Victory in Afghanistan

I think it is time to declare victory in Afghanistan and come home. This is not a veiled endorsement of Ron Paul for President; this is a reality check. This is a recognition that we cannot fight evil in every region of the globe. This is a lesson in priorities; national security begins at home and works outward, not the other way around. While I agree with the globalists that our national interests do extend beyond our borders, I also believe that the health of the homeland comes first. If we must make choices, I suggest we get our own house in order before we work on someone else's. So I suggest we declare victory and come home.

We need to declare victory over pride. We are losing the war in Afghanistan. It hurts our national pride to lose a war: think Vietnam. The conflict in Afghanistan has been going on for centuries and it will continue until Jesus returns. They thrive on tribal conflict; hatred is part of their character. This is not an endorsement; it is a statement of fact. No amount of American shed blood will douse the flames of this inferno. Read Mitchner's Caravan; it will open your eyes.

We need to delcare victory over hubris. We cannot be the world's police force. As much as we would like to end evil in this age, it cannot be done. Jesus said it would not end until his return. There is a battle raging in a realm that F-16's and M-16's cannot touch. There is an ugly corrolary to this that we seldom think about. We have never fought evil everywhere; we have always chosen our battles: think Rawanda or Darfur. The calculation behind where we choose to fight may itself be steeped in evil.

We need to declare victory over delusions of grandeur. We are no longer a super power. I do not mean that we are not the most powerful force on the planet. Even in our weakened state we can still claim to be king of the hill (as if that matters off the playground.) But we used to think if we tore open our shirt, a big red "S" could be revealed. We thought we could stop all the bullets without injury. This new kind of warfare, terrorism, is the Kryptonite to our superpower. When 19 radicals with box cutters can bring us to our knees, we need to rethink what it means to defend ourselves.

We need to declare victory over deficit spending. We cannot continue mortgaging our children's future. Our budget says the pipe dream of making the whole world safe for democracy is foolish. Does no one see the irony in borrowing from China to fight a war against tyranny, while China is one of the most tyrannical states in the world? In the face of our crumbling highways, toppling bridges, antiquated power grid, bankrupt schools and twenty percent unemployment, borrowing trillions to help uncooperative Afghans seems ludricous.

It is laudable that we want to save other people from vicious tyrants. The Apostle Paul does say that God ordained civil rule to punish evil doers. But what we are doing now makes neither civic nor biblical good sense. If believers want to change the world, the instructions to accomplish that task are in the Instruction Manual. We need to make disciples of the nations. The only peace on earth we can hope for is that which comes from the King of Peace ruling the hearts of his people. Wherever that happens, victory is assured.

Why Not Mitt?

I am going to do something that is politically incorrect. If you read this blog regularly, you are not surprised. If you just stumbled into this space, you may be shocked. I am going to discuss Mitt Romney's religion. That shouldn't be any problem; conservative politicians are regular victims of abusive inspection by the secular media, religion being a favorite target. For some reason however, Romney's Mormonism is a non-subject with the possible exception that it is mentioned as a detraction to some conservative Christian voters.

The media had no problem mocking, denigrating and making fun of both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush concerning their explicit Christian beliefs. Rick Perry was blasted for saying out loud what many of us are thinking about the Obama administration's war on religion. The treatment of Rick Santorum's overt religiosity is admittedly less virulent, but he is only recently being taken seriously as a potential nominee. Perhaps his day is yet to come.

What is it about Mormonism that makes it hard to talk about. Maybe people just don't know what to  make of it. Many believers count Mormons among the other flocks with such names as Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Catholic. I personally believe it is a Christian-based cult as opposed to a sect of Christianity.  The fact is that Mormons are theologically too far off center to be included in the mainstream of orthodox Christianity, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Branch Davidians or the practitioners of Christian Science or hundreds of other groups who take snatches of the Bible and transform them into cultic beliefs that deny basic truths which are sine qua non of true Christianity.

What does any of this have to do with Mitt Romney's suitability as President of the United States? Just this: if he can't see the obvious logical fallacies in his religious beliefs, what other areas of his vision may be equally blind. I realize that many modern non-believers have a similar attitude toward all of us who hold our faith dear. The difference with Mormonism is that it was clearly invented by a charlatan back in the middle of the 19th century. Most of the distinctives of Mormonism can be traced back to the spurious revelations claimed by Joseph Smith which soon after proved to be completely fabricated.

I must seriously consider that my faith is viewed in a similar light by those who do not subscribe to it. After all, I sincerely believe that a man came to earth and claimed to be God, after which he was executed by the legitimate secular authorities and buried. Then he came back to life to validate his claims of divinity. This all sounds very much like science fiction except that there are a hundred logical reasons why it is all believable. None of it has ever been convincingly disproved; in fact, many people who set out to disprove it end up believers.

In contrast, Joseph Smith's version of things has been soundly refuted. I have to wonder why Mitt Romney can't see that. I am left thinking that he doesn't really believe it. I think it may be like his one-time belief in a woman's right to choose, or his belief that a single-payer government health care system was the answer to Massachusettes' health care woes. This may be just me, but I think it may be why the multi-millionaire is wearing blue jeans with his dress shirts at campaign appearances. He wants to look like one of us, no matter how ridiculous it may look.

So while it is outside of our political calculation in this pluralistic representative democracy whether our President is a Mormon (or Catholic or whatever,) it is legitimate to question the intellectual integrity of all candidates for the office. As much as I would like our next President to be a Bible-bred, orthodox Christian living his faith in genuine openness and humility, I know I may have to settle for less in the lesser-of-two-evils world of two party politics in America. But I still struggle with the concept of the leader of the free world actually believing in something like spiritual underwear.

Coveting the One Percent

Wanting something more than we have must be hard wired in the human psyche. That seems to be the crux of the dilemma which faced our proto-parents back in Paradise. One might think they had everything they could possibly need, the place having been designed by the One who knew them best. Apparently there is some longing so elemental in human nature that even perfection isn't good enough, so Adam reached for the one thing he was told he couldn't have.

Wanting what we don't have has an evil twin called coveting: wanting what someone else has. This is a significant enough problem to bear mention in the ten biggies that Moses brought down from Sinai. Again, the One who knows us best forbids that which has the capacity to hurt us worst. Maybe it is because I see this so clearly in my own heart, but this particular commandment doesn't seem to get the notice granted to the others. Murder, adultery, stealing, lying, all get frequent mention; there are even laws against them in most modern societies. I am not aware of any civil ordinance against coveting.

It looks as though President Obama is aware of this situation. A major plank in his campaign platform would appear to be, "Thou shalt covet the one percent." This is ironic on so many levels as to be ludicrous. Firstly, I would say he is part of the one percent; not only his annual household income, but the perks of his office transport him to the height of privilege and wealth. Not many people can count a customized 747 as their personal, regular means of transportation.

The second level of irony is that without the support of the one percent, neither Obama nor anyone else would become President. Like it or not, it takes great wealth to run for the highest office in America. If a candidate does not possess it himself (eg. Forbes or Romney) he must raise it from those who do. Related closely to this situation is the economy in general. Without the participation of people of means, there will be no expansion, no job growth, no getting out of recession (in spite of opinions to the contrary that government can spend us to prosperity.)

The final irony in President Obama's strategy is more philosophical. The Campaigner-in-chief has recently decided to throw the cloak of Christianity over his policy decisions. (See my last blog.) Not even the most virulent progressives would advocate murdering opponents or outright stealing their campaign funds or lying to advance their cause. (Okay, maybe little lies.) But no one blinks when being encouraged to break the tenth commandment and covet the one percent.

It has been instructive to watch the left deal with the Occupy movement. Here are the ultimate coveters; these people epitomize the rage against inequality, the raw human desire to have what someone else has. I suspect that more politicians would support the Occupy movement publicly except that they look so, dare I say, sinful. If it weren't for the rape, murder and mayhem, those people in the parks would be perfect poster children for Obama's cause.

Lest I begin to gloat, I must admit that part of what bothers me about Mitt Romney is his great wealth. (There are other real concerns which I will address at another time.) According to his recently released tax returns, if he received a daily paycheck in 2010,  he would have been paid over $59,000 every day. My immediate response to that (after holy cow!) is not something I wish to print here. My Biblical response must be one of gladness for the man's good fortune. I can commend him for his generous gifts to charity. What I cannot do is covet his wealth. The new covenant did not repeal the tenth command in the old covenant.

Let us not get caught up in the politics of envy as some are calling it. Coveting is still a sin. Jesus promised that the poor would always be with us. That implies that wealth inequality is part of the human condition, just like the tendency to want more than we have. If you are reading this you are among the wealthy compared to most of the world. Learn with me the secret revealed by the Apostle Paul to be content in whatever state we may find ourselves. After all, "Godliness with contentment is great gain."

Political Christianity

Headline: Barak Obama Claims He is a Christian. This will come as a surprise to many who have assumed he is either a closet Muslim or a practical agnostic. Others will be surprised that he was willing to be identified with such a mistrusted, disenfranchised group of radicals. He made the surprising statement at the National Prayer breakfast. What is not surprising was the reason he chose to associate himself with Christianity. He says Jesus would be in favor of his tax proposals.

Ouch! Here we go again with another politician trying to baptize some program with the waters of religious propriety. In this case, Obama has done what so many liberal politicians have done in the past: equate government programs with the Biblical call to charity. That is not just bad politics in my opinion, it is also bad theology. The Bible never suggests that it is the role of government to spread the gospel or provide for the poor. The only function of government authorized by Scripture is that of maintaining civil order. Period.

Jesus did say that his followers should abide by the righteous requirements of human government: render unto Caesar. The Apostle Paul expanded by adding "taxes to whom taxes are due." The requirement to care for the underprivileged and infirm is placed squarely in the realm of the church, that is to say in the hands of individual Christians, not human government. Though he may have over-reached in his admonition, Senator Orin Hatch did well to remind President Obama that claiming Biblical endorsement of party politics is either supreme arrogance or pitiful ignorance.

The political right is not immune from similar flights of hubris. There have been statements which made me wince because of the implication that some aspect of the conservative agenda would garner Jesus' favor. There are issues which do have biblical support for one side or the other. The protection of the unborn is one clear example. First Amendment protection of religious expression is another. But clear-cut cases are limited in number. Once the politician veers into free trade regulations or actions of the military or interstate commerce or income tax rates, the Bible should be used as a secondary resource rather than policy validation manual.

The Crusades during the Middle Ages provide a perfect example of misapplication of Scripture to political affairs. The justification of slavery in the United States by misguided Bible interpreters is another. Prayers were lifted from both sides of the trenches in two world wars that God might look favorably on their military efforts. I know it was a thoroughly anti-capitalist, unchristian movie, but Avatar had a scene where help from the supreme being was requested, and the theological commentary was, "She doesn't take sides; she just maintains the balance." I cannot find a Scripture to support it, but that is how I imagine God must look at our political struggles. He is not on the right or the left politically; he is on the above -- it is an entirely different perspective.

I am not saying that Christianity has no role in the larger civil society. I am saying that the role is entirely personal. The outworking of that personal faith shapes how policy is formed. Communities will be influenced for good or ill by the faith commitments of members. If you have been reading here for very long, you know that I regularly agitate for Christian involvement in the political process. What I don't do is assert a one to one correlation between the Bible and the policies of any person or party. When the Bible speaks, we can speak; when the Bible is silent, we should exercise a bit more humility than our President did this morning.

Misunderestimated Consequences

It is not unusual for a person to say something that he will one day regret. We have cute ways of referring to the phenomenon. We talk about putting a foot in the mouth; we call it a slip of the tongue; we say the mouth started running before the brain was in gear. Politicians seem especially prone to this behavior. Supporters groan and detractors laugh at Joe Biden's frequent gaffes. It is hard to forget W's "misunderestimate," or Dan Quayle's trouble with potatoes (or is it potatos.)

There are times though, when a misspoken word seems to have been the product of wrong thinking. Sometimes entire strategies are built upon sands of shifting thought. George H. W. Bush could have saved himself much embarrassment had he done more thinking before promising, "No new taxes; read my lips." It doesn't take political genius to realize that absolutes are very difficult to deliver. Some politicians get so carried away by their own rhetoric that they promise to do the supernatural, such as lowering the sea level. Apparently there has been a decline of one quarter inch since Obama took over, but I doubt we can credit this to his presidency.

In the last couple weeks, candidates Perry and Gingrich have blasted Romney for his activities at Bain Capital, a private equity firm at which he worked. This line of attack seems ill advised to say the least. One of the most fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats these days is their policy position vis a vis the free market capitalist system of economics. Conservatives have historically favored less government control over markets and increased freedom for individuals and corporations to make their own way. By contrast, today's progressive politicians are leaning toward a European style socialist model of a state controlled economy. In short, conservatives favor equal opportunity for individuals, while progressives prefer government enforced equal outcomes.

I know too well how easy it is to get caught up in the moment and say something without properly thinking of the consequences. Some years ago I made a judgmental remark to my son about his behavior (poorly choosing some crude language to boot,) and our relationship has never been the same since. My wife, whose memory is better than mine, could detail a regrettably long list of things I have said in haste or at least without thought. We are probably all guilty of this to some degree.

The difference with public figures is the scope of the consequences of ill-advised remarks. Now is not the time for Republicans to be siding with the Occupy movement and the Democrat party by feeding the fires of class envy. James says the tongue is a fire which sets our whole lives aflame. During this nomination process, candidates must be careful not to set the ship afire while vying for a chance to take control of the helm. If the result of that tactic ruins our chances of regaining the White House in November, I fear none of us will be laughing at the mistake.

Feeling Bad About Feeling Good

In his World Magazine column this week Cal Thomas referenced a quote by Margaret Thatcher, one of the premier political figures of her generation. She said, "One of the great problems of our age is that we're governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas." Thomas was criticizing the Obama administration's handling of Iran specifically, and the spread of radical Islam in general. The mood in DC is not surprising; candidate Obama pledged to talk with Iran in hopes of reaching some compromise.

Some people cling to the idea that one can compromise with a regime that has sworn to anihilate anyone who opposes their radical brand of Islam. The idea seems to be that we can make them like us just enough to stop threatening to kill us all and destroy our culture. Whether from naivete or ignorance, these appeasers think that generating positive feelings among world powers will bring peace. Because they discount the influence of religion in their own lives, they are blinded to the elemental role it plays in Islamic politics.

The plaintive cry of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along," echoes through the halls of our society. It is evident in the current administration's policies toward Islamic regimes. The so-called political correctness movement seeks to remove any sort of critical appraisal from public discourse. The feel-good strategies endorsed by progressive educators have engendered the dumbing down of school curricula to the ridiculous point where some high school graduates are functionally illiterate. And yes, it has even infected our churches where immensely popular preachers like Rob Bell peddle a gospel without thorns, a feel-good (per)version of the good news that really is too good to be true. But it doesn't offend people, and that seems to be the prime directive in society today.

Margaret Thatcher's insight brings a biblical perspective to this issue. Jesus was highly incorrect politically speaking; his message did not seek the lowest common denominator, but challenged listeners to strive for perfection. His message was all about thoughts and ideas.  We can only accomplish those things which are asked of us when we follow Jesus' recommendation: "If you remain in me and my words remain in you," that is to say, when we concentrate on the correct thoughts and ideas.

The Christian faith is not blind adherence to incomprehensible principles; true biblical faith is founded on the Word, the thoughts and ideas presented by the teachings of Scripture and demonstrated by the Living Word, Jesus Christ. Credit must be given to the radical Islamic commitment to their holy scriptures. They are more than willing to die for their beliefs. Would that more Christians were willing to simply live for their beliefs. Pardon me if that makes you feel bad.

Farewell Rob Bell

Local news reported this week the departure of Rob Bell from the Mars Hill church he started in Grandville twelve years ago. According to the report, many of the congregants wept as they heard the announcement. This is not unusual as popular pastors often elicit emotional responses upon such tidings. The Apostle Paul is said to have had the same response when he told the Ephesian church which he founded that he was going to Jerusalem.

The news article I read identified Bell as the author of Love Wins, "a controversial book about hell." (For my analysis of the book, see the archives of this blog.) His website lists four other books he has penned, but undoubtedly, Love Wins created the biggest stir among evangelicals, so it is natural that the secular press would focus on it. I was interested to note that Bell's future plans involve a move to Los Angeles where he plans to "work on a TV drama based loosely on his life," as well as continuing to write and speak around the country.

Since reading that report I have tried to imagine the Apostle Paul jetting off to do anything autobiographical. Other than a few verses in an epistle, Paul said almost nothing about himself in any of his writings we have record of. The Apostle went to Jerusalem with a benevolent offering for hungry Christians there. Because the temple was still operating and the Jews still persecuted followers of Jesus, Paul knew he might be in danger; a prophet had said as much. Paul went because he knew the call of God directed him there.

I cannot say that Rob Bell is not being similarly called to Los Angeles. Perhaps the news report was unfair to make it sound as if Bell's call was to propagate more about Bell. Perhaps it is coincidence that the same week I read of Bell's new ministry I also read Francis Chan's relevant comment in his book,  Crazy Love. Chan remarked that someone once complimented him on his excellent presentation. After basking briefly in the glow of the praise, Chan realized that the compliment was for him, not God. He asked himself if that was really the sort of result he wanted; was that the result God wanted.

Is it just me, or does it seem that the church puts too much emphasis on the messenger and too little on the message these days. Whether it's Schuler or Bell or Hybels or even Graham or Moody, I wonder if we are not prone to give too much glory to the man and not nearly enough to the Man they represent. Paul said he had died and Christ lived through him. I hope that is the intended message of the upcoming TV drama about Rob Bell. I hope that is what people say about me.