Politics – Page 2 – LOVE | ACCEPT

Calvinists and the Political Left

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:3)

It’s taken me awhile to understand the uneasy feeling I get when I get the urge to post a comment to a Calvinist blog. Will my words be considered as a Brother in Christ or will I be vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks that avoid the content of the post? Anymore these days, I am finding more and more that some of those theobloggers who claim the name Calvinist or Reformed default to the latter. What has brought this to a head is the current hyper-focus on politics due to the back to back conventions and specifically, the fevered attempts to defile the name and reputation of Governor Palin over the past few days. Sadly, what I have discovered is that there is a body of these Calvinist bloggers who are indiscernible from the left-wing chattering classes. This clique will brook no wavering from the TULIP line, refusing to engage any idea that challenges it and, because the challenger is considered to be somehow heretical, he or she must must be burned in the electronic town center.

Contrary to the repeated calls to unity within the body that can be found in the Scriptures, there is an increasing body within the Body that have chosen to attack rather than respond. I’ll give you a recent example (and yes I know, I should have known better) which occurred when I foolishly chose to leave a comment on the Pyromaniacs blog. In an attempt to stir further dissension within the body, a question was posted inviting response from Arminian readers. The trouble with the question was that it was a false dilemma; Arminian theology offered no different view on the topic than that of the Calvinist framework and I wrote just that in my response. Expecting a biblical challenge or theological counterpoint, imagine how disheartening it was to check back later to find that the entire response was an attempt to make a mockery of my screen name.

It’s a bit troubling to find this in any context but to get this response by the Pyros main man Phil Johnson certainly diminishes any positive reputation that he might have gained outside of his close knit little community. Attempting to misstate the intention of my Greek to English transliteration meant (ironically in their eyes) Slave Christ, a perfect definition of Arminian theology. Mistakenly responding back that this obviously not the intent, referring to Rom 1:1 in the Greek, and restating the original answer to the provocative question, my gift was a further lambasting that remained off topic.

I don’t share this to gain sympathy. I’m a big boy and mature enough to handle people like this. The reason that I post this is because the level of conversation about God should not be descending into the the same kind of rancor, vitriol, and immature attack mentality that we see from the left wing of the political establishment and their media sycophants aimed toward those of the opposing party. Personal attacks and hyperbolic caricatures replace substantive discussion of an issue. The assumption is that if you do not agree with the liberal mindset, well you simply are too stupid to even engage and you must be the recipient of character destruction and mockery.

Christ didn’t die for a Church divided by this kind of worldly dissension. There are topics to which forceful comment and righteous anger are appropriate (Todd Bentley for example) in a Christian context but theological differences on non-essentials are not among them. To mirror the world’s approach to discussing differences runs counter to being in the world but not of it. Shall we all just go to our corners and talk only amongst ourselves?

Update: Check out the comments at the end of this posting. While not as mocking, you can witness how the discussion that disintegrates in not on how the post writer constructed his argument or the content of his statements. The Calvinist cries martyrdom (no doubt scrawling Ichabod on the doorframe) as he leaves the conversation. Talk scripture in context, don’t send me to Pink or Piper. We’ve got learn to think for ourselves rather than relying on other theologians all the time.

Which God is He Praying To?

Though much has been written about Donald Miller’s prayer at the DNC last week, we can suffer one further look at his continued attempt to erode Christianity and make it palatable to the masses. For those of you who don’t know, Miller is a hero of the pomo-emergent church who, true to postmodern philosophy, construct their own truth as they see fit. Given his lack of theological depth, it seems improper of him to offer a covering prayer as a representative of the (capital C) Church that the Lord gave His life for. Since he addresses the prayer to the “Father” we can assume he is attempting to gain a hearing by the God that Christians worship so let’s see how he brings glory to the Father through his words. Here is a transcript of the prayer:

“Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future. We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation. We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy. Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left. Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them. Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle. Help us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education. Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony. We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world? A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American. Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world? Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, Father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common. And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good. Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans. I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice. Let Him be our example.

Amen.”

Jesus taught us the proper way of prayer and it is identified by a desire on our part to see the will of God being done, not our own (Matthew 6:10). Does this prayer succeed?

“Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left. Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.”

What, Donald, of the 1.3 million children that will be aborted this year? This a foundation of the Democratic party platform that you are praying for God to endorse and support. Does this align with His will? I would suggest No, Don. I would suggest that each of these lives was a creation of the Father you addressed (Ps 139:13-14) and that He would desire that they be given a chance at life and the fulfillment of the purpose for which they were created. Wouldn’t these be the least of these?

“Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.”

This sounds noble, Mr. Miller, like much of your writing but what does it mean? While I am a huge proponent of the ministry that Jesus describes in Matthew 25:31-46, the service is in furthering the will of the Lord. Does service to people only take the form of accommodation to the problems that people face without confronting the spiritual paucity that lies at the core of those problems? Liberal practice teaches that we cannot point out the true problems that a person suffers, we can only offer comfort for them while allowing them to remain mired and dependent in the problem that is consuming them. How does this demonstrate God’s love?

“Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle. Help us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education. Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony. We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.”

We do indeed need your help God. Mr. Miller, we finally find some agreement! Sadly, your collectivist approach to God seems far apart from the individual responsibility that we have before Him (see again Mt 25 and note the goats and the sheep). God has a specific purpose for each of His creatures, unique from the others. While He does see people as “His people”, he also counts the few remaining hairs on my head and knows my name. I am responsible before Him to live UP to the purpose he assigns me. (BTW, Don, every human being in this country has “health care”. They simply need to purchase it. No one who appears at an emergency room can be turned away, even though the losses to hospital system are huge. So, what you meant in your coded language, is God, give everyone free health care.)

“Lastly, Father, unify us. Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.”

Mr. Miller, did you remember that this was an interfaith service? Were you aware that the Lord you were addressing said that He was the only way to the Father? (John 14:6-7) Not one of the ways, not one of many alternate paths, the only way. So, Don, how do you propose to find unity? In seeking the Christian God’s will or by discarding it in favor of your new Humanism? It seems to be the former might be better than the latter. Perhaps, you and I won’t find unity on this front.

“I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.”

So that’s why Jesus gave His life? Mr. Miller, I would dare say that even the First and Second grade Sunday school classes would be able to help you out with the theology of the crucifixion. It was not against the “forces of injustice”, it was against the forces of total human depravity and the sin that infects our fallen world. The injustices that we see are a byproduct of this sin. Jesus gave His life so that you and I might be redeemed from this condition, discover God’s purpose for our lives, and through us, He could address the corruption that creates the injustices.

—

Mr. Miller’s attempt to make the Democratic talking points appear as God’s agenda, they are not. It seems as though others agree. Steven Camp speaks to this here and Dr. Douglas Groothuis offer comment here.

More Clueless Politicians Rejoice in God

At worship this morning, countless prayers will be lifted to the Father for the lives of those in the path of the oncoming hurricanes. There have been many proclamations of how much God loves us [ as in a particular political party ] by timing the hurricane such that it coincides with [another political party] a political convention. Apparently the cost in lives and homes and belongings is much less important than political victory. Check out these two rooting for the hurricane.

God forgive our descent into apostasy.

Politics and the Christian

Politics are not the task of a Christian. Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Should we as Christians take this as a definitive statement? Is there no place in the political arena for a follower of Christ or is the whole of politics so fraught with temptation and corruption that even the Holy Spirit might hesitate to tread? Unlike Luther who insisted on a separation of the world into two kingdoms, the sacred and the worldly with a barrier between, I see the whole of the world as God’s dominion. As his servants, we are to surrender nothing and if called, participation in politics is no exception.

It is important, as the calendar turns toward fall and the upcoming election, that we begin to examine the positions of the candidates in light of Christian values and the Word of God. We can debate the positions but the Word, traditional values, and the historical church will provide us with the final word.

Candidate Inexperience by Governor Bill Ritter

The Governor of Colorado, when questioned about rumors that he was on the list as a Democratic vice-presidential candidate, replied “I’ve only been Governor for eighteen months and that’s not enough experience to qualify me for vice president.”

18 months x 30 days = 540 days experience insufficient for vice president.

143 days of service in the Senate = qualified to be president.

Ooops! I guess he’s off the list now.

Obama’s Racist America

Barack Obama is obsessed with race.

He has rarely allowed a major speaking opportunity go by without bringing up and refreshing the meme that all of those who oppose him are racists. Over and over he reminds America and the world that he’s different from the other candidates, that people are going to fear him, and even, that he does not look like the faces on our currency. Putting his megalomania aside for a second (what, precisely has he done for us to consider his face for inclusion on the next new dollar bill?), what reason does Mr. Obama give for these propositions that he voices?

Because he’s black.

Barack Obama, supposedly the post-racial candidate, is obsessed with his race. He is using it to both bludgeon the battlefield into shape and to silence his critics. By cravenly attributing the choice for an alternate candidate to his skin color alone, Obama labels non-support as racial opposition. This silences criticism of his lack of experience, his socialist tendencies, or even his constant assertion of victimhood because the critic fears being named a racist. In tandem with his appropriation of the history of such giants as Martin Luther King, this kind of fantastic rhetoric cheapens the entire history of race relations in this country.

The trouble for Obama comes when those who will not vote for him are being slapped with the racist label while they look at the company of true racists that he surrounds himself with and wonder why he cannot also identify them. Reverend Wright, for example, espouses a theology that treats all whites (based on their skin color) as an amorphous mass of evil. Dear Mr. Obama, when pigment content is the identifier of those who are targeted for vitriol, that is racism.

I believe, when Mr. Obama clambers down from his elitist tower to tramp amongst the hoi polloi, he is going to discover an America that has long moved past the sharp racial divisions that he wants to draw across her people. When he gave his “famous” speech about race several weeks ago, he stated that we needed to start a conversation about race. Perhaps the news has not penetrated the walls that he surrounds himself with but America long ago commenced this conversation with great results. Certainly he will encounter pockets of bigotry and outright racism which, being the logician that he has demonstrated, will be proof positive for him that ALL people are racist. Sadly, this is human nature and we will not be able to eradicate it until the new heavens and new earth are formed. Until then, to continue to utilize race and racism as an antagonist rant against those who don’t support his candidacy is not only unbecoming a presidential candidate but it will run the risk of reversing some of the racial progress that has occurred in this country.

The Wheels on the bus go bump, bump, bump!

As the candidate for misjudger-in-chief demonstrates his lack of character and incredibly poor judgement, he tosses yet another associate, Mr. Jim Johnson, under the already crowded Obama express bus. Mr. Obama will want to exercise caution however, when that day comes in the future when he must attempt to disengage himself from Ayers and Dorn, given their explosive history. This kind of judgement and character represents the best the United States of America has to offer?

No more room under the bus!

Senator Obama provided yet another glimpse of his true character (or lack thereof) as he threw his entire church under the bus the weekend in a desparate act of political expediency. It’s getting quite crowded under there as, in the past few weeks, he has thrown his grandmother and pastor beneath the wheels of his juggernaut towards the monarchy presidency. Is this character of a leader? What voter believes that he would not cast them aside with equal vigor the moment that they or their interest group becomes a burden to his grand ambitions?

Punished With a Child

That he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished with a child” should she become pregnant as a teenager is Senator Obama’s latest revelatory extemporaneous statement. I commented on the insight that this gives the voters about the Senator’s pro-choice agenda yesterday but as I have pondered this statement further, it shines a light on a greater cultural issue that we must address if we want to avoid the further degradation of society that threatens to engulf us. Aside from the moral issue of referring to the unborn child as a “punishment” we must examine the mind-set that cultivates the idea. It is nothing less than the complete abdication of personal responsibility to simple solutions meant to mollify any lingering sense of accountability for the decisions we make.

To be punished succeeds a choice that one has made to run afoul of a societal or legal construct. I speed and run stop lights, I get a ticket or lose my license. I cheat on an exam and get caught, I fail the class or get expelled from school. Though some will disagree even with these examples, most of who exist in the modern world accept that the regulations implicit in the examples are in place for the common good. A segment of our society however, sees certain behaviors as beyond the reach of cultural standards. Using the example provided for us by Senator Obama, there are those among us who believe that sexual activity should be entirely free from consequence though it is well known that impregnation can be a direct result of intercourse. Instead of insisting on accepting the personal responsibility for engaging in sexual intercourse, there is a cultural movement to insist that a woman must be free to eradicate the baby and remain free from consequence of her decisions.

This notion of the complete eradication of personal responsibility in favor of seemingly easy and cost free solutions has wheedled its way throughout our culture. Students protest expectations that they read, speak, and write correctly because their earlier educational devotion did not prepare them adequately for a rigorous challenge. They demand that the coursework be made easier so that they can continue to receive the value-diminished excellent marks that they have come to expect. Any teacher that stands up for the integrity of scholastic requirements is deemed unfair and their teaching status challenged. And on and on it goes. This demand for a life replete with freedom of choices without consequence extends into every area of life until one day we arrive at a utopian society in which all problems brought about by our choices are fixed by an external authority.

There are many in our society, Senator Obama included, who envision this external authority as the government or, in stickier situation, para-governmental organizations such as the abortion industry. They would ‘free’ us from those moral constraints which have served humankind throughout history but are anathema to an ‘enlightened’ culture. Why have consequences when the solutions are so easy? Get pregnant by exercising your ‘choice’ to engage in sexual intercourse? Kill the fetus and move on! Problem solved. Make a bad decision in any aspect of life, no worries, someone else will fix the problem. This all sounds inviting until we realize that whatever behavior we reward (by removing the consequence) we naturally get more of and so the cycle deepens. As we accept this cycle, we revert to a kind of childhood where mommy and daddy fix our mistakes for us. When we live in this kind of environment, Mom and Dad define the limits of our liberty in return for this benefit. Are we willing to continue to return to a governmental mommy and daddy?

Thank God for My Punishment

Obama provides us with further insight into how he views the unborn and their convenient disposal, referring to an unplanned pregnancy as a punishment. In referencing his own daughters and the possibility that despite his teaching on morals and standards, he stated that they should not be punished with a child. We can further extrapolate from his favorable stand on unfettered access to abortion that this punishment could only be mitigated by the extinguishing of the human life and the disposal of the unborn fetus.

My apologies Mr. Obama but a child, whether born or unborn, is not a punishment. You may view it as a consequence of engaging in sexual activity, but in no way should a child ever be referred to as a punishment. Perhaps those values and morals that you teach your daughters should be that Pro-Choice can mean something more than the free ability to dispose of a life; it can also be the choice not to engage in an activity that has specific and predictable biological consequences. I’ll be interested to see in the coming days how you finesse this staff. Perhaps the next time you are in church, you can ask about Psalm 139.

I’m eternally grateful for my punishment.