one who will say what he believes will get him elected. For Rubio, will the "end justify the means?"
No candidate is running as strongly on his faith as Southern Baptist Ted Cruz. Cruz, Senator from Texas and son of Pentecostal Pastor Rafael Cruz, has garnered the backing of such conservative Christian stalwarts as James Dobson and Tony Perkins along with some questionable characters like Kenneth Copeland, Mike Bickle and David Barton. In South Carolina nearly 150 pastors have endorsed Cruz, including former President of the SCBC Tommy Kelly of FBC Varnville. Cruz has cultivated networks of pastors to organize Christian voters is several states, including here, and is counting on as he so boldly claims in stump speeches for "the body of Christ to rise up and restore this nation!"
This type language obviously plays well with religious conservatives. Cruz has also publically shown a willingness to stand up to the powers that be, the "Washington Cartel," as he has labeled them, further endearing him to those with conservative political views who see D.C. and the political elites as corrupt. With Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum now gone, Cruz is by far the most openly religious candidate left. Has his campaign reflected the bold statement of faith he so openly is running on?
In Iowa, Cruz was responsible for a clearly deceptive mailer that "shamed" voters by comparing their voting records to their neighbors. Now understand, this is not a tactic foreign to elections in Iowa. Barack Obama used the same tactic in 2008 and the Iowa Republican Party has used the tactic as well. It is accepted politics as usual. But is deception a tactic a candidate running on a faith centered platform should be using? The Ben Carson episode on Caucus night clearly was mishandled by the Cruz campaign, infuriating the ever docile and honorable Carson. Ben clearly felt wronged. Now, in politics, one looks for every advantage, and clearly in Iowa, a state also with a large Evangelical voting block, any vote that could be won from Carson, who was appealing to the same voter block, was an advantage. And their is no doubt some were swayed. There was nothing illegal here, it was indeed politics as usual. But was it ethical, and do ethics matter for the candidate running as "the" conservative Christian candidate?
Cruz also has his flip flops. The campaign commercials have already begun here and the tenor of some are highly questionable to me, including an on-line ad from a Super PAC supporting Cruz, playing to the Confederate flag issue here against Donald Trump. This issue is clearly divisive, and more importantly, of no bearing on this election. It's a play to the lowest common denominator of some of the voting public. Is it politically effective? Maybe it will be. Is it the way "the" conservative Christian candidate should be campaigning? For Cruz, will the "end justify the means?"
Now, I'm not leaving the Donald out of this. He's flip-flopped on more things than an Olympic gymnast, uses language that would shame a sailor, and also appeals to the "baser" instincts of many. But as I stated, he's not running with his faith front and center of his campaign. Except when asked about it, he rarely mentions it. My question surrounding all of this is should the candidate clearly running with faith as a central part of their campaign be held to a higher standard by the Christian voter?
Men like Huckabee and Santorum certainly had their faith front and center, ran honorable campaigns, and were out of the race after the first contest getting less than 3% of the vote between them. Many say someone running this type of campaign, Carson being another example, cannot win. I'm actually convinced of that. Politics is a cutthroat proposition. But what type of testimony is it for the Christian to adopt the ways of the world simply to get elected? The Christian is supposed to be about Christ first and foremost, and abstain from the ways of the world. We are to be "salt" and "light" to influence the corrupted culture we live in, but as Jesus says, when salt "loses it's flavor," it becomes useless.
It's clearly a difficult thing to process. I firmly believe we need more Christian influence in our government. More faithful, committed people of integrity whose "yay means yay." But we live in a world where the game apparently has to be played the "game's" way. Does that match up with our faith? For me, it doesn't. For the Christian, you see, the "means" are every bit as important as the "end." If they are not, we may be elected, but we lose credibility in the thing that should matter most, our testimony of Jesus Christ.
South Carolina is an interesting animal politically. Conservative yet independent, known for underhanded and bare knuckled political brawls. Over 60% of the voters are self declared Evangelicals, as we are still most definitely a religious state. Yet when it comes to politics, it seems we are often far to willing to ignore dirty, cheap and frankly dishonest tactics, overlook them in spite of their un-Christian tenor, under the mantra, "well, that's politics." But, should this be the mindset for the Christian voter or the candidate running under the banner of faith?
That's a question that has really bothered me this election cycle. As we watch a hotly contested Republican primary, we've seen the typical politics of our generation. Anything goes. Of the candidates remaining, only one is not really running with his faith as a centerpiece of his campaign, and that is Donald Trump. Yes, Trump has appealed to the evangelical vote, what Republican candidate doesn't? He's received the endorsement of some religious leaders like Dr. Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell, Jr. But he most certainly is not out there trumpeting his faith. When he has spoken of it he's been visibly hesitant and awkward. I do not consider him a religious candidate in the least. The rest however are running with a bible in hand and their faith prominent as part of their appeal to voters. And that will especially be on display here in South Carolina.
Ben Carson speaks of his Seventh Day Adventist faith eloquently and sincerely. By all accounts he seems to be as honorable a man as their is in the contest. He's simply not a good politician. By that I mean, he's way to nice and has not resorted to an anything goes approach, which means he has no prayer of being elected. It doesn't help he appears to be napping most of the time. Still, I respect his candidacy and his integrity.
Former Florida Governor Jeb! Bush does not speak of his Catholic faith as often as his brother George did of his Episcopal beliefs. Still, when he does, he does so comfortably and seemingly sincerely. Bush is in a desperate position as he enters South Carolina and it will be interesting to watch how his campaign proceeds here. How low will he be willing to go? Brother George went pretty low here in 2000 in his match-up with John McCain, even so far that rumors of McCain having an illegitimate black child, was a traitor, was crazy, his wife was a drug addict, were widely circulated via flyers and push polls. Bush went on to win the nomination and Presidency, did the "end justify the means" for an avowed born again Christian?
Ohio Governor John Kasich is an avowed conservative Anglican. He also is comfortable when speaking of his faith, though it's not a centerpiece of his candidacy. Kasich has so far run a very positive campaign and avoided the trap of the anything goes politics that are so prevalent today. With little to no organization in South Carolina, he's not a factor. I really don't even expect him to compete here, so if he does resort to politics as usual, it won't be here.
That brings us to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the two most prominent faith based candidates.
Rubio is Roman Catholic and has a riveting testimony in regards to his faith in Jesus Christ. Over the course of his life, Rubio has been Catholic, then Mormon as a teen, later an Evangelical who attended an SBC megachurch, and now has returned to his Catholic roots of which he says says he fully embraces all Roman Catholic doctrine. Rubio's political journey is as muddled as his journey in faith. He was elected Senator in Florida as a Tea Party Constitutionalist running on a strict anti-immigration amnesty platform, but almost immediately reversed course when elected when he emerged as a co-sponsor of the doomed "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill. Now, he says he no longer backs the bill he was a primary proponent of. He also is on the record as first saying in hindsight he would not have gone to war in Iraq, but later saying it was not a mistake, and has changed his positions on defense spending several times. He's had to revise the story of his parents flight from Cuba due to inaccuracies. Now, everyone is entitled to change their minds. But for one running on their faith as visibly as Rubio is, it seems the words of the bible "let your yay mean yay and your nay mean nay" should have some bearing. He comes off as one who will say what he believes will get him elected. For Rubio, will the "end justify the means?"
No candidate is running as strongly on his faith as Southern Baptist Ted Cruz. Cruz, Senator from Texas and son of Pentecostal Pastor Rafael Cruz, has garnered the backing of such conservative Christian stalwarts as James Dobson and Tony Perkins along with some questionable characters like Kenneth Copeland, Mike Bickle and David Barton. In South Carolina nearly 150 pastors have endorsed Cruz, including former President of the SCBC Tommy Kelly of FBC Varnville. Cruz has cultivated networks of pastors to organize Christian voters is several states, including here, and is counting on as he so boldly claims in stump speeches for "the body of Christ to rise up and restore this nation!"
This type language obviously plays well with religious conservatives. Cruz has also publically shown a willingness to stand up to the powers that be, the "Washington Cartel," as he has labeled them, further endearing him to those with conservative political views who see D.C. and the political elites as corrupt. With Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum now gone, Cruz is by far the most openly religious candidate left. Has his campaign reflected the bold statement of faith he so openly is running on?
In Iowa, Cruz was responsible for a clearly deceptive mailer that "shamed" voters by comparing their voting records to their neighbors. Now understand, this is not a tactic foreign to elections in Iowa. Barack Obama used the same tactic in 2008 and the Iowa Republican Party has used the tactic as well. It is accepted politics as usual. But is deception a tactic a candidate running on a faith centered platform should be using? The Ben Carson episode on Caucus night clearly was mishandled by the Cruz campaign, infuriating the ever docile and honorable Carson. Ben clearly felt wronged. Now, in politics, one looks for every advantage, and clearly in Iowa, a state also with a large Evangelical voting block, any vote that could be won from Carson, who was appealing to the same voter block, was an advantage. And their is no doubt some were swayed. There was nothing illegal here, it was indeed politics as usual. But was it ethical, and do ethics matter for the candidate running as "the" conservative Christian candidate?
Cruz also has his flip flops. The campaign commercials have already begun here and the tenor of some are highly questionable to me, including an on-line ad from a Super PAC supporting Cruz, playing to the Confederate flag issue here against Donald Trump. This issue is clearly divisive, and more importantly, of no bearing on this election. It's a play to the lowest common denominator of some of the voting public. Is it politically effective? Maybe it will be. Is it the way "the" conservative Christian candidate should be campaigning? For Cruz, will the "end justify the means?"
Now, I'm not leaving the Donald out of this. He's flip-flopped on more things than an Olympic gymnast, uses language that would shame a sailor, and also appeals to the "baser" instincts of many. But as I stated, he's not running with his faith front and center of his campaign. Except when asked about it, he rarely mentions it. My question surrounding all of this is should the candidate clearly running with faith as a central part of their campaign be held to a higher standard by the Christian voter?
Men like Huckabee and Santorum certainly had their faith front and center, ran honorable campaigns, and were out of the race after the first contest getting less than 3% of the vote between them. Many say someone running this type of campaign, Carson being another example, cannot win. I'm actually convinced of that. Politics is a cutthroat proposition. But what type of testimony is it for the Christian to adopt the ways of the world simply to get elected? The Christian is supposed to be about Christ first and foremost, and abstain from the ways of the world. We are to be "salt" and "light" to influence the corrupted culture we live in, but as Jesus says, when salt "loses it's flavor," it becomes useless.
It's clearly a difficult thing to process. I firmly believe we need more Christian influence in our government. More faithful, committed people of integrity whose "yay means yay." But we live in a world where the game apparently has to be played the "game's" way. Does that match up with our faith? For me, it doesn't. For the Christian, you see, the "means" are every bit as important as the "end." If they are not, we may be elected, but we lose credibility in the thing that should matter most, our testimony of Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)