It's election season. Politics is in full swing and as time goes on, it gets increasingly, nasty, unreasonable and full of attacks. I describe myself as a "radical moderate" (a term coined by my husband), fitting neither in the Republican nor Democrat camps. I try to listen to both sides, think about what I believe is right (particularly through the lens of my faith), and use common sense and practicality to decide how to vote and how to think about political matters. I don't enshrine my politics or one party or another as being "of God" or "more American" than another. I think there are stinkers and good people in both parties.
And so as the political debates begin to heat up, I begin to become very frustrated with how people proceed. The dark music of political ads, the inevitable ad hominem attacks comparing one leader or another to Hitler when such is comparison is wholly unwarranted (I have heard this said of both President Bush and President Obama), the unwillingness to sit down and listen to another perspective (if my belief is true, it will hold up to scrutiny!). I start wanting to sing, "Why can't we all just get along?" I don't understand why people can't be more reasonable with one another and work together for a better future.
This is because I am an idealist. In the abstract, I think that surely people can just be reasonable and practical and get along. But this is because I forget so easily the reality of original sin in our world. To expect perfection out of sinful human beings is unrealistic. To expect that we can all just use reason and common sense to get along is not reality. Because I am a Christian, I believe that there is something terribly wrong at the core of human beings. This is why absolute peace has never been achieved in the history of the world. This is why the utopian dreams of communism never came to fruition but merely became another way to take what belonged to someone else and dominate one's neighbor. This is why the competitive environment of capitalism so easily leads to trodding our neighbor underfoot instead of providing opportunities for everyone. We are sinners and whatever political system we are given, we will find a way to manipulate it for ourselves and to the detriment of our neighbors.
Because we are sinners, we also turn nasty in political debate. We harden our hearts to hearing another side. Rare is the journalist or commentator who takes the time to at least listen to another perspective fairly. We call the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare." We call pro-life people "anti-abortion." Certainly, we will not see things from the same perspective all the time, but we fail to even listen to another side of the story. We attack Americans who think differently than us and call them "un-American." I have heard this attitude from the elite intellectual who thinks the Republican farmer has nothing to teach him and is hopelessly backward and out of touch. I have heard this from the blue-color Republican who dismisses the liberal as a Nazi in the making, as someone trying to destroy America. (And I have participated in such attitudes as these too from time to time.) Both are wrong. But why would we expect anything else from sinful people? We are not reasonable and able to get along all the time, precisely because we are sinners.
Not only do I fail to take sin seriously in the everyday American, but I also fail to take it seriously at times in relation to the evil in the world. When you get a lot of education, it is easy to look at things from a theoretical perspective: "If I reason with the nations of the world, they will see the wisdom of my approach and stop the evil that they are doing." But evil is not something that can be reasoned with. In fact, when it is downplayed, it gains more power. I will always be of the opinion that war should be avoided if it can be and should only be a last resort, but there is absolutely a time and a place for strong military action that sets boundaries with repressive regimes. Look at the accommodation of Neville Chamberlain that did not take evil seriously. Look at the prophetic eye of Winston Churchill that dared to call evil what it was, even if he was maligned as a warmonger. The fog of war does not always immediately reveal who is right and wrong, but Churchill's courage and willingness to be misunderstood and disliked is to be admired. We have to take evil seriously and not think that it can be reasoned with.
So, we will never have a perfect political world where everyone gets along and behaves well, precisely because of the nature of original sin. Even Christians? Yes! Lutheran theology is so helpful because it teaches that Christians are both fully saint and fully sinner at the same time. We will not be free of original sin until we are taken home to be with the Lord. This means that in reality we will sometimes behave badly, including in the political arena. We will lose our tempers. We will sin in areas which we have publicly condemned in others. We will lie and bear false witness. We will be nasty, slow to listen and unloving at times.
But just because we screw up sometimes and can be forgiven does not let us off the hook. Paul asked in Romans
6, "Shall we then sin so that grace may abound?" Do you remember his
response? "May it never be!" We are not only 100% sinner, but also 100% saint, created new in Christ Jesus. We are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). And although we are not yet free of the "old man" of sin and death, we are being made new, day by day. The world rightfully condemns Christians when they do not live up to their own ideals of love, respect, truth, and forgiveness. No, we will never be perfect, but we also should not lower our standard. And we should be willing to repent when we mess up.
But why is it that the nastiest email forwards come from Christians? Why is it that Christian on Facebook, email, Twitter and in conversation constantly bear false witness, sharing rumors that are not substantiated with others? For example, no matter your political party, do you think the Lord wants you to forward an email suggesting that President Obama is a secret Muslim? (I have received such rumor-filled email forwards primarily from conservatives, but that doesn't let liberals off the hook. They have their own way of pushing down the other side. Nasty comments paired with a newspaper article posted to Facebook, for instance.) Does this honor the Lord?
As a Christian, no matter which political leader you are spreading rumors about, consider two steps: 1) Check Snopes.com before you forward anything--most of these email forwards have been passed around so many times that they no longer have any truth to them. 2) Pray for political leaders, as the Bible commands us to do (1 Timothy 2:1-4). It is so easy to forget that prayer for our leaders is our responsibility as Christians. But even if you disagree sorely with an elected leader, remember that God loves him or her and pray that that person may come to know God in all His fullness. Pray for his or her spouse and family. Pray for protection against temptation. Pray for honesty, courage and integrity. The pressures on our leaders are terribly strong and the temptations are great. Without prayer, how will they have any hope of doing what is right?
Fellow Christians: you and I may have very different conclusions, politically, about how best to serve our neighbor. But we are united by our common identity of saint and sinner. We're going to screw up sometimes. We're going to get mad sometimes. We're going to bear false witness sometimes. But let's strive higher. Let's be an example in a fractious political environment. Let's be people that the world can look to and admire and respect for our integrity, honesty, fairness, respect, and love. There will be times to fight evil. There will times to take on debates rigorously, and it is our duty as citizens to do so. But let's do it with truth in our mouths and respect in our hearts. Let's live out our new identity as new creations in Christ!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
franklin graham's mistake: why it matters, but not as much as you think
The Internet and cable news were all abuzz yesterday and today concerning remarks made on Morning Joe (MSNBC) by Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and head of Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse. Graham, in an interview with co-host Willie Geist and other panel members, seemed to suggest on the one hand that a person's true faith in Christ is known only to them, but then on the other hand expressed far more certainty regarding the Christian faith of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich than that of President Obama. He said that Mitt Romney is not a Christian, but a Mormon (for more on what Christians mean when they say this, please visit my previous post here), but that he would be a good President and leader. He also criticized what he considered to be the inaction of President Obama in urging certain Muslim nations to cease persecuting Christians, citing in particular the situation of persecution of Christians which currently exists in Egypt.
Graham said faith is something determined in one's heart and one has to ask a person about their faith to know if they are a Christian. The sticking point for many people regarding Graham's responses when asked about the faith of each candidate is that he then sought to judge the hearts of all of the men involved (as he had said he could not do). The second sticking point is that Graham suggested that faith is revealed by actions (a very Biblical statement, by the way), but that he seemed to ignore actions that didn't support his case. President Obama didn't support the social issue stands most important to Graham, ergo, President Obama may or may not be a Christian. Gingrich had engaged in moral failure, but did appear to be a Christian, according to Graham. Why not call into question Gingrich's faith, due to his adultery, if actions are the measure of faith? Why only subject President Obama to hesitancy regarding his faith?
To be fair, Graham was in a no-win situation from the moment he was asked about candidates' faith. The best scenario for him would have been to comment equally on all of the candidates that God alone knows their hearts. He should have stayed out of the politics of it. He should have done this because the dipping of the toe into partisan politics tends to discredit those who seek to serve the Lord in ministry.
Understand, I am not saying that pastors cannot talk about social issues and call people to repentance. It is essential that they do so. But getting into a situation where they are called upon to endorse or repudiate specific candidates is polarizing and gets in the way of their message. This is why as a pastor, I never publicly encouraged people to vote for any particular candidate. However, I was firm in my teaching on social issues such as the need of caring for the poor and needy, the importance of stopping genocide, the sin of abortion, and the wrongness of acting on homosexual impulses. When it came to politics, I would engage in collegial discussions with congregation members, assuming that Christians who believe strongly in God's Word come to different conclusions on how to live it out the teachings of Scripture.
As you can imagine, my views did not place me firmly in either party, and I suppose that helped when it came time to lead a congregation. I could see different points of view in terms of how we accomplish the goals we are called to as Christians. For example, Republicans believe that the poor are better helped by a social policy that limits government intervention; they believe that one gains self-esteem from working hard and rising in success based on their own merits. They do not believe that government money legitimately helps the poor, except in the most dire of cases. Now, it is perfectly possible to be a strong Christian and hold this perspective. Of course selfishness can come into play, but so can selflessness. Many Christians believe that if they are not taxed at a high rate, they will have more money to give to charitable endeavors. This may not always work, but if an individual is seeking to live out these ideals and help in a more personal way than the government can, we should applaud them for living out their faith. Conversely, many Democrats believe that the poor are better helped by limiting the opportunity of our human nature to resist sharing. They believe that a free society has a responsibility from all of its members to care for the poor and needy and so they believe in higher taxation to provide the funds for this care. They believe that the government has a more direct role to play in providing for the poor. Such beliefs easily hearken back to Old Testament Law in which the whole society was responsible to care for the poor and needy amongst the people. I believe either position can be reached through serious interaction with Scripture. Now, is it important for a pastor to stand up and say: "The only viable way for us to see that the poor are served and cared for is _________"? No! Furthermore, no method will be perfect, for we live in a sinful world. But simply because our methods are imperfect, we are not "let off the hook" from trying.
As long as a Christian is in the Word and tries to think about the world from God's perspective, he or she can seek to do good in either (or no) political party. As the old saying goes, "there is more than one way to skin a cat." We need to respect that others may have different methods of achieving Biblically-sound goals of good for society and the world.
The problem is not whether Franklin Graham privately reflects on where he thinks each candidate is at spiritually. As he pointed out in the interview, evaluating faith and calling people to come to Christ are "his business," just as news is the media's business. The problem is that Franklin Graham proclaimed publicly what he thought the status of each man's faith was. Now, how will Franklin Graham be able to preach the Gospel credibly to any of the candidates? How will he be able to encourage them in faith?
I am hesitant to be too hard on Franklin Graham, however. We often forget that even pastors are human and liable to make mistakes just like the rest of us. When they make a mistake, they are reduced to that misstep alone and their finer deeds are ignored. Franklin Graham was all but crucified on the internet and in the press in the past 24 hours. And his very real accomplishments on behalf of the poor and vulnerable in the world were ignored. He was relegated into a very narrow box of what the world thinks a Christian is.
Chuck Todd, political analyst for MSNBC and host of The Daily Rundown, tweeted yesterday morning, "Franklin Graham has a lot to learn from his father." Fair enough. But we often forget that Billy Graham also landed himself in political hot water from time to time. On one occasion, Graham was accused of being a propaganda tool of the former Soviet Union, an accusation not entirely unwarranted, despite his good intentions. William Martin wrote in Christianity Today: "[Critics] pointed in particular to a 1982 Moscow 'Peace Conference,' which did indeed have a strong anti-American slant, and after which Graham made some inadequately considered—and inaccurately reported—remarks that seemed to describe greater religious freedom in the USSR than in fact existed. Graham understands, of course, that the governments of the countries he has visited have their own agendas and that preaching the Christian gospel is not a major priority. 'Of course they are using us,' he said. "But we are using them as well, and my message is stronger than theirs.'" To one extent, Graham was being realistic and shrewd. To another extent, he was being too innocent about the impact of his actions. Should he have spoken on political matters in such a way? Probably not. Was he confusing his calling momentarily? Probably.
Then there was the even more troubling revelation in 2002 of the Nixon tapes of 1972 which found Billy Graham making anti-Semitic remarks to Richard Nixon, despite his long support of the nation of Israel. Graham later apologized for the remarks, saying he did not even recall making them. It's hard to imagine what he was thinking at the time. Could he have been star-struck by President Nixon? Could he actually have harbored anti-Semitic thoughts in his heart? We cannot say for sure. We can only say that Graham made a very significant mistake, but that he righted it and repented of his words.
Every time Billy Graham attempted to step outside the range of his calling--the speaking of the Law and the Gospel in Scripture--and attempted to lead in matters of politics, he was humbled. He made some major mistakes when it came to politics. But he also did tremendous good in the Body of Christ. His lasting legacy is found in the countless people came to new or renewed faith in Christ through his work of evangelism. The impact of his ministry will be seen in the assembled saints in Heaven.
We should look at the ministry and work of his son with the benefit of this history in our minds. Franklin Graham is not a perfect man. There have been several times he has ventured too much into the field of politics and too far away from his callings to care for the poor and needy of the world and to speak the Gospel. When he strays from these callings, he is humbled, just as his father was. However, that does not negate the excellent and massive relief work he does in the world. Samaritan's Purse recognizes the importance of relieving the suffering of those in need and puts its money where its mouth is. In the midst of the drought and famine in East Africa, they provided food and relief. They give Christmas gift boxes to underprivileged children throughout the world through Operation Christmas Child. Whenever there is a natural disaster in the world, they are there providing aid. They aid in medical missions, hunger relief, HIV/AIDS care, water programs. We cannot dismiss these good efforts. All too often Christians are said to care nothing for the poor. This is not true of Franklin Graham. He has invested his life in the care of the poor. You could say that this ministry is his life's work; politics is only his hobby.
Should we call into question Graham's words this morning? Certainly it is fair to do so. But we ought not blow his words out of proportion. We ought to look at the full man with a balanced eye and give thanks for all the good that he, yet an imperfect sinner saved by God's grace, does in the world.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
introverts and leadership
Look at a job listing for any leadership position and you'll probably notice that people are looking for a superhuman. Not only must a leader be a visionary, but he or she must also be charismatic with people. Pastors must get the bottoms in the seat, but also produce well thought-out, deep sermons and set a compelling and Scriptural vision for a church. Political leaders must spend time "relating to" people and kissing babies. Leaders must be: Happy and hopeful. "On" in public, all the time. Yet, conscientious and attentive to detail.
We cannot, of course, have it all in one person.
I have wondered for a while now if part of the reticence to Mitt Romney as a presidential nominee is not only due to the occasional insensitive comment he makes or his position-shifting, but rather to some introvert tendencies that he seems to display. (Note: Though I attempted to do research on whether Governor Romney is, in fact, an introvert or not, I was unable to find any definitive data.)
Though we do not know for sure if Governor Romney is an introvert, we can certainly agree that he displays a certain social awkwardness and stunted ability to turn on the charisma and charm people.
Yet, we also know that Governor Romney thinks in a careful, nuanced way, as he did in his rich and resonant speech on his Mormon faith and religious faith in America in 2007. Romney is a deep thinker, but not necessarily skilled in extroverted back-slapping and baby kissing. People hold this against him, but I ask if his lack of people skills means he cannot be a great leader?
In my work as a pastoral intern and then as a pastor, I found two things to be true. One was that I was naturally shy and could easily use that as an excuse to hide out in my office, avoiding the difficulty of social interaction. Certainly, I brought some of people's occasional frustration with me on myself. For to be a good pastor, you must love and know your people, not just think about them.
But the second thing I found to be true was that while I often needed to stretch outside my comfort zone more than I did, like a rubber band, there was only so far I could be stretched without snapping. I can develop skills that do not come naturally, but I cannot change my overall personality. For good or for ill, I am an introvert. I like people, but I don't gain energy from being with them most of the time. I enjoy having long periods of time spent in thought and reflection. I function best when I can read, encounter new ideas, watch the world around me and carefully analyze what is good and what can be better. I like to listen to people and learn things about them, too. I believe I serve best when I am allowed to use these gifts, rather than hide them under a bushel, forever chasing the unreachable goal of an extroverted personality.
We need both extroverts and introverts in the world of leadership. Extroverts excel at reaching out to large groups of people and making them feel wanted, invited, and cared for. They know how to generate excitement and enthusiasm. They know how to get big groups of people together. They know how to form a tribe.
But introverts stand back in the shadows and carefully analyze not just the quantity but the quality of the work. They know that depth is just as important as breadth. Introverts listen to people; they pay attention. To put it baldly: They know when to shut up. They offer correctives and cautions that extroverts in their enthusiasm may have missed. In their willingness to spend time alone in thought, they help governments, companies and churches to develop integrity and depth in the work that they do.
Without introverts, it is hard to form a mission with depth. Without extroverts, it is hard to get people to buy-in to the mission.
Yes, I am painting in broad strokes. There is a continuum, to be sure, of introversion and extroversion. But to simply choose our leaders based on their charisma, without attention to their depth and character, is a mistake. Perhaps we ought to look at our potential and current leaders with an eye to whether they surround themselves with people who balance out their inadequacies, with an eye to their character, with an eye to the depth of their thought. After all, it is not enough to build a tribe if you have nowhere to lead them.
Note: Politics can be a powder keg and I am certainly not endorsing Governor Romney in this post, but am simply offering some food for thought, regardless of who each of us votes for in the midst of the election season.
For more on introverts and extroverts and leadership, check out this article on Psychology Today's website and this one on Forbes.com.
We cannot, of course, have it all in one person.
I have wondered for a while now if part of the reticence to Mitt Romney as a presidential nominee is not only due to the occasional insensitive comment he makes or his position-shifting, but rather to some introvert tendencies that he seems to display. (Note: Though I attempted to do research on whether Governor Romney is, in fact, an introvert or not, I was unable to find any definitive data.)
Though we do not know for sure if Governor Romney is an introvert, we can certainly agree that he displays a certain social awkwardness and stunted ability to turn on the charisma and charm people.
Yet, we also know that Governor Romney thinks in a careful, nuanced way, as he did in his rich and resonant speech on his Mormon faith and religious faith in America in 2007. Romney is a deep thinker, but not necessarily skilled in extroverted back-slapping and baby kissing. People hold this against him, but I ask if his lack of people skills means he cannot be a great leader?
In my work as a pastoral intern and then as a pastor, I found two things to be true. One was that I was naturally shy and could easily use that as an excuse to hide out in my office, avoiding the difficulty of social interaction. Certainly, I brought some of people's occasional frustration with me on myself. For to be a good pastor, you must love and know your people, not just think about them.
But the second thing I found to be true was that while I often needed to stretch outside my comfort zone more than I did, like a rubber band, there was only so far I could be stretched without snapping. I can develop skills that do not come naturally, but I cannot change my overall personality. For good or for ill, I am an introvert. I like people, but I don't gain energy from being with them most of the time. I enjoy having long periods of time spent in thought and reflection. I function best when I can read, encounter new ideas, watch the world around me and carefully analyze what is good and what can be better. I like to listen to people and learn things about them, too. I believe I serve best when I am allowed to use these gifts, rather than hide them under a bushel, forever chasing the unreachable goal of an extroverted personality.
We need both extroverts and introverts in the world of leadership. Extroverts excel at reaching out to large groups of people and making them feel wanted, invited, and cared for. They know how to generate excitement and enthusiasm. They know how to get big groups of people together. They know how to form a tribe.
But introverts stand back in the shadows and carefully analyze not just the quantity but the quality of the work. They know that depth is just as important as breadth. Introverts listen to people; they pay attention. To put it baldly: They know when to shut up. They offer correctives and cautions that extroverts in their enthusiasm may have missed. In their willingness to spend time alone in thought, they help governments, companies and churches to develop integrity and depth in the work that they do.
Without introverts, it is hard to form a mission with depth. Without extroverts, it is hard to get people to buy-in to the mission.
Yes, I am painting in broad strokes. There is a continuum, to be sure, of introversion and extroversion. But to simply choose our leaders based on their charisma, without attention to their depth and character, is a mistake. Perhaps we ought to look at our potential and current leaders with an eye to whether they surround themselves with people who balance out their inadequacies, with an eye to their character, with an eye to the depth of their thought. After all, it is not enough to build a tribe if you have nowhere to lead them.
Note: Politics can be a powder keg and I am certainly not endorsing Governor Romney in this post, but am simply offering some food for thought, regardless of who each of us votes for in the midst of the election season.
For more on introverts and extroverts and leadership, check out this article on Psychology Today's website and this one on Forbes.com.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
christians are fighting the wrong battles
A big issue in the Flathead Valley during the past few months has been contention over whether a large Jesus Statue in Whitefish, MT, erected about 50 years ago by Knights of Columbus World War II veterans, could remain on the U.S Forest Service land it currently occupies. The Freedom from Religion organization, which is based out of Wisconsin, has been the primary group attempting to get rid of the statue, due to concerns over the separation of church and state. This has Christians in the Flathead Valley up in arms about the attacks of the "godless unbelievers."
Let me start by saying, I am definitely pro-Jesus (obviously!) and it sounds like the statue had a good purpose. Although I have also heard rumors of partying that took place around the statue, that doesn't take away from the good purpose in putting up the statue to begin with. I think the attacks against it are silly and not very helpful to unity in our country. Perhaps we could all consider the sacred act of serving in war and give a little when it comes to what our soldiers found comforting when they returned home. Tearing down or moving the statue does seem to be in poor taste and not very respectful of our soldiers' service.
However. I am really befuddled by the way Christians are acting about the whole thing. They have gotten their eyes completely off of our mission as Christians. To them, the battle is to defend ourselves against those who want to take our way of life away from us. It's Christians vs. godless heathen.
I look at the whole thing and see some atheists who are being unfair, but who also need the love of Christians who love the real Jesus more than a statue on a hill. What about how the Apostle Paul told us that to him, all the things that were considered religious glory in the past were now loss to him, in light of being able to know Christ, the fellowship of His sufferings, His resurrection? Was Paul talking about a statue of Jesus--or the actual Jesus?
I'm not suggesting we just become politically correct. But I do think, we need to let go of battles that are not nearly as important as showing God's love and communicating the Gospel. Most atheists are convinced that Christians are nothing but hateful, closed-minded idiots. My response to that is: show them wrong! Go out there and love atheists! Talk intelligently to them. Don't give for a moment on your core beliefs that we are all sinners in need of a Savior, but act like you realize you too are a sinner who needs a Savior! Be humble!
The world will not rise or fall on whether a Jesus statue remains on a mountainside. What the world will live or die by is whether they come to a saving faith in Jesus. This will not be accomplished by snide, sarcastic newspaper opinion letters (and we have had quite a few lately). This will not be accomplished by rallies of people surrounding a statue and claiming their rights. This will be accomplished by people who know their hope is in heaven, not in a statue. A real witness is not found through a piece of art, but through people who are living poiemas or "masterpieces" created in Christ Jesus and given faith in order to do good in a broken world (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Sure, the world is often unfair to Christians. They see the bad eggs and blame us all. They try to push us out of the public square. They fail to see the good that we do, the caring for our neighbor, the hungry, the sick, the unwed mother. They accuse us of not caring about those things. (And of course, sometimes we deserve the criticism, but we get it whether we do or not.) My response is: so what? What else did you expect from a broken world that needs Jesus? Do you think you find Christians who are being persecuted in communist China complaining about how horribly unfair unbelievers are to them? No, to the contrary, they ask not for prayers for the persecution to stop but rather for prayers that they may be a witness in the midst of persecution. They don't claim their rights; they follow Jesus. They aren't surprised when they are persecuted; they look at it as an opportunity to show God's love.
We Christians have got to stop claiming our rights. We have got to start focusing instead on how to bring God's light to a lost world. We have got to stop thinking the world owes us a certain standard of treatment. We need to start forgiving when we are treated badly. Maybe then the world might sit up and take notice and ask us for "the reason of the hope within us." And even if they don't, they won't be able to use us for an excuse anymore to disbelieve in God.
We Christians have been fighting the wrong battles. Ephesians 6 tells us our battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces in the heavenly realms. Let's start living like that's true.
Let me start by saying, I am definitely pro-Jesus (obviously!) and it sounds like the statue had a good purpose. Although I have also heard rumors of partying that took place around the statue, that doesn't take away from the good purpose in putting up the statue to begin with. I think the attacks against it are silly and not very helpful to unity in our country. Perhaps we could all consider the sacred act of serving in war and give a little when it comes to what our soldiers found comforting when they returned home. Tearing down or moving the statue does seem to be in poor taste and not very respectful of our soldiers' service.
However. I am really befuddled by the way Christians are acting about the whole thing. They have gotten their eyes completely off of our mission as Christians. To them, the battle is to defend ourselves against those who want to take our way of life away from us. It's Christians vs. godless heathen.
I look at the whole thing and see some atheists who are being unfair, but who also need the love of Christians who love the real Jesus more than a statue on a hill. What about how the Apostle Paul told us that to him, all the things that were considered religious glory in the past were now loss to him, in light of being able to know Christ, the fellowship of His sufferings, His resurrection? Was Paul talking about a statue of Jesus--or the actual Jesus?
I'm not suggesting we just become politically correct. But I do think, we need to let go of battles that are not nearly as important as showing God's love and communicating the Gospel. Most atheists are convinced that Christians are nothing but hateful, closed-minded idiots. My response to that is: show them wrong! Go out there and love atheists! Talk intelligently to them. Don't give for a moment on your core beliefs that we are all sinners in need of a Savior, but act like you realize you too are a sinner who needs a Savior! Be humble!
The world will not rise or fall on whether a Jesus statue remains on a mountainside. What the world will live or die by is whether they come to a saving faith in Jesus. This will not be accomplished by snide, sarcastic newspaper opinion letters (and we have had quite a few lately). This will not be accomplished by rallies of people surrounding a statue and claiming their rights. This will be accomplished by people who know their hope is in heaven, not in a statue. A real witness is not found through a piece of art, but through people who are living poiemas or "masterpieces" created in Christ Jesus and given faith in order to do good in a broken world (Ephesians 2:8-10).
Sure, the world is often unfair to Christians. They see the bad eggs and blame us all. They try to push us out of the public square. They fail to see the good that we do, the caring for our neighbor, the hungry, the sick, the unwed mother. They accuse us of not caring about those things. (And of course, sometimes we deserve the criticism, but we get it whether we do or not.) My response is: so what? What else did you expect from a broken world that needs Jesus? Do you think you find Christians who are being persecuted in communist China complaining about how horribly unfair unbelievers are to them? No, to the contrary, they ask not for prayers for the persecution to stop but rather for prayers that they may be a witness in the midst of persecution. They don't claim their rights; they follow Jesus. They aren't surprised when they are persecuted; they look at it as an opportunity to show God's love.
We Christians have got to stop claiming our rights. We have got to start focusing instead on how to bring God's light to a lost world. We have got to stop thinking the world owes us a certain standard of treatment. We need to start forgiving when we are treated badly. Maybe then the world might sit up and take notice and ask us for "the reason of the hope within us." And even if they don't, they won't be able to use us for an excuse anymore to disbelieve in God.
We Christians have been fighting the wrong battles. Ephesians 6 tells us our battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces in the heavenly realms. Let's start living like that's true.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
what evangelicals mean when they call mormonism a "cult"
I think that as the election season begins to heat up, I will probably begin to incorporate more posts about politics into my blog. I promise to try my best not to be reactive, but instead to be reflective and think carefully about what I write. Please feel free to share alternate opinions (or agreeing ones!), but with respect and kindness to me and to other commenters! Thanks!
The political world is all atwitter about the evangelical pastor who introduced Rick Perry at an event and called Mormonism a cult. Perry later said he did not agree with the sentiment and that he didn't choose who introduced him.
To me, this was a non-event. Except that I was initially a little surprised to find that Rick Perry, as an evangelical Christian, did not view Mormonism as a cult. I have always believed Mormonism to be a cult. This does not mean that I disliked Mormons as people or felt that they were unworthy of participation in society. In fact, there were some things that I thought they did better than some Christians: family values, the willingness to commit to being a missionary, the courage to be different in society. I'd be very happy to have Mormon friends. I have no problem with them in leadership and judge them the same as I do other leaders (are they good people of character? etc.). I just don't think they are saved. I don't think they trust Jesus as their Savior.
But for the first time today, I stopped to analyze the word "cult" and to wonder what the non-Christian world hears when they hear the word, "cult." I began to wonder if what they hear is "weird, chanting, Kool-aid drinkers." Which is not what I mean when I use the word, "cult." What I mean is that Mormonism, although it calls itself "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," is a religious group that falls outside the beliefs of orthodox Christianity. The main issue with Mormonism is that it denies core teachings of the Christian faith.
But given this definition, I am beginning to think that it may be more helpful language for us to use as evangelical Christians to call Mormonism "another religion." This still respects the fundamental difference between its beliefs and orthodox Christianity while not using language that suggests child sacrifice and mass killings (to some hearers). It gives a better opportunity for witnessing too because we're just being honest about the significant (and salvation-impacting) differences instead of calling names.
I have had an issue for a long time with the religious significance many Christians give to the self-named religious revelations of another Mormon, Glenn Beck. I'm not gonna wrangle too hard with you as a Christian if you agree with him politically. But if you are a Christian and you ascribe spiritual significance to what he teaches, I am very concerned, because he is not a Christian. He is the proponent of another religion. He has every right to participate in society, and even to practice his religious beliefs and speak about them. He has every right to use his free speech. But as a Christian, I should be getting my spiritual guidance from my church, from other Christians, and from the Bible.
But I don't have a problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon, in terms of whether he should be President. He's not trying to guide me spiritually. He's trying to assume an elected office. Martin Luther once said something along the lines that he would rather have a wise Turk than a stupid Christian ruling in the land. I agree. I think that we don't have to have a Christian be the President. I think it's great if there's a smart Christian who will lead well and have good ideas and morals, but if the best candidate is not a Christian, it's ok. There is a difference between the realm of the church and the realm of the government. And sometimes it's healthy for the church not to have all the power. Look at how strong the church was in ancient Rome when it was persecuted by rulers who were far from God. And look how ugly the church got when Constantine converted to Christianity and made the whole empire Christian. Sometimes Christianity functions best as a minority. Why? Because we do not rely on our own strength but on God and we lean hard on Him. We grow in our faith far more this way.
I submit these thoughts for your consideration in the midst of the broo-haha surrounding "that Mormon remark." With all love and respect.:-)
The political world is all atwitter about the evangelical pastor who introduced Rick Perry at an event and called Mormonism a cult. Perry later said he did not agree with the sentiment and that he didn't choose who introduced him.
To me, this was a non-event. Except that I was initially a little surprised to find that Rick Perry, as an evangelical Christian, did not view Mormonism as a cult. I have always believed Mormonism to be a cult. This does not mean that I disliked Mormons as people or felt that they were unworthy of participation in society. In fact, there were some things that I thought they did better than some Christians: family values, the willingness to commit to being a missionary, the courage to be different in society. I'd be very happy to have Mormon friends. I have no problem with them in leadership and judge them the same as I do other leaders (are they good people of character? etc.). I just don't think they are saved. I don't think they trust Jesus as their Savior.
But for the first time today, I stopped to analyze the word "cult" and to wonder what the non-Christian world hears when they hear the word, "cult." I began to wonder if what they hear is "weird, chanting, Kool-aid drinkers." Which is not what I mean when I use the word, "cult." What I mean is that Mormonism, although it calls itself "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," is a religious group that falls outside the beliefs of orthodox Christianity. The main issue with Mormonism is that it denies core teachings of the Christian faith.
But given this definition, I am beginning to think that it may be more helpful language for us to use as evangelical Christians to call Mormonism "another religion." This still respects the fundamental difference between its beliefs and orthodox Christianity while not using language that suggests child sacrifice and mass killings (to some hearers). It gives a better opportunity for witnessing too because we're just being honest about the significant (and salvation-impacting) differences instead of calling names.
I have had an issue for a long time with the religious significance many Christians give to the self-named religious revelations of another Mormon, Glenn Beck. I'm not gonna wrangle too hard with you as a Christian if you agree with him politically. But if you are a Christian and you ascribe spiritual significance to what he teaches, I am very concerned, because he is not a Christian. He is the proponent of another religion. He has every right to participate in society, and even to practice his religious beliefs and speak about them. He has every right to use his free speech. But as a Christian, I should be getting my spiritual guidance from my church, from other Christians, and from the Bible.
But I don't have a problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon, in terms of whether he should be President. He's not trying to guide me spiritually. He's trying to assume an elected office. Martin Luther once said something along the lines that he would rather have a wise Turk than a stupid Christian ruling in the land. I agree. I think that we don't have to have a Christian be the President. I think it's great if there's a smart Christian who will lead well and have good ideas and morals, but if the best candidate is not a Christian, it's ok. There is a difference between the realm of the church and the realm of the government. And sometimes it's healthy for the church not to have all the power. Look at how strong the church was in ancient Rome when it was persecuted by rulers who were far from God. And look how ugly the church got when Constantine converted to Christianity and made the whole empire Christian. Sometimes Christianity functions best as a minority. Why? Because we do not rely on our own strength but on God and we lean hard on Him. We grow in our faith far more this way.
I submit these thoughts for your consideration in the midst of the broo-haha surrounding "that Mormon remark." With all love and respect.:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
