Realmscapes

On Gandhi & Strength

“Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.” - Gandhi

Faith in Christ means something far more than an indomitable strength or will: the indomitable God (Romans 8:18-39).

Two Loves

"And when we come to be judged in the end, Jesus will meet each of us, and judge us, not according to our religious affiliation, or our adherence to that religion’s laws, but according to the greatest commandment — the love we gave, in our lives, to God and one another."

This is a fundamentally flawed pronouncement given by many moderated churches. The idea is often that a church based on a "saving doctrine" of Love is a church that can grow in the modern world. Love is something that we all want to give and, of course, receive. And since God is defined as a loving supernatural force, then love must be what God wants. True? Afterall, Jesus says that there are no greater commandments than "Love your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor"--these two commands sum up God's Law.

But notice what is subtly missing from the above statement given by many preachers today. Notice that the saving action is one-sided: it's all about what "we" do. That is the fatal flaw. Dating all the way back to the first Christian churches, humans have contended that salvation must be based on what we do. We are hardwired for guilt and a craving for control. And when we are given a challenge that we deem impossible it is natural for us to tweak things up a bit...lower the bar so that we can reach our personal goal. But the bar set by the Law cannot be lowered.

Ironically we are in an age wholly opposite from that of Martin Luther: in his day, God was an unrelenting taskmaster ready to throw down the first handy lightning bolt he could find; today, God is someone you snuggle up to and whom we expect to shake his head laughing like a house pet who looks cute while making a harmless mess. The one view gives the Law omnipotence and the other view "removes the problem" of Jesus and renders the cross impotent.

"And when we come to be judged in the end, Jesus will meet each of us, and judge us, not according to our religious affiliation, or our adherence to that religion’s laws, but according to the greatest commandment — the love we gave, in our lives, to God and one another."

This is a fundamentally flawed pronouncement given by many moderated churches. The idea is often that a church based on a "saving doctrine" of Love is a church that can grow in the modern world. Love is something that we all want to give and, of course, receive. And since God is defined as a loving supernatural force, then love must be what God wants. True? Afterall, Jesus says that there are no greater commandments than "Love your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor"--these two commands sum up God's Law.

But notice what is subtly missing from the above statement given by many preachers today. Notice that the saving action is one-sided: it's all about what "we" do. That is the fatal flaw. Dating all the way back to the first Christian churches, humans have contended that salvation must be based on what we do. We are hardwired for guilt and a craving for control. And when we are given a challenge that we deem impossible it is natural for us to tweak things up a bit...lower the bar so that we can reach our personal goal. But the bar set by the Law cannot be lowered.

Ironically we are in an age wholly opposite from that of Martin Luther: in his day, God was an unrelenting taskmaster ready to throw down the first handy lightning bolt he could find; today, God is someone you snuggle up to and whom we expect to shake his head laughing like a house pet who looks cute while making a harmless mess. The one view gives the Law omnipotence and the other view "removes the problem" of Jesus and renders the cross impotent.

The Dangers of Church Moderation

The top leader of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has grabbed recent headlines by saying "the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God."

I don't know what her agenda is behind the statement. I do know from other interviews with her that she supports blessing gay couples and "theological diversity", believes evolution theory explains creation, and comes from a background of scientific scholarship with no pastoral service to a specific congregation.

Episcopalians in America are in the midst of the same fraction-ing that my own church body, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, faced throughout the 70s. (We are still fighting moderation temptations in our senior leadership.) Addressing the impact of cultural politics is difficult enough let alone when the presiding leader calls heresy that which God's Word (in Romans 10) specifically requires of each person...individually:

"...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Bishop Schori's words is the exact reason why it is imperative that each of us remain in the Word for ourselves daily. Christ's church is governed by sinful creatures who make mistakes. God's Word does not.

One Nation, Under God, With Liberty

I recently came across a remarkable quote that was referenced in one of the introductions to W. Cleon Skousen's excellent The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World. The quote is itself from a book by Peter Marshall called The Rebirth of America. In that book Mr Marshall says to every generation, "The choice before us is plain, Christ or chaos, conviction or compromise, discipline or or disintegration. I am rather tired of hearing about our rights and privileges as American citizens. The time is come, it is now, when we ought to hear about the duties and responsibilities of our citizenship. America's future depends upon her accepting and demonstrating God's government."

God's government.

It is rarely taught in history classes these days, but the great majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were men of absolute God-ly conviction (admittedly in the spirit of their heroes, Locke and Calvin), if not practicing traditional Christians. Before them, the pilgrims came to Plymouth Rock seeking to build a Christian community that could worship freely apart from the 17th century oppressions of the Church of England. It was paramount to the Founders that a union of free states could only be successful if the church remained free from control of the state to accomplish its divine mission while at the same time maintaining a vital influence in American communities. This important ideal was solidified in words when President Eisenhower, inspired by the words of a pastor he heard one Sunday morning, signed a law that added "under God" to the "Pledge of Allegiance".

In the digital age the default definition of the separation of church and state has evolved from Bible instruction in 18th century New England grammar schools to the outright eviction of God from our political buildings and education. In order to justify such movements as pro-choice and pro-homosexuality rights, judges at every level of the U.S. justice system as well as Constitutional law educators and organisations have embraced a progressive "freedom from religion" interpretation of the First Amendment that is wholly contrary to the Founders original intent.

Other than in the Declaration of Independence where "Life" is clearly identified as sacred to the American moral fabric, nowhere is this intent more plain than in Article III of the Northwest Ordinance--an act unanimously passed by the same Congress that would ratify the United States Constitution almost a year later--where it is written, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

George Washington reaffirmed this stance in his Farewell Address (1796) written to the new American nation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." This Address was not meant as the mere swansong of an American patriarch, but a real call to awareness that is as relevant right now as it was to the United States in the twilight of the 18th century. The Farewell Address was published while much of Europe was squarely in the middle of the bloodlust-chaos that characterised the French Revolution; God and morals were deemed expendable as the French people searched for a new identity. The result was a country that threw off its unwanted monarchy only to be seized by a God-less dictator who would plunge the whole continent into war for over a decade.

In 1831, French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, was touring the United States and wrote often on the positive relationship between faith, citizenship, and government in the U.S. Growing up in post-Napoleon Europe, de Tocqueville was pleasantly encouraged by the energy and integrity of the Christian-American landscape. His observances were published in his famous Democracy in America (1835) and included insights such as, "The revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity, which does not permit them to violate wantonly the laws that oppose their designs.... Thus, while the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust." I fear that de Tocqueville would be terribly disappointed to find the America he experienced gravitating towards the cynical, anti-religion European attitudes that emerged in his day. Much less because Americans no longer hold to Christian principle, but more because modern American government, law, and culture is being allowed to stifle Christian morality.

God has promised to bless any nation that places their trust on him. This does not mean that the United States won't face hardship or tragedy. We do ourselves a great disservice if we blame God when such events occur as part of a world cursed with original sin. This curse means that political freedom is never guaranteed; our men and women in uniform pay for it daily through their courage and sacrifice. The day may still be coming when the U.S. is reduced in its influence, and perhaps even its freedoms. What do we do then?

Paul reminds us in his letter to the Galatians of a different, and far more valuable, freedom that has been won for us by our Saviour, God's Son, Jesus. This is where our focus needs to be. It is our duty as a God-serving, freedom-loving people to aid those who are less fortunate in their political freedoms. But more important is our duty as Christians to proclaim the liberty of the human heart, broken under the crushing weight of sin and death. This eternal liberty is guarenteed for those with the spiritual strength to believe and provides citizenship in a heavenly nation comprised of God's people. This citizenship can never be taken from us by any force man-made, natural, or supernatural.

God's Word was not written for political advice or pop culture commentary, but it does speak clearly of God's plan of salvation marked by humanity's "Independence Day"--Easter.

More Than Just National Security

With the Obama Administration scrapping alliances--some decades old--with the UK, Israel, Germany, Canada, and Honduras it comes as no surprise that Iraq is next on the list of crossed-off countries. Vice President Biden has taken the opportunity of his arrival to greet the troops, but not just to see how they are doing. A passing comment made to Prime Minister Maliki reported by Bloomberg is laying subtle structure for the Obama Administration to pull out of Iraq. The situation in Iraq is a key issue from the campaign and one that Obama has not indicated (to the consternation of his supporters) that he will fulfill. Afterall, in his mind he doesn't want failure in a war hated by liberals to be a mark on his presidency like the Johnson-bungled Vietnam War was on Nixon's.

But there is more at stake in Iraq than just the political and sectarian stability of that country. There is a growing Christian community there; although God's work can bear fruit under any circumstance a democratic Iraq will certainly make that work in Iraq go much smoother.

The same can be said in Honduras where there is a lot of ongoing Christian work including from my own church organisation. But the Obama Administration's decision to withold military support from Honduras because he supports the outed and former Honduran President, Manuel Zalaya does not bode well for the Christian missions there. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, a fierce opponent of the democratic Honduran gov't, and a manipulator of God's Word, is considering military involvement of his country to restore Zalaya to power. Without U.S. military backing, which has been part of U.S. policy since the 80s, Honduras stands little chance against Chavez's military strength.