On this blog I am decidedly non-political. This is partly because the subject annoys me, and partly because of self-preservation (lest my Democratic friends discover my subtle Republican leanings or my Republican friends catch wind of my Democratic tendencies).
Despite my avoidance of the subject publicly, I am aggressively political privately. Had it not been for a clear call into ministry I could have easily moved into the political arena. My personal passions are faith and culture (which includes politics). As such, any place where faith and politics connect fascinates me. Recently, much conversation has taken place over the role of Evangelicals in politics. The newer, "emerging" version of Evangelicalism has been quick to accuse the more conservative section of being a "tool" of the Republican party. They maintain we are simply being used by the Republicans, and in response claim their own freedom from this self-imposed political slavery.
It is interesting to watch this supposed freedom as it plays out. Recently, Donald Miller offered the closing prayer at the Democratic Convention. In that prayer, he asks for forgiveness for our human weaknesses. Sounds good, but then he defined this weakness as a tendency towards 'apathy'. Certainly apathy is contrary to a robust Christianity, but then one realizes that apathy, in the prayer, is defined as disagreement with the Democratic Party platform. There are no appeals in the prayer for the protection of the unborn, or for government to honor the place and rights of families. Instead we hear Miller appealing to the sovereign God for teachers to get pay raises and help in getting our country to embrace the DNP's plan of diplomacy.
Other "emerging" Evangelical leaders are doing similar things. Jim Wallis, the outspoken liberal-version of James Dobson, has fully aligned himself with the Democratic party, as has the self-promoted cultural prophet Tony Campollo. In a recent video ad, Brian McClaren endorsed Obama for President because of his "strong Christian faith". He assures his viewers that Obama will "stand by" our families.
I have much sympathy for Evangelicals who are drawn to the democratic party. There should be room for honest differences of opinion regarding big vs small government, militarism vs diplomacy, free market vs governmental-controlled economy, wealth redistribution vs trickle-down economics, industrialization vs environmentalism, etc. Faithful Christians may legitimately opt for membership in the Democratic party, correctly recognizing that abortion and homosexuality are not the only moral issues facing this country (for example, the issues of poverty, sexism, and racism).
It is not my point here to discuss the propiety of a Christian choosing a particular political stance. My interest lies in the refusal to be a "tool" to any political party. It is claimed that the Republican side has used the Evangelicals, while not producing results for Evangelicals (abortion being a chief example). Frankly, I am curious as to how things will be different on the other side. Do these emerging and left-leaning Evangelicals truly believe they are not being used by the Democratic party?
Miller evokes a prayer to the very Sovereign at whom Democrats sneer while murdering innocents. McClaren promises us that Obama will 'stand by' our families even as the candidate zealously rejects the historic meaning of the word 'family'. Campolo berates Christians for our stance towards homosexuality while being seemingly obliously towards Democrats stance towards Christianity. Wallis rightly promotes the need for justice and peace while wrongly ignoring the pre-natal baby's need for those very things.
Such Evangelicals have not ceased being tools, they have merely swithced hands.
Google the transcript for Larry King on CNN from August 20, 2007. John MacArthur appeared and among other things, in his discussion with those present, said:
ReplyDelete"KING: We're back. This question is for John MacArthur, our good friend. In his book "God is Not Great," a major best-seller, Chris Hitchens writes, "Within hours the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell had announced that the immolation of their fellow creatures was a divine judgment on a secular society that tolerated homosexuality and abortion." And I don't think they know that. I don't think there's any way they know the divine mind. I think judgment on this world is going to come. It comes now. It comes in a eschatological way in the future as the result of sin and the rejection of God and his truth.
KING: But don't statements like that ...
MACARTHUR: But those kinds of statements are inflammatory.
KING: Don't the Robertsons hurt you?
MACARTHUR: Sure. Sure. They misrepresent -- you know, that's what Jesus basically condemned the Pharisees for, this kind of carping judgment that sits over all of people's lives and society's lives and renders verdicts on them that have finality and that called divine judgment into place. We don't do that. What God does, God does and not all of it is known to us.
KING: Reverend Barry Lynn?
LYNN: I've been on this program with Jesse Jackson disagreeing with him, with Jerry Falwell disagreeing with him, I have no problem with disagreement. But I do think it's important that those of us religious or otherwise, we've got 20 million non-believers in this country that we need to stop the pursuit of political power by people with these very narrow agendas and let us all talk about what the values are that we can live with together.
KING: Christiane, does Jesus come up on your show?
AMANPOUR: Well, of course, through the eyes of the people that we're talking to. But the question I have for the pastor and also for Barry is then how do you explain -- you talk about what should be, but how do you explain, then, the political power of the people who you say are misusing the religion? I think that you said that, that ...
MACARTHUR: Sure.
AMANPOUR: ... they're misinterpreting and misusing the religion, and yet they're the ones with the power and not you.
KING: Good question.
MACARTHUR: Sure it's a good question. And the power will never belong to me and it will those who represent true biblical Christianity because the Kingdom advances one soul at a time through the belief in the Gospel in Jesus Christ. Anything is a prostitution. Look, the New Testament says the powers that be are ordained of God. That was the word of God to people living under Roman government, under a Caesar. Don't overthrow that power. That's what God has put in place. We work within that to advance the Kingdom one person at a time."
---------
When a nation turns its back on God, then does not God remove His fellowship? (see Isaiah 1 for an example) What else can we expect if we have removed God as the foundation of our country (even the Deist God of Thomas Jefferson)? We have removed Him as our Sovereign and we're getting exactly what we deserve for it. No amount of the Dobsons and Robertsons screaming and putting political heat on whomever solves a problem which is not legislative or cultural or political, but ultimately spiritual.
We have checks and balances for a reason. Is not our system really rooted in Calvin? Did not Calvin understand the fallen nature of man and its consequences? To exaggerate a little to make my point, the Republicans think if the government backed out and let capitalism go free, our problems would be solved. Democrats think the government has all the solutions to our problems. Here's the rub: capitalism involves fallen man. So does government. An institution (government) or a system (capitalism) is not inherently bad. But the people who establish it are by nature fallen. If we forget that, then we have where we're going today.
Man is not autonomous, but our society truly thinks he is, in contradiction to the biblical worldview. Sproul said this in "Now That's A Good Question": "I have a close friend who came to this country from England. His name is John Guest. He is an Episcopalian priest in Pittsburgh. When he first came to the United States, he visited an antiquarian in Philadelphia, and there he saw some slogans and mementos and poster boards that actually date back to the eighteenth century, during the American Revolution. He saw signs like "Don't tread on me" and "No taxation without representation," but the one that caught his eye was the one that said in bold letters, "We serve no sovereign here." When John looked at that, as an Englishman, he said, "How can I possibly communicate the idea of the kingdom of God in a nation that has a built-in allergy to sovereignty?"
As Americans we're used to a democratic process of rule. When you're talking about sovereignty, you're talking about government and about authority. From a biblical perspective, when the Scriptures speak of God's sovereignty, they reveal God's governmental authority and power over his entire universe.
In my classes in the seminary, I raise questions like, "Is God in control of every single molecule in the universe?" When I raise that question, I say, "The answer to that question will not determine whether you are a Christian or a Moslem, a Calvinist or an Arminian, but it will determine whether you are a theist or an atheist." Sometimes the students can't see the connection. And I say to them, "Don't you realize that if there is one molecule in this universe running around loose outside the scope or the sphere of God's divine control and authority and power, then that single maverick molecule may be the grain of sand that changes the entire course of human history, that blocks God from keeping the promises he has made to his people?" It may be that one maverick molecule that will prevent Christ from the consummation of his kingdom. For if there is one maverick molecule, it would mean that God is not sovereign. If God is not sovereign, then God is not God. If there is any element of the universe that is outside of his authority, then he no longer is God over all. In other words, sovereignty belongs to deity. Sovereignty is a natural attribute of the Creator. God owns what he makes, and he rules what he owns."
-----
Neither the Democrats or Republicans at their foundation understand this. What a difference there would be if they did.