The Sky is Falling, We’re Turning Communist, and Other Post-Election Goodies

Obama won the 2012 presidential election. That made some people happy and some less happy. I’m in the second group. But, this blog isn't about Obama, Romney, Ron Paul, or anyone else. I’m writing about how we can respond.

Here’s what I can say with certainty: I have no idea exactly what will happen during the next four years. Well, that’s not true. I have some ideas, and many I do not believe are good. But the 2012 election is behind us, and the fact is that Obama is our President. So, how do we respond?

“The Sky is Falling”

I seriously doubt the world will come to an end because Obama was elected. I write as a Christian, as one who believes the truth of Scripture. Truth that says God controls who rises into power (e.g., John 19:10-11, Dan. 4:25, Isa. 13:17). In the United States, He works through the ballot box (we have input). But Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”

If you are pro-Obama, you won’t ask this next question. But if you are anti-Obama or “Obama neutral”, you may naturally ask, “Why did God permit this man into office?” Here’s what I can say with certainty: I have no idea (you must admit I’m consistent). But I know of several possibilities! It could be that he is the man America “needs” to build our country (although, to be honest, I have a hard time believing this). It could be that he is the man America “deserves” as a consequence of any-of-a-hundred cultural sins. It could be that God is judging America. It could be that God is pushing Christians in America to get off their duffs, to quit chasing the American dream as their primary purpose, and to instead pursue kingdom purposes. (I’m not saying we ignore the American dream, just move it into “second place”.) Regardless, we should seek the welfare of the city (county, parish, state, country) as we live an even-more secular culture, just as Israel was commanded to do when they were taken by the Babylonians (Jer. 29:7).

Life might well be harder during the next four years. Life for Christians in particular might become harder during the next four years. Only time will tell with any certainty. But whether life gets harder or not, God doesn't change. And, frankly, God says he uses trials to grow us (e.g., James 1:2-4), although I’d prefer to grow without trials J. As a believer, I need to “live by faith” even in a messy world (Gal. 2:20). It might not be easy, but am I willing to trust God no matter what?

We’re turning Communist / Socialist / Martian

Frankly, it won’t surprise me if in the not-too-distant future, our culture looks more like post-modern Europe than many of us want. I hope that’s not the case, but it looks likely. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Obama really wants us as a socialist country (I’m not interested in commentary on whether he does or not – I’m simply stating it for the sake of argument). He is not the sole cause; maybe not even the primary cause. He’s just the latest step. For example, welfare came into being to “help those in need”. However, it created dependence, not independence, and it’s been around a long time. Our culture has largely lost the “if you don’t work, you don’t eat” (I am not lumping people who legitimately need help in this discussion) and the “help equip those who need help to stand on their own two feet” ethics. For a host of reasons, we've developed a culture that practices yome. (Yome = “You-owe-me”. A secretary from my engineering days taught me this word). Only time will tell if we continue along this path or change as a culture.

Communist? No, but not impossible. Although the philosophy of “communism” must have a socialistic economic system, not all socialism must be communistic. This one I call, “Overreaction”.

But no matter what, God is still God. I am still called to be faithful to Him and walk in faith.

What should we do?

Pray a lot (1 Tim. 2:1-3).

Respect the office, even if you don’t respect the man.

Get your hands dirty. Instead of saying “they shouldn't ” (whomever “they” are or what “they” shouldn't be doing), get involved with others. Educate people one-on-one. Help them see how to work and the value of work. You get the idea!

Read Economics For Dummies (or something similar) to learn or relearn basic economics (of course, some of you already know it well. You are exempt J.) I think too many of us don’t understand the basics.

Don’t believe everything you see, hear, or read (maybe believe nothing). For example, I've seen a host of half-baked videos that distort facts, but people pass them along as truth. Check the facts, check the facts, and then check the facts.

Stop diatribes on Facebook and other venues. Your fans already believe you; your “enemies” won’t be convinced. Don’t pass on ad hominem attacks, half-truths, and anything else that inflames. Pass on “the truth and nothing but the truth”. If you pass on opinion, identify it as such. Offer positive  suggestions about how to get involved.

Do get involved in the political process. Stand up for those who can’t stand up for themselves. Try to influence politicians, but…

Remember, a believer's true citizenship is in heaven and we are primarily ambassadors here. So, while influencing the culture, do so in a Christ-like way and serve Him first and foremost. This kingdom may fade; His never will.

I don’t know exactly what will happen in the next four years. Obama is my president, just as Bush was my president before him. Doesn't matter which (if either) I support. Things might improve; they might deteriorate. I have my suspicions. Either way, take a deep breath, trust God, get involved, and live with kingdom purposes in view.

Things I Won't Miss After the Election

Probably should have written this months ago. Such is life!

Every presidential election matters. As American citizens, we have both the privilege and responsibility to express our views via the ballot box. In this political process, we have the privilege of disagreeing with one another. Depending on our individual world views, these differences can be significant!

What bothers me most about our disagreements – and what I will absolutely not miss after the election – is how we disagree. Too many of our disagreements include name calling, ad-hominem attacks, statements taken out of contest, sound-bite statements against our opponents, propagating statements without checking the truth of those statements, propagating those same statements even after discovering the truth, blitzing the social media with all kinds of “noise”, and so on. It happens with the candidates themselves (see, “Debates, any of them”) on down to the man in the street.

It bothers me most when Christians do the same thing. We should be different in our approach. We forget (apparently), or choose to ignore, that “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44) and “overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21) applies even to our political “enemies”. I've seen too much of the opposite, where we act just like the world in the way we attack the other side (whether attacking from a Republican, Democratic, or Independent perspective).

Dean Merrill wrote in his book Sinners in the hands of an Angry Church: “You cannot shout people into holiness. It just does not work.” The same applies to political views – you (and I) cannot shout people into changing their views.

Some will (and some already have) incorrectly conclude from my comments that I think Christians ought to be passive, or that my theology doesn't allow thinking correctly about political issues. Both views are wrong. Should we be frustrated, even angry, at some of the actions and platforms that candidates hold (whether in office or running for office)? Absolutely! Should we try to influence the political process? Absolutely. Should we try to hold wrong-doers accountable? Again, absolutely. Should we be bold? Yes! Should we speak our convictions? Yes!

But I do think we need to check how we respond. Whether I like a particular incumbent is immaterial. If the incumbent has not personally earned my respect (in my oh-so-humble opinion), the office has (or should). The Bible commands us to pray for our leaders, not just the leaders we like (1 Tim. 2:1-3), a command Paul wrote while Nero “served” as emperor. Peter wrote, also during Nero’s reign, to “honor the King” (1 Pet. 2:17), even though Nero was in no way a godly or moral man.

So, what should we do if we disagree?

• Pray. A lot.
•  Fact check before passing on “facts”.
• Check context before passing on quotes. Don’t pass on quotes taken out of context.
• Choose not to pass on anything whose primary purpose is to inflame.
• Don’t rationalize our actions with words like “I’m mad”, or “They’re an idiot”. Both might be true, but that shouldn't drive how we act (if you’re married, does the “I’m mad” or “you’re an idiot” approach work with your spouse? Thought not!)
• Address specific issues with facts to support your thoughts.
•  Use social media wisely – don’t bury people with “stuff”.
• If you are a believer, remember your demeanor should reflect Jesus. (I can hear now, though, the argument, “Jesus was pretty harsh with the money changers, so I’m okay.” The problem with this comparison is that Jesus’ harshest words were towards the religious leaders of the day for leading their people down the wrong path, not towards the political leaders or for political issues).
• Listen to the viewpoints of our opponent. We don’t have to agree, but we can be courteous. We might even learn something! I asked an Obama-supporter why she supported him. But, I preceded the request by telling her I simply wanted to learn; that I would not use her words against her. I think she replied because I treated her with respect, even though we disagree.
• Don’t resort to name-calling. The gap is huge between “This is a lie" (or appears to be a lie)” and “He is a liar”.
• Finally, ask yourself – is this how I want to be treated?

I suspect I’ll get shot at by some. Again. But I want Christians to think on a higher plain. Jesus’ kingdom purposes should trump my political views. Representing Jesus should direct how I respond, not my flesh (Did you know Paul included “hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, and dissensions” in his list of “the deeds of the flesh”, Gal. 5:20?). Remember we serve as an ambassador of our real home (1 Cor. 5:20, Phil. 3:20) therefore, represent that kingdom well as we work in this kingdom.

For me, this is the test: Based on reading my Facebook posts, reading my blogs, hearing my discussions with others, and watching me in the public arena, would an outside observer say, “He spoke the truth in love”? Or would he say something else? I hope the first is true.

Stand firm; raise issues; address error. But do it in love. How we dissent is at least as important as that we dissent. And if you do it in love, you’ll confound your foes – they won’t know how to respond (Rom. 12:20). J

For Whom Should I Vote?

Let me disappoint you early. I am writing neither a diatribe against any candidate (incumbent or otherwise) nor a letter of support for any candidate. Instead, I want to think a bit about how and why we should vote (and yes, I believe every Christian eligible to vote should vote).

First, beware of three lines of faulty logic about voting (I’m sure there are more):

(1)    “I am not going to vote because…” I’ve heard Christians give two different reasons for this conclusion. First some say,” we are “only passing through this world, so it really doesn’t matter”. Second, some say, all the candidates are “evil” so they would only be voting for the lesser of two evils. Here’s the problem with these conclusions. While it is true we are “only passing through”, we should still be good stewards of this world while we are here. None of us knows when Jesus is returning, so we need to care for our world as if He is not returning soon. I want my grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms I enjoyed. And it may be true that we perceive our choice as “the lesser of two evils”. The error in choosing not to vote if I perceive all my choices as bad is that I have indirectly cast a vote for the greater of two evils. If I vote for the “lesser” I at least offset a vote someone else cast for “the greater” of the two evils. I must admit that sometimes I have voted against Candidate A more so than for Candidate B. So, in my oh-so-humble opinion, neither reason to forgo voting holds up logically.

(2)    “My vote doesn’t count.” I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this. And in many elections, that may be the case, but sometimes a single vote does matter!  In 2011, a coin flip decided the winner of a council seat for the small town of Rock Hall, MD, after two candidates tied in the election. In 2004, only 133 votes separated the winner and loser of the Washington gubernatorial election – roughly four votes per county. The ballots were counted three times. The first and second count showed one candidate the winner; the second recount resulted in the other candidate being declared the winner. So, your vote might not make a difference, but then again, it might! (Want to see more close election results? Visit  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_close_election_results)

(3)    “The government will / should _______” (you fill in the blank). I’m not sure where the thinking originated about the government giving money and I don’t know why anyone would think a government-run program will be fiscally sound. As I write this, the national debt nears $16 trillion dollars – or over fifty thousand dollars per citizen. They government spends more each year than it takes in, meaning, the deficit is getting larger. Try that with your personal checking account! The vast majority of federal revenues come from taxes – money out of our pocket. You might argue, “Raise corporate taxes!” – but that just takes money out of our pockets indirectly – the corporation must pass on its costs to the end-user. The bottom line is this, no government can supply “free” anything; the only money it can spend comes from revenues it takes. I’m not denying we have problems like poverty, college education costs, medical care, and a host of other issues that need to be addressed (which I won’t address here). Just don’t get sucked in to the line that “the government will provide / fix” because to do so, it must take from its citizens before it can “give” anything.

Second, remember that as Christians, we have dual citizenship – and our primary address is not this world. While we are to be a good stewards of this world, our greater purpose is to be “ambassadors for Christ”, representing and promoting God’s purposes first and foremost. Back in the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan asked the question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” I would change the question today to “does our country (city, county / parish, state) promote morality, justice, mercy (defined biblically) more than four years ago?” I’ll admit different people will define and weigh aspects of morality, justice, and mercy differently, so I’ll leave the terms vague for my purposes here. Ask, does the candidate promote biblical principles, even if he or she doesn’t know they are “biblical” (Prov. 16:12)? Keep in mind, someone who is not a believer can still promote biblical principles and someone who is a believer can promote non-biblical issues. And the primary issue should not be pocketbooks or tax rates.

Third, Paul write “I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” (1 Timothy 2:1–2). I think a “quiet and tranquil life” includes the freedom to practice our faith without interference. On a grander scale, is the government keeping its nose out of places it should not be? Again, I’ll leave this undefined here, but, government bureaucracy tends to be less efficient and compassionate than other means for those tasks outside the government’s legitimate roles.

So, vote – even if you feel your best options is for “the lesser of two evils”. Even if you don’t think your vote matters. Vote for the candidate that best promotes morality, justice, and mercy – based on his or her track record, not based on campaign promises. Vote for the candidate whose policies best promote the freedom to practice our faith. Take advantage of the privilege we have to influence who occupies governmental seats, with a view towards kingdom purposes. 

VOTE!!

Straw men - Make Believe Arguments

Straw man arguments.

This is probably not one of my more interesting posts (no comments, please!), but I’m tired of seeing them when someone tries to build the correctness of their view.

Why do we create a caricature of someone’s position, attack that caricature, and think we’ve advanced our own view? We set up a story that doesn’t really represent the view of another, knock that view down, and think we’ve won. However, the logic in this is seriously flawed! It’s called a “straw man argument”. These show up everywhere – in personal arguments, in politics, everywhere. Sadly, this approach even pops up in Christian contexts. Here’s one example:

“If there’s going to be an Armageddon, and we’ll be in heaven already raptured up just in time, it really doesn’t matter if you have acid rain or greenhouse gases prior to that. Or, for that matter, whether you bombed civilians in Iraq. All that really matters is saving souls for that disembodied heaven”.

This author tries to make the point that his view of the kingdom and heaven is more biblical than the traditional view (which includes, “when I die, I will be in heaven”). Some people who don’t agree with his view might well believe that “it doesn’t really matter”, but I doubt that’s the main teaching of Bible-based Christianity. I, for one, believe that we enter heaven at the moment of death and I believe in a future rapture. However, between now and then, my stance is not “it doesn’t matter.” I believe we should be good stewards of God’s creation while we are here, for His glory, for my immediate benefit, and for benefit of generations to come. I like to see the mountains; I prefer blue skies to the brown skies I saw in Beijing. And the fact that I don’t get as excited about some issues (e.g., “global warming”) as other people has nothing to do with my views about heaven or the rapture. It comes from doubts about the soundness of the science behind the story (or other factors, depending on the issue!)

Here’s another example:

“We have been told all that is required is a one-time decision, maybe even mere intellectual assent to Jesus, but after that we need not worry about his commands, his standards, or his glory. We have a ticket to heaven, and we can live however we want on earth.  Our sin will be tolerated along the way.”

This particular author wants his readers to take a more biblical view of discipleship and to live accordingly (which I commend, by the way). He view is that the proper response to the gospel message should be “unconditional surrender of all that we are and all that we have to all that he is.” The problem with his argument, though, is his description of the response allegedly required by those who hold a different view than him. Again, a few may hold the view that “we can live however we want” and that “our sin will be tolerated.” But most within Bible-based Christianity do not; those who teach that the response should be belief in Jesus (“whosoever believes in Him… has eternal life”, John 3:16, et al), would never teach we can live like we want and tolerate sin (Romans 6:1-2).

It seems that the straw man approach only convinces two groups of people: (1) Those already in the arguer's camp, and (2) those not well-read enough to recognize that the description of the other position is not a sound description (This doesn't mean they aren't intelligent. They just aren't aware of the options related to the issue at hand). The rest who believe differently will see the straw man and not be convinced.

What should we do with this?

(1)    Watch for straw-men arguments. Don’t be swayed by them. The author may have some valid points, but make sure the logic he or she uses to support them is sound. Do options other than the straw man exist? What are they? By the way, even if the other option isn’t a caricature, there may still be other options. Presenting only two views when others exist is called a “false dichotomy”. Usually (but not always) more than two options exist to consider.

(2)    Avoid using straw men in our own argumentation. If we want to say something about someone else’s view, try to accurately reflect their view.

Okay. Not fascinating. But I got it off my chest. Read carefully - think carefully!

(By the way, if you know who the authors are who wrote these examples, please don’t mention their names. I’m not interested in criticizing them, but instead the logical problem of their approach).

Get Unfuzzy - Musings on the Gospel

What is “the gospel”?

We asked some African pastors the meaning of “the gospel”. They said, “The good news”. Technically, they were absolutely right. But we were more interested in hearing what they thought was required to receive eternal life. Then, in some recent reading, the topic of “the gospel” popped up repeatedly (as it should, I suspect, when reading “Christian” material!). David Platt, in his book Radical, says “We need to return with urgency to a biblical gospel”. The back cover of Richard Stearns’ book, The Hole in Our Gospel, asks this: “Have we embraced the whole gospel?” Plus, the support team of well-known speaker, someone with some “interesting” ideas about the Holy Spirit, said his evangelistic campaign would simply be a “gospel” presentation. The term “gospel” shows up repeatedly.

So, what is the gospel? Does it always mean the same thing?

I suspect when we hear or read the word, the first idea that pops in our head connects “gospel” with “what must I believe or do to receive eternal life”. I’ve concluded “gospel” is one of those words we often use, but we aren’t always clear about what we mean. And so we’re unintentionally fuzzy in our conversations about the gospel. Let’s get “unfuzzy”.[1]

The basic meaning of “gospel” is, as the African pastors responded, “good news”.[2] However, this “good news” often speaks of more than what we must believe for eternal life. True, it sometimes is a technical term with this meaning. But, in its broadest sense, the “gospel” refers to the full story of the person and work of Christ. Just as “salvation” has past, present, and future aspects, so too has “gospel”. It includes the past, present, and future aspects of our relationship with Him, based on His work on our behalf, and the past, present, and future work of God. The context must tell us whether the author is referring to the whole story or some part of the story.

Romans serves as one example where “gospel” means more than what I must believe to receive eternal life. In Romans 1:6-8 and 1:12-13, Paul calls his readers “called, beloved of God, saints, brethren”; he thanks God that their faith is being spoken of by others; and he says he longs to see them and be encouraged “each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine” (some translations use the words “mutual faith”).  It seems clear in the introduction that Paul views the Roman readers as believers. It is to this believing audience that he says he is “eager to preach the gospel”! To believers??? He then goes on, in his magnum opus, to lay out the core truth of justification by faith alone, but so much more (just read Romans 6-8!). Thus, at least in this passage in Romans, “gospel” is much broader than the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus or the requirements for justification.  (Want a few more examples? Look at Mark 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:17-18, 2 Tim. 1:10, and 2 Tim. 2:8.)

Sometimes, then, “gospel” is much broader than the requirements for eternal life. When we read the New Testament, and we come across the word “gospel”, we need to think “the good news about Jesus Christ”. But we need to let the context tell us whether it refers to the whole story or some specific aspect of the gospel.

The “gospel of the kingdom” is one such specific aspect. The phrase itself occurs only four times (Matt. 4:23, 9:15, 24:14, and Luke 16:16), although other passages infer the idea (for example, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand”, Matt. 3:2). Both Jesus and John the Baptist declared to Israel that the promised King they were waiting for had arrived. Had Israel, as a whole, received Jesus as King, this promised form of the kingdom would have appeared. But she didn’t, she rejected Jesus (John 1:11), and the kingdom offer was deferred (Acts 1:6). Matthew 24 implies this “gospel of the kingdom” reappears at the end of the age, just prior to the physical return of Jesus. There is a yet-future kingdom on earth over which Jesus will reign, whether the new heavens and new earth (as some hold) or a kingdom on this earth before the new earth (as others, like me, hold). This message is still part of the gospel, the good news, but the “gospel of the kingdom” looks at a particular aspect of the gospel, pointing to some future time when Jesus returns. (On a side note – someone commented on another post that doctrine is a “hot topic” and is often divisive. However, we can’t avoid it. How one understands the doctrine of the kingdom influences how one understands this aspect of the gospel!)

The “gospel of your salvation” is another specific aspect:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13)

This is the aspect of the gospel most frequently thought of when we simply say “the gospel”. This is the message “for by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:8-9) or “whosoever believes in Me shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). This aspect of the gospel is necessary for someone to receive eternal life now, to enter into a relationship with Jesus, to be “justified” (declared “not guilty”, Rom. 5:1), to be ensured of an eternity in heaven (“and these whom He justified, He also glorified”, Romans 8:30b). This aspect of the gospel says, simply, we are “saved” by faith alone in Christ alone. Anything else is, as Paul calls it, a “different” (false) gospel!

So, what is the gospel? It depends! It is good news. It is good news about Jesus. If we mean, “what is the gospel that results in justification”, it is “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” If we mean, “what is the gospel as it relates to my life as a believer”, it might mean that Jesus ascended into heaven and gave each of us the Holy Spirit, who gives us the power to say “no” to sin, or it might mean that in Him we have the ability to be salt and light (in word and deed) in the world. If we mean, “what is the gospel related to the afterlife”, it is that we are guaranteed entrance into heaven because of Jesus’ completed work. If we mean “what is the gospel as it relates to the final outcome of this world”, it is that Jesus will one day physically reign on earth as prophesied in the Old Testament (the “gospel of the kingdom”) and that Satan will be bound. When we (or Paul, or…) preach “the gospel”, the message could well include the entire story, or we could limit ourselves to just part of the story. So, whenever we see the word “gospel”, think “good news”, but ask, “What part of the good news? Let’s get “unfuzzy” in our thinking!

---

[1] My apologies to Darby Conly, the artist and author of the comic strip “Get Fuzzy”

[2] Our word “gospel” comes from two Greek words, euangelion (euaggelion) and euangelizo (euaggelizw). The first, a noun, means, “good news” and the second, a verb, means “to communicate good news about something”. Roughly half the time, this verb is translated simply with some form of “to preach”; the other half, it includes the phrase “good news” or “gospel”, as in “preach the gospel”. The two words show up 130 times in the Greek, and the word “gospel” shows up about 100 times in the English, depending on the translation. The word “gospel”, often has a descriptor attached to it, such as the gospel: of the kingdom, of Christ, of Jesus Christ, of our Lord Jesus Christ, of His Son, of the glory of Christ, of God, of the blessed God, of the grace of God, of your salvation, of peace, etc. It most frequently stands alone (about 60% of the time).