Libertarianism, Conservatism and Christianity: Can coercion bring glory to God?
April 12th, 2012 § Leave a Comment
A discussion has been ongoing at Values and Capitalism over the relationship between Christianity and libertarianism. Does the libertarian emphasis on individualism and license jive with Christian values of brotherhood and morality? And does conservatism offer a different answer? This morning’s post examines these questions and more >> click here to read the blog.
Christianity’s Identity Crisis
February 2nd, 2012 § 4 Comments
Jefferson Bethke’s “Jesus hates religion” video has gained enormous popularity among the Facebook walls and Twitter feeds of America’s young evangelicals. This slick production features Bethke reciting a poem about Jesus and his teachings being the antithesis of “religion,” (to which he applies a peculiar definition). More to the point, it is a critique of hypocrisy, though his message is distorted by extraneous and frequently inaccurate attacks on Christianity and America.
The politically charged opening lines set the tone—perhaps the inspiration—for the rest of Bethke’s prose. It is clearly his view that many Republicans are fake Christians who are judgmental and heartless, yet have claimed moral superiority and hijacked the church. He continues on, recklessly blasting the church for starting wars, not feeding the poor, excommunicating divorcees and generally not representing the gospel. Thus, he concludes, the church—and, of course, Republicans—are following “religion,” but true Christians follow Jesus.
Unfortunately, while there is an important message to be shared here, the video is littered with theological inaccuracies, erroneous assumptions and, yes, its very own glaring hypocrisies (jump to the bottom to see what others have said). Bethke has been thoroughly critiqued, and has taken it with respect and humility, but what I really want to ask is this: How is it that a video with so many wrongheaded statements is so widely praised among my peers? I can think of at least three reasons.
1. The popularization of church
Most Christians do not study theology. That is understandable just as much as the fact that most people do not read philosophy literature. But we should expect pastors and preachers to uphold a high level of intellectual discipline. Furthermore, it is their responsibility to find ways to bring all people to a greater understanding of the history and theology of their faith. In too many churches, substance in teaching has been replaced with opinions, based on the whims of passion, with a supporting act by jumbotrons and coffee shops.
More and more people are rejecting traditions and congregations in favor of independent study and transient attendance at flavor-of-the-month churches. This disconnection from the larger Church body, and its theological and historical context, has left younger Christians with a blank slate and unsteady foundation.
2. Politically and historically biased education
Our public education system has a markedly left-wing bias. It is not uncommon to characterize our Founding Fathers as power-hungry racists, our foreign policy as imperialist, and our economic system as an instrument of oppression and destruction. American successes are counted as steps toward a progressive vision of equality and opportunity, led by protests and presidents, against conservative power structures.
Thus, many young people have been trained to see themselves as part of this ongoing political movement. Their enemies are tradition and wealth, and the party that protects them. Christianity is ordinarily a part of the tradition to be rejected, but Christians themselves call instead for a revolution in the church. Left-wing Christian populism emerged in opposition to the “American Dream,” wrongly interpreted as the acquisition of material success and status.
3. The MTV generation’s reaction to TBN
We live in a media-driven world. Television—especially cable—brought with it new values and ways of communicating. Appearance and production became extremely important for attracting an audience. In the late 1980s, Music Television did to a whole generation what Elvis did in the 1950s: it energized America’s youth and changed the industry. Indeed, the “reality tv” phenomenon first began with MTV’s “real world.” Amidst news anchors and soap operas, MTV made television cool.
Image via Wikipedia
In an attempt to utilize television as a ministry tool, along came Trinity Broadcasting Network, featuring gaudy furniture, big hair, fanciful clothing and very uncool entertainment. To my peers, the face of Christian America was outdated and kitschy, while the secular entertainment industry was electrifying. Then came the scandals with Jim Bakker, the angry rhetoric of Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the controversial statements of Pat Robertson and his “Christian Coalition.” The Church, it seemed, was becoming a voice of division.
All of this left young Christians without public role models. In a battle of words, people like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton could compete. But in a battle of popular entertainment, Christianity failed to supply a counterweight. Despite trying to keep up with changing trends, Christianity seemed out of touch, out of date, and seriously in danger of collapse. Enter the emergent church, which is on a tacit mission to inject cool back into Christianity and make Jesus “relevant” to modern culture. One outcome is an explosion of new churches that have effectively exiled the over-40 crowd.
Without roots, Christianity is a slave to the winds.
I wrote a blog post last July called Postmodernism and the Great Protestant Exodus, in which I argued that postmodern philosophy had caused Christians to distance themselves from traditions and denominations. In their place is an idea that each individual is on a personal search for God and truth—relationship, not religion. But while the essence of the idea is true, according to Protestant claim, they swing the pendulum too far. By failing to recognize the role of liturgy, order, accountability, tradition and historical context, they are stepping out of the ship and into a life raft, then cutting the tether in the middle of a vast ocean.
In America, we grow up admiring revolutionaries, but we must also learn when to be loyalists. Of course we are each called to seek Christ on a personal level. But to interpret this as a call to do away with “religion” is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
OTHER RESPONSES TO THE VIDEO:
- Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really, by Kevin DeYoung
- Video: Jesus=Religion, by Worldview Everlasting
The “What Would Jesus Cut?” debate
August 4th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
While elected officials in Washington have been debating over the debt ceiling, another robust conversation has been materializing at the intersection of faith, poverty and economic policy.
In July, an ecumenical coalition of Christian leaders met with President Obama to present a statement—the “Circle of Protection“—casting welfare programs as a moral imperative. Claiming a commitment to the values outlined in Matthew 25 (“…whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”), groups like Sojourners, led by God’s Politics author Jim Wallis, insist that “funding focused on reducing poverty should not be cut.” This initiative reflects a larger movement among young Christians toward a view of wealth redistribution as “social justice.”
While the moral appeal for welfare is nothing new, the boldness of couching it as an explicit commandment of Christ adds a new log to the fire. After a bloody culture war in which the church fought at the front lines, many young evangelicals resented the pigeonholing of Christians as a right-wing voting block. Those sentiments were intensified as Republicans in the Bush era were characterized as ignorant and bigoted. The current fiscal debate has provided an opportunity to set up camp alongside the progressive wing in a way that emphasizes compassion. Unfortunately, while they are right in suggesting that “budgets are moral documents,” they confuse individual responsibility with collective coercion.
In response to this shift, and recognizing the lack of sound economic principle in the church, a countermovement has emerged declaring the virtue of free enterprise and the danger of bloated government. Throughout the Twittosphere, Christian capitalists have been critiquing the agenda of the Circle of Protection, making the case that government programs frequently exacerbate and prolong poverty, and that Christ calls us to serve one another as voluntary individuals, not through a bureaucratically adulterated political game. Furthermore, they argue, a burdensome regulatory and tax system slows economic growth and makes it more difficult for individuals at every income level to pursue a fruitful life.
“Christ calls us to serve one another as voluntary individuals, not through a bureaucratically adulterated political game.”
A full-page ad by the American Enterprise Institute’s Values & Capitalism project appeared in Politico, in opposition to a previous ad by Wallis. In turn, Sojourners’ communications director Tim King attempted to clarify the Circle’s position, albeit ineffectively. King writes that the Circle does not seek a “blanket exception for all poverty programs under any and all cuts,” yet everything in the statement communicates otherwise—including the aforementioned quote that such programs “should not be cut.” If what King says is true, the authors of the Circle’s statement were merely sloppy and irresponsible in their prose.
Adding depth to the conversation, the Values & Capitalism project, represented by Eric Teetsel, is helping to build a new coalition—Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE)—to provide a counterweight to the Circle. Teetsel co-authored CASE’s Letter to the President, requesting their own meeting with Obama. The letter dismisses the idea that the Circle of Protection represents a majority view among Christians, and provides a freedom-oriented, values-based approach to fiscal responsibility. The letter, like the Circle, is signed by a wide array of respected Christian leaders. The letter was made available for the public to sign, and continues to add names. (You will find my moniker at #33. sign here)
This discussion is a very important one for the Church body, though there is a tendency to shy from such complex and controversial topics. Religion and politics are ostensibly forbidden from friendly discourse—especially in the same sentence. But there are some issues that cannot be passed over. Public policy must be rooted in ethical purpose, and if the church is silent, others will fill the gap. We must engage fully in a search for understanding about humanity and social institutions, and we must do so with grace and cordiality. We are first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, and secondly agents of His justice on Earth.
For those interested in exploring this debate, Remnant Culture has posted a convenient round-up of responses from various Christian writers on the “What Would Jesus Cut?” question.
How “Free” Kills (posted @ CommonSenseConcept)
July 22nd, 2011 § Leave a Comment
In case you missed it, a piece I wrote for the “Two Cents” blog at Common Sense Concept was published Tuesday. In the post, I talk about the degrading effects of free money. (click image to read)
We’ve all heard phrases like “you don’t appreciate what you don’t earn” or “no pain no gain.” The idea that income must follow labor goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, where Adam is told, “by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food” (Gen. 3:19).
A good work ethic is a cornerstone of a healthy character and success in life. When we talk about helping the poor, passing on an inheritance, or winning the lottery, we must proceed with caution, recognizing the destructive potential of income disconnected from effort.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with a friendly gift, and there are appropriate ways and means of assisting those in need—it is, in fact, a fundamental calling of the Christian life—but it is imperative that we look beyond material circumstances to ensure that our actions produce their intended results. This requires knowing the person, and that tip should clue us in on God’s design in all of this. Bureaucracies, drive-thru food pantries and quick hand-outs at the intersection are cheap knock-offs of the real thing: relationally-driven service and grace. When we remove relationship from the equation, we also remove accountability and responsibility—the lack of which is often the very source of the problem to begin with.
——————————————————–
The “Two Cents” blog is part of the American Enterprise Institute‘s “Common Sense Concept” project, an initiative to bring young people into the discussion about faith, politics and economics.
Postmodernism and the Great Protestant Exodus
July 1st, 2011 § 2 Comments
During lunch with a friend and former pastor a couple of days ago, our conversation steered into a question for which we each offered a different answer. At issue was the cause behind the phenomenon of young protestants who have disengaged from the idea of membership to a church congregation or denomination. Running parallel to this is the observation of non-denominational churches springing up suddenly in the last few decades.
His answer: the American spirit of rugged individualism. My answer: postmodernism. In truth, it’s probably a mix of the two, and someone better educated in the history of religion than I might point out additional factors.
“Rugged individualism” refers to the pioneering drive that has always characterized Americans, beginning with the first settlers. But if there is anything “in our genes” to this effect it most likely originated from immigrants who came from all over the world and risked everything to start anew in “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” In its positive forms, individualism places a premium on taking personal responsibility for one’s choices and not mooching off of other people. The negative side of individualism emerges when it is wrongly interpreted to mean that we don’t have any responsibilities toward, nor do we need, one another. That misunderstanding just turns people into inconsiderate and lonely jerks.
Postmodernism is a philosophy that rejects tradition in favor of… well, nothing in particular. Just not tradition. It began in the arts and moved into a more broad cultural idea—primarily through higher education—as we moved toward the latter part of the 20th century. The overriding concept is that what we have been told from history is a constructed lie, and that we must unleash freedom of thought and action by casting away those outdated ideas. It is not a matter of finding “truth,” because there is no “truth” to find—it is up to each person to decide.
“The overriding concept is that what we have been told from history is a constructed lie,…”
Recent generations have been somewhat indoctrinated with this philosophy, if not at home then through the school system and Hollywood. Mixed in with a touch of the individualist spirit, I believe this view has caused today’s Christians to have decreased confidence in traditional answers and methods, and increased dependence on their own ability to sort out 2,000 years of history and theology.
I myself claim no denominational label, for several reasons, but I do expect to gravitate towards a general body of tradition in due time. I have come to appreciate time-tested practices and ideas in religion, just as I do in the legal system. Of course there is corruption here and there, and different people have had it completely wrong when they were sure they had it right. But that’s human nature, and it’s everywhere.
An independent mind in the search for truth is essential, and we should not set our reason aside when we walk through church doors. At the same time, as Aristotle claimed and Christianity supports, man is a social animal—we are designed for relationship and dependency. By downplaying the role of a local congregation and denominational ties, we are entering a wilderness alone and without a map or compass.
“By downplaying the role of a local congregation and denominational ties, we are entering a wilderness alone and without a map or compass.”
I do not mean to imply that a person cannot discover things on their own, nor am I shying away from the fact that we can be misled by false doctrines and group think. The point is to connect and engage with people and ideas that will help you to deepen and refine your understanding of God and Man, while building meaningful relationships with others who can laugh, love and struggle along with you. When you know you’re in the wrong stream, step out and move to another. Don’t use it as an excuse to stay out altogether, or you may end up dry and wilted.
Purpose & Prosperity: Linking Christian Ideals with Sound Public Policy
June 17th, 2011 § 3 Comments
C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity that God wants “a child’s heart but a grown-up’s head.” Followers of Christ are charged, by the ethos of our calling, with a high standard of practical reason, fused with compassion. When we carry our faith to the political sphere, we must do so with grounded understanding, not idealistic, emotive or superficial thinking. This means that the abdication of our duty to educate ourselves in the unsightly “secular” forces of politics and economics is morally unacceptable.
To the detriment of our own effectiveness, the Church has largely overlooked the relevance of these studies to the Christian mission. Through political philosophy, we examine the relationship of power and protection, and the proper extent of the state. There are important implications here for those who believe the individual has a right to free will. But it is the economic sphere that seems to have caused a phobia in religious discourse, even though the central concern of economics is, in fact, human needs and how they are met through voluntary service—an arrangement far preferable to political coercion.
While many people—including religious leaders—have spoken against capitalism for its ability to amplify greed and materialism, a number of Christian scholars and organizations are helping to reverse that view and to make the case that economic liberty is not only efficient, but morally superior to any other known system. Tragically, the intellectual overlap of theology, economics and politics is near absent in Christian higher education, leaving society in the dark as it seeks ethical answers to practical problems.
“…the intellectual overlap of theology, economics and politics is near absent in Christian higher education, leaving society in the dark as it seeks ethical answers to practical problems.”
I visited two organizations over the last two weeks that are trying to fill this gap and alter the national dialogue. The Acton Institute has been building a case for the “moral foundations of a free society” for twenty years. Their “Acton University” conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan has become an ecumenical Mecca for Judeo-Christian thinkers who affirm the value of ordered liberty. The American Enterprise Institute is also beginning a new initiative on values and capitalism. Their “Purpose & Prosperity” conference brings evangelical undergraduate students to this established DC think tank to engage with scholars on the critical issues of our day, and learn how to evaluate them through sound principles.
Both groups are proclaiming the same, as I call it, freedom gospel: our Creator values the person and his/her talents, and desires hearts of humility, responsibility, service and stewardship. From this basic premise, the individual is the central decision-maker, not the state, and the dignity of responsible human creativity and work ethic replaces government mechanisms for the distribution of wealth and opportunity. The latter method is spiritually void, and robs the soul of social value. Our faith also has meaningful implications on the roles of the family, Rule of Law and personal accountability in a healthy economic society.
“Our Creator values the person and his/her talents, and desires hearts of humility, responsibility, service and stewardship. From this basic premise, the individual is the central decision-maker…”
Christians should resist state-run solutions characterized by imposed charity and resentful class warfare, where the vulnerable are cast as victims, incapable of achievement and disconnected from their own choices. We should instead advocate a system that rewards service and selflessness, minimizes political controls and increases well-being at all levels of society.
To apply the old adage, the Church has largely embraced the idea that if a man is hungry, a bureaucrat ought to transfer to him a fish from someone else’s catch. It seems more consistent with Christian virtue, however, to teach him how to catch fish himself, then ensure that he can keep the rewards of his labor, not only so that he can eat, but so that he can feed his family and perhaps open his own fish market, providing employment to his neighbors and prospering his community.
I encourage those interested in public policy issues to familiarize themselves with the Acton Institute (www.acton.org) and the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org). Surely other groups are doing similar things, but my personal experience working with these great organizations allows me to lend personal endorsement, which I am very eager to do.
From whence goodness comes
October 7th, 2010 § 2 Comments
When Houston Baptist University introduces its Liberal Arts Core Curriculum in the fall of 2011, Systematic Theology will become a required course. This change is part of a core overhaul that will make HBU one of only a few universities in the world offering an education centered on the classical texts in both philosophy and theology. Though I enrolled under the previous system, I have tailored my personal academic experience toward a balance of old and new. Systematic Theology, for example, is the course I preferred to take over the three alternatives, with permission from the dean.
I wasn’t quite sure what would be included in the course, but I knew that I wanted a deeper study of the nature and ways of God. I had questions that were not being answered in church sermons. Truthfully, I’ve been disappointed with most church speakers today, whose messages consist of various forms of the same ten or fifteen concepts, packaged up in twenty minutes worth of easily digestible garb.
Theology is an academic inquiry into the who, what, when, where and why of this being we call God. As I had hoped, the course has brought me into a new sphere of understanding of and relationship with that being. But there’s something fascinating that begins to happen when the origin of all things takes center focus in the hearts and minds of His people: a light is cast on creation itself. By creation, I don’t just mean people and things. I mean ideas, emotions, moments, seasons, conflicts, and laws of nature and justice. All academic disciplines come under the microscope of graceful revelation. Though I understood, conceptually, the vision put forth by the leadership of the university, only recently have I begun to experience it in a fuller sense.
One particular realization, of many, came one evening while reading about the free will of man. I thought of how many people I have met that point to the suffering of good and innocent people—the injustice in the world—as the primary reason for disbelief in any supreme being who claims to be just and good. I have empathized with this view, and at times struggled with this seeming contradiction, though I do not come to the same ultimate conclusion. Yes, there is pain, but this is a world in which humans walked away from God, and it is by His grace that there is any goodness whatsoever. Rather than point to the suffering, we ought to be thankful for beauty and joy wherever it is found. But on this evening I saw something new.
I was struck by two irreconcilable notions: that I should doubt God for want of goodness, yet not doubt goodness for want of God.
If it were suddenly proven that no god could possibly exist in the vast ordered cosmos, I would be at a loss attempting to understand why I should care in the very least what happens to my neighbor. There should be no definition of “good” or its opposite. My sense of justice must necessarily be interpreted as a construct of my imagination or social interaction. I should, by the direction of rationality and self-preservation, lie, cheat and steal in every circumstance where direct repercussions are unlikely. I should pursue no honor, no dignity and no restraint, except unless doing so will result in personal gain. If humans are mere physical shells with no purpose of life, then none of the things we value are of any worth after all.
This interpretation of the human being is a common one, though its implications are not laid out in quite this way. Consensus advises against attempting to convert people by telling them that there are no real virtues but hate and deception. I find it interesting that popular imagination has been sold an idea that essentially negates everything that we cherish in our common humanity. We look forward to giving a friend a gift, we smile when a stranger waves a sincere “hello,” and we celebrate the mysteries of love and passion through film and literature. We feel sorrow when another person is harmed, and we feel unsettled until justice is reconciled. Where do this things come from, and why do they matter?
Pain and suffering are real. But rather than view them as obstacles to faith, I see my concern and desire for justice as manifestations of God’s spirit, compelling me to make right what has been wronged. Without confronting injustice, how would I know justice? Without feeling the full range of possible human emotion, how can I relate to the One in whose image I am made, who is Himself angry, jealous and despairing over a fallen mankind and our constant efforts to keep Him at a comfortable distance.
The Mosque
August 20th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
I’m going to chime in on this ground zero mosque issue that everyone is raving about, though I should admit that there are plenty of factors to consider, which I may not see.
The builders say it’s intended to promote understanding and cooperation. The opposition says it’s an offensive gesture, and quite possibly a national defense issue. The supporters say everyone has a right to practice religion and the God-and-Guns people need to stop being chauvinists. This week the fight went political, with seemingly every politician having to clarify their stance. The president’s support of the project drew wide criticism, and you would think that the entire upcoming election is going to hinge on whether or not someone is with Obama on this.
Ridiculous.
Let me say right away: this is not a political issue. The Federal Government either can or cannot stop a private group from building on private land, for purposes of entirely legal activity, and the answer is not equivocal. Thankfully, the Constitution strictly prohibits the government from getting involved, though one could argue that local officials may have more leverage. With that said, there is really no reason for federal politicians to take a stance on whether this should be “allowed” or not.
If the concern is on national security grounds, the solution is to monitor the activities there and only take action when it is clear that illegal activity is taking place. Arguments against the project on grounds of how offensive it is, or how happy it makes muslim extremists, are simply not valid enough for the Federal Government to step in. How often have we complained that “offense” is not a criminal activity? Let’s not employ a double-standard here. Our national values dictate that within our borders, you are free to be a prideful and offensive jerk.
Now, this doesn’t mean I support it. They are free to build it, but I am free to say that, yes, it is offensive, and dumb, and possibly even dangerous. With the backers stubbornly resisting any and all efforts to appease the weight of the conflict, I have little reason to be confident in their claims that they are doing this for the sake of unity and cooperation. And if not, what are they building it for? Any claims about the purpose of this building are speculative, and though its existence at ground zero may offend some of our friends and satisfy some of our enemies, speculation is not enough to close it down.
One facet of this debate is over whether or not the building is at ground zero at all. That depends on your definition. No, it is not being constructed in the empty footprint of the WTC towers. But, as Hugh Hewett noted on his radio show earlier this week, any spot where plane and body parts landed should be considered hallowed ground. Still, the fact that this attack occurred in the middle of lower Manhattan means that we’re just going to have to get used to the idea that life and commerce will go on. Here in Texas, hundreds of men were killed fighting for our independence at the Alamo. Today, the iconic memorial sits adjacent to Jackalope Joe’s and the Out West Giftshop. And everywhere you look there are Mexican restaurants and paraphernalia.
I understand the discomfort, and I know that some people will be emotionally hurt by this. But I am not one that believes emotional distress is a crime. Muslim extremists may view this as a victory, and there may be consequences that we cannot see, but I am also not one who thinks speculation and assumptions are enough evidence to stamp out the First Amendment.
I know that I break with many conservative voices on this, but it is important that our facts are accurate and unexaggerated, and our principles are consistent. You don’t win a battle of ideas by changing them for political expediency. Many Republicans are using this as a wedge issue to stir up trouble with Democrats before an important election. And though I applaud just about any attempt to get the current leadership out of Congress, we should be careful not to get so excited that we lose track of our ideals.
Jesus: our favorite cop out
May 20th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
You want to know what the hardest thing about being a Christian is for me? It’s not questioning whether God is really there, or wondering why bad things happen to good people. No. What’s most difficult for me is my irritation with people who use their faith as an excuse to do things poorly, whether as a result of ignorance, or even worse, sloth. It makes me angry.
In addition to the goofy four-legged creature, sloth also refers to a “reluctance to work or make an effort; laziness.”
There is perhaps no “industry” where evidence of slacking off is greater than in the Christian world. Whether it’s books, movies, magazines, t-shirts or church media, you can bet that if the word “Christian” is slapped on the front of it, it’s going to be sub-par. To be fair, there are shining stars here and there who are doing great work, but as a whole it is really quite pathetic. Why?
The first problem is that most faith-based companies derive most of their operating expense from donations—not customers or advertisers. The idea is twofold: we want complete control over our content without regard for what “people want,” and secondly, we are ministers, not merchants! Ok then, I hope your message finds it way past your crappy production and overconfident attitude. It just so happens that people like things that they want, and professionalism is an admirable quality. People are drawn to be a part of something that is good. But I’m sure you won’t be concerned when your ratings are through the floor and no one is buying your product. After all, there will always be someone to subsidize your income with a tax-deductible donation, someone to encourage your good intentions, and some store that’s willing to relegate your book/album to the “inspirational” shelf. It’s the safe road, where the bar is low, the water’s lukewarm, and everyone pretends not to notice. Well… I can tell you who notices: everyone else. Donations toward a good cause are helpful, but we need not be afraid of profit, because in the real world, it’s profit that provides the extra incentives to perform at our best. There’s no reason we can’t be both ministers and merchants.
“It’s the safe road, where the bar is low, the water’s lukewarm, and everyone pretends not to notice. Well… I can tell you who notices: everyone else.”
Along these same lines is the tendency to request/offer volunteer or darn-near-volunteer work. I understand. Humans have a deep desire to transcend their natural flaws. We like to believe we are strong, honorable, patient, humble, and so on… and these things often drive our actions. This tendency is amplified as Christians who constantly face the question, “what would Jesus do?” While there is cause for praise for an attitude of servitude, there is also room for criticism. As reason would dictate, service to your neighbor is only good if it produces beneficial results. Too often we over-commit ourselves to projects, set them on the back burner and—usually at the last minute—throw something together in order to come through on our word, resulting in a product that is far below potential.
To half-heartedly do something because you really can’t afford to put the work into it, and because you’d rather be doing something else, just to prove your humility doesn’t really serve any cause. A few years ago, when my former band began to take off, I decided to stop accepting free work from friends and fans. I was done with ugly bumper stickers and photoshoots that wasted several hours and resulted in nothing usable. Experience had taught me an important lesson: professionalism comes with a price, and anything less isn’t worth it. If you have the money to do it right, do it right… it is a worthwhile investment every time.
But I really haven’t gotten to the meat of my frustration—the reason for my title on this post. A popular idea among many Christians is that because God is in control, and because he is concerned with the “important things,” we need not be distracted by burdensome details and material perfection. We don’t need talent, preparation or intelligence; we need divine inspiration, intervention and revelation! This idea can by summed up in one phrase: If the intentions are good, God will make it work.
This mentality, like all of the most destructive philosophies, is truth mixed with deception. It takes a reality—that God is all-powerful, and is not limited by human impairments—and assumes that He is ready and waiting to place His blessing on any and all of our endeavors. Indeed, God commanded many seemingly incapable people to do many miraculous things. He told Moses to strike the rock, and when he did, water flowed from it. What if, the next day, he decided to start whacking at all the rocks, trying to get more water? Nothing would’ve happened. God did direct Moses to another rock and told him to speak to it, but instead, Moses struck it again. Water did come out, as the people were indeed dying of thirst, but Moses was punished for his disobedience and told he would never enter the promised land. …Ouch.
When God commands, he equips. But we have become used to just doing whatever we think is good and assuming God will sprinkle Jesus dust on it and make it work to His glory! As a result, we put responsibility on Him, and excuse ourselves from the equation.
So this is the Christian view of labor and production: We fear commercial success, we have a general expectation that other Christians will do things for us on the cheap, and we think that God blesses our work when we have failed to put forth the effort and resources toward it. The strangest thing about all of this is that it boldly flies in the face of sound theology (and economics, I might add).
Noah built an arc. David fought lions… and practiced his sling. Jesus was a carpenter. And though most of the major figures of the New Testament live the rest of their lives as evangelists, Jesus tells several people who come to him that they are to go back to their jobs and perform them faithfully. When God calls you into the wilderness, He expects you to come—with or without a plan. But it is a perversion of this fact to think that God doesn’t expect preparation and excellence, even in the mundane and unspectacular tasks of life.
When God calls you into the wilderness, He expects you to come—with or without a plan. But it is a perversion of this fact to think that God doesn’t expect preparation and excellence, even in the mundane and unspectacular tasks of life.
When we use Jesus as a cop out so that we can avoid the hard work, creativity, and responsibility it takes to achieve great things, we put a big fat label of tepid mediocrity on the very person who we hope to exalt. We tell the world that we are a low-standard bunch, lacking the talent and intelligence to make something of ourselves in the “real” world, and settling instead for a feel-good fix that will make all of our shortcomings appear perfectly acceptable.
We’ve got to face our failures for what they are, because everyone is great at something, and if we are content to settle for that in which we lack, how will we ever discover that in which we excel? And how will we ever reflect the beauty, inspiration and brilliance that is our God? We should hold ourselves and each other to the highest standards, always being flexible enough to give way to God when the moment requires it. If we can do that, our message and ministry will be much more effective.
Voting on the Faith Factor
July 6th, 2011 § Leave a Comment
He spent his teens as an Eagle Scout, lived two years as a foreign missionary, earned his B.A. in International Politics, became fluent in three languages, served four presidents and reached 90 percent approval ratings as a Republican Governor of Utah. Jon Huntsman has an uphill battle to climb with the GOP base, but if he plays his cards right, his experience and centrist appeal just might place him among the most serious contenders this election season.
If this happens, many voters may face a double dose of what has been termed the “Mormon Problem.” A third cousin of Mitt Romney, Huntsman shares more than DNA with the man who made the issue national in 2008, and with both men in the race, the likelihood of a Mormon GOP nominee is looking probable. This would force many Christians into an uncomfortable reconciliation of their personal convictions with their public concerns, as Mormon theology is commonly understood to be at odds with Christian orthodoxy.
One approach says that we should select candidates as professionals, not pastors. If we need heart surgery, we do not care what the doctor believes, so long as he knows how to make us well. There is merit to that argument, but we must be cognizant of the important distinction between a position of leadership and a position of mere tactical knowledge. Leaders determine direction, and direction stems from values. Decisions in a business, church or body politic reflect the values of its leadership.
Still, there is a more important criterion for measuring a candidate against his religious faith: the extent to which a president’s beliefs support the fundamental claims upon which a free and just society is built. It must revere and hold responsible the free choice of individuals; it must place a sacred value on both the human person and the family unit, including the institution of marriage; and it must allow room for the tough decisions that Commanders in Chief must make in the face of hostile evil.
Not all belief systems can support these concepts, but the “Church of Latter-Day Saints” does. Responsible stewardship and the strength of the family, for example, are central features of the Mormon faith, and members are urged to engage fully in civil service. Significant theological disagreements do exist between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, but when it comes to the confluence of core values and social institutions, they are much more likely to stand together on key issues.
There is no reason to believe that a Mormon president would lead America in a direction counter to Christian principles. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed that a Christian candidate would not. Regardless of the faith a candidate identifies with, we must be attentive to the decisions that are made and the results they produce. If a president’s policies betray liberty, dignity and family, then it matters little what book or deity they claim to follow.
Though the American Founders believed in the value of a strong religious—primarily Judeo-Christian—influence in society, they did not envision a nation governed by a particular doctrine. They viewed the roles of church and state as separate, and for good reason: the church should not wield the sword of law, nor be yielded by it. Therefore, our Constitution was designed to preserve freedom no matter the ruling party, and each president is sworn to protect that document by oath. It is not a president’s particular theology that should concern us, but whether or not that oath means anything to the person taking it.