Why the Religious Right Won't Win, Pt. 2

The Long, Hard Fight
In addressing the question of the difficulty of the struggle to “reclaim” America, some topics in the areas of biblical history and theology must be examined. In the historical account found in the book of Genesis it is clearly shown that, as mankind increased in number to populate the earth, he also became increasingly wicked in his thoughts, words and actions. As a result man incurred the wrath of God which culminated in the flood that destroyed all living things. Yet God showed mercy to one man, Noah, (whom He chose from among all other men even though he, too, was sinful) and spared him and his family from the flood waters. It is said of Noah that he walked with God (this being in spite of the fact that he was counted among the sinful men cited just a few paragraphs before). In spite of this it is stated that, after the flood, mankind returned immediately (within that generation) to the wickedness that prevailed before the flood. So in this particular instance we see man rebelling against God, God pronouncing judgment while preserving a small remnant, man turning back to God as a result of the judgment and man returning to rebellion after the judgment has passed. This pattern has been repeated over and over again throughout history. For example we see that even the nation of Israel rebelled against God and turned to pagan idolatry. God warned the nation of His coming judgment for their sin through His prophets but they would not hear. As a result the nation was overrun by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and the people taken captive to Babylon. During the time immediately prior to the judgment, a prophet named Elijah believed that he was the only one remaining in Israel who had remained true to God, but God reassured him and told him of ten-thousand others whom He had saved for Himself. Again, a small remnant preserved by God while the rest of His “chosen people” were carried off by foreigners.
In applying this to America we must recognize the simple fact that God operates on an individual level when it comes to righteousness. While God does call nations to righteousness, they are made so through the righteousness of the individuals who comprise the citizenry of those nations. We can see that, although Israel had a Law that was given by God Himself, they still disobeyed and were judged. How can Evangelical leaders expect to make America righteous by the laws of men? The only way for a nation to be made righteous is for the people to be made righteous. This cannot be done by legislation. The root of the problem is the sinful state of mankind. As the prophet Isaiah stated, “there is no one righteous, not even one.” This is the reason the fight by the religious right has been so difficult. An attempt is being made to force people who are opposed to God in their hearts (though they may not say so much with their mouth) to be obedient to the moral truths of God’s word. This has been met with great resistance and will be met with increasing resistance. Those whose hearts have not been changed by God will desire as much license as they can get when it comes to how they lead their lives. They desire total freedom and no accountability. That is the result of sin and that is the insurmountable obstacle of the religious right in their political aspirations.
The responsibility of the Christian, then, is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire nation and pray that God would change the hearts of men and turn them from rebellion to obedience. Paul writes that the gospel is the “power of God for salvation” and again, “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” He makes it plain that the means God uses to change a person’s heart from one of rebellion to obedience is the proclamation of the gospel. It is then the duty of every Christian to proclaim that gospel to any who do not already possess it and to pray for their salvation. And what is the gospel? The essentials of the gospel include pointing out a person’s sin and rebellion against God, proclaiming God’s coming judgment on all those who rebel against Him, urging them to turn from their sin and to call upon Jesus Christ to save them from their sin. Whether the person responds to this in a positive, life-changing way is up to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and nothing the Christian can do can convince someone to submit to God. Yet this is the work that the Christian is called to. Anything short of this is a betrayal of the mission that Jesus gave when He said, “Go, therefore, and make disciples.” Notice He did not say “go forth and make new laws,” or “go forth and be political activists.”
The Christian Role
All this having been said, Christians should participate in the governmental system as far as it allows. Rather than channeling money and energy into political activism, there should be a concerted effort at evangelism in America. Yet the Christian is also responsible to participate in government in every way allowed by law. Christians can and should vote for those who uphold godly virtue. Christians can and should vote for ballot items in a way that reflects their values. There is no biblical prohibition of Christians even running for public office, yet much care should be taken for there is truth in the phrase “power corrupts.” And if political office is sought or obtained it should be made clear that the office is to be carried out to the glory of God. There is no room for the politician who claims that their personal views will not affect their policy. The Christian worldview cannot be compartmentalized in this way. For the true believer, the Christian faith and the word of God should permeate every aspect of their life and being. So, it is through the gospel converting souls that the religious right may win many in America, but it is unlikely that all of America will be won for Christ (though anything is possible with God). Evangelicals merely need to be faithful to the work to which they have been called: proclaiming the gospel to the lost with a view toward their conversion. Then God will bless their work and maybe even their nation.

Why the Religious Right Won't Win

I'm going out on a limb here and may get some heat, but these are some thoughts I've had recently. Please know that I am not being defeatist or pessimistic here, just following a particular line of thinking. This is only the first installment, so keep following the posts to the end in order to get the full picture.

Why the Religious Right Won’t Win America

There are many in America today that are becoming increasingly concerned by the influence that the “religious right” seems to be finding in the government of the United States. Writers, editors, and producers from various news outlets constantly decry the idea that, in this pluralistic society, one particular set of faith-based values should be officially espoused by our nation. Make no mistake, the religious right are seen as a threat and many, if not a majority, in this country will not stand having their lifestyle attacked in this way. On the other side of this issue are the conservative, evangelical Christians (these are the ones who primarily make up the face of the “religious right” and in most cases the two are considered synonymous). They claim that America is in a steep moral decline akin to that of the great Roman Empire prior to its fall; and that if Americans do not turn back and worship the God of the Bible that the United States will go the way of Rome. In order to prevent this, an attempt is made to curb the moral decline by enacting legislation that favors traditional Judeo-Christian morality and punishes what is seen as immoral under that system of ethics. While this is a lofty goal there are many obstacles, some of which are insurmountable. In spite of its grand efforts and determined spirit, the religious right will never “take back” America.

Re-claiming America?

One of the Evangelical groups that is taking part in this fight uses the slogan, “Reclaiming America for Christ.” While this seems like a great rallying cry for any Bible-believing Christian, there is a questionable premise at its root: that Christ claimed America to begin with. The second question to be explored is this: if Christ wanted America reclaimed, why has it been so difficult? In dealing with the first question one must return to the roots and founding of our nation. The North American continent was originally discovered accidentally. Christopher Columbus was seeking an easier way to reach the islands of the East Indies in order to decrease the time and money needed to ship goods to and from the area and to increase trade capacity. This expedition was, at its root, a commercial endeavor. Once it was determined that Columbus has actually run into an entirely new land that had, as yet, been unexplored by Europeans, many flocked to its shores in search of land and raw materials such as wood and minerals (especially gold, silver and various other valuable commodities). Again, we have commercialism as the driving force behind the activities in the Americas. As time progressed, various groups began to travel to the America and settle. Some of these groups came to America in order to escape religious persecution and to establish communities wherein they could worship as their conscience dictated. Keep in mind, also, that Christianity was the majority, if not exclusive, faith of all of Europe at this time. There were some Jews and a very few from other faiths, but by and large everyone in Europe claimed some form of the Christian religion and the same was true of those who came from Europe to settle America. When the United States broke away from English control this was still true of nearly every person living here at that time. Because of this, the founding documents held within them the assumption that whenever religion was spoken of Christianity was to be understood as what was being referred to.
Now, there is yet another aspect of this to be examined. Just because someone claims to be a part of a particular group, does that make them a genuine member? For instance, a man can claim to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts. He can know the Scout Handbook inside and out, he can own a uniform and be able to recite pledges and such, but if he is not recognized by the head of the Boy Scouts as a legitimate member, then he has made a false claim. The same is true of Christianity. One can go to church every week, be baptized, memorize the Bible and even teach in a Sunday School class or pastor a church; but unless that person has truly experienced conversion in his heart and been claimed by Christ then his profession is in vain. How this works out in the founding of our country is this: just because a large percentage of the population claimed to be Christian does not guarantee (nor can it be determined) that they were genuine Christians. Even if they were genuine believers and did all they did according to what they believed the Bible to say, that did not obligate God to put His blessing on their endeavors, nor did it force Christ to put his stamp of approval on this new nation and call it His.
Some have posited that the situation with the United States is similar to that of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. The major problem with this is that, in making this interpretation, one fails to recognize that the choosing of Israel by God was an isolated instance used as a picture for what was to come under the New Covenant. Just as God chose Israel as a physical nation, differentiated from all the surrounding nations, as a visible representation of His special chosen people - so He also chose a certain group of people, distinct from all other people on the earth (Christians), to be His true “holy nation.” This was not an instance to be repeated over and over again throughout history. So to say that the United States of America was claimed by Christ or for Christ has no meaning and the idea of re­-claiming it for Him, as will be shown later, sets Evangelicals up for failure.

Relative life

Here's a response I sent to the editor at Forbes.com for an article published today:

In the abortion debate the basic issue is whether or not the fetus is to be considered a human person. If the fetus is a person then abortion is immoral, if it is not then abortion is no more an issue than removing a wart. That being said, the pro-abortion camp gives away their true stand in some of the things they say. For example, in this article the claim is made that a fetus younger than "x" weeks of gestation cannot feel pain and, therefore, does not need anesthetic during an abortion procedure. The question that comes to my mind is this: If a fetus is not a human person, why do we care if it feels pain during a medical procedure designed to remove it from existence? The back-side of this question is: If it is a human person, then why is it acceptable to kill it? We all know that even a simple, fertilized zygote has all the genetic structure of a fully-developed human being. And with that genetic structure being unique, it is a unique human person. We also know that like produces like. Fish do not produce rabbits and dogs to not procuce lizards. In the same way, human beings produce human beings. Those who are in favor of abortion either do not understand that what is being destroyed is a human life or (and I'd rather like to think that this second group is very small) they advocate killing of innocent human beings that they deem as unfit to live according to their own subjective standard. I would like to conclude by stating that, since there is a debate as to when "life" begins, why not give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt. If it deserves the dignity of anesthetic during this gruesome procedure, why not allow it the dignity of its first breath from the womb?

ABC throws a curve

Last night I was blind-sided by something I saw on ABC while channel-surfing for about 5 minutes (that's about the extent of TV I get to see in any given weeknight). It was at the end of the show Boston Legal (a spinoff of The Practice). For those not familiar, the show stars James Spader as a sleazy lawyer in a fairly sleazy law firm in Boston. The characters and plots are pretty much left-wing in their slant. That's why I was so confused. From what I can gather from the 90 seconds or so that I watched, the firm had taken as a client a teacher(?) who was being sued for teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in his classroom. For whatever reason, this group of lawyers decided to take his side in the courtroom battle. At the point I began watching, the judge was delivering his decision and it basically went along these lines: Scientists should not be afraid to have other theories taught alongside evolution and intelligent design is not in violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Case dismissed.
My jaw dropped. What in the world does this mean?? Hollywood screenwriters producing a script that champions a cause seen as a plot by the "religious right" to sneak religion into public schools? And a major broadcast network actually airing it?? Regardless of what the thought process was in putting the episode together and airing it, I'm very thankful that God saw fit to work it out in this way. Perhaps the arguments made in the episode (and now I wish I'd seen it to hear how they argued the case) will get some folks who are currently in the "undecided" column on this issue onto the side of intelligent design. Again, I'm dumbfounded by this unexpected turn of events in the media...and confused. I need an aspirin.

Worldview, Evangelism & Apologetics

Introduction – Our Calling as Christians
The last words of Jesus to His disciples before He ascended to heaven were the command to make disciples of all the nations.[1] This is typically termed as the Great Commission and it is the calling of all Christians. Every Christian has the privilege and the responsibility of sharing the gospel of Christ. Believers are to make non-believers aware of their sin. The world must also be warned of the desperate position they are in under the wrath of God. Finally they need to know that there is hope in Christ.
Yet the regenerate Christian thinks of things in a way quite different from the unregenerate person. This different way of seeing things results in questions and objections being raised. When this occurs the believer is called to have a reasoned defense for what they believe.[2] In spite of what many unbelievers think, Christianity is not based merely on blind faith. Christianity has many solid evidences that validate the reasonableness of believing in Christ. This is not to say that everything in the Christian faith can be understood; it is merely stating that God has provided evidence so that the sinful, rebellious hearts of men may have no reason not to believe.
What causes this difference in the way the Christian and the non-Christian view the world around them? The core difference is the presence of sin.[3] Man in general views his world in an anthropocentric sort of way. This is to say that everything is viewed in light of how it relates to mankind. Anything that cannot be explained is either claimed to be unreal or is attributed to a deity designed by man that can be manipulated by man. In contrast the Christian views all things in light of the belief that the sovereign God that created all things has revealed Himself to mankind.[4] This is a theocentric way of viewing the world. It sees things in light of how they relate to God and His revelation.

Overview of Worldview
As would seem apparent by the title and theme of this paper there will be many references to worldview. Basically a worldview is an all-encompassing and structured way of looking at life and the world.[5] To put it more simply a worldview is like a windshield in a car. It is what we view the world through and that view can be obscured by what is “on our windshield”, or, in our worldview. If one has inconsistent or bad ideas integrated into their worldview it is like having ice or mud on the windshield of their car.[6] It is difficult to see clearly and may result in great damage to the person viewing the world through that system. A worldview is not merely a vision of life but a vision for life.[7]
A thorough worldview should answer several basic questions regarding such things as the nature and task of mankind, the nature of the world, the basic hurdle to overcome in fulfilling man’s purpose and how that hurdle is overcome.[8] To unregenerate man the answers to these questions are typically sought within man himself. Most non-Christian worldviews hold man at the center and make little allowance for the God found in the Bible. In some worldviews the universe is a closed system that operates by a given set of rules. Some would say that the universe is eternal while some claim that it was created by a divine being but that deity is now shut out of the operation of the universe. Other views state that there is at least one god but that god is impersonal, not caring about the affairs of men, or so personal as to be merely a higher level of humanity and not powerful enough to make a significant difference in the universe as a whole. Any of these views leaves man as the one that is primarily responsible for using his ingenuity to provide for his day-to-day needs and to improve his state of being.
In contrast to this, the Christian worldview holds that an omnipotent and sovereign God created the entire universe for His own purposes and that the universe He created was very good. This God has revealed Himself to mankind in three persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). The problems that we now experience are a result of mankind rebelling against the God that created him. This rebellion brought sickness, evil and death into the world. The solution to this problem was that God the Father sent God the Son to take on an additional, human, nature in order to live a perfect life in the place of mankind and to suffer the punishment due the sins of mankind. Man cannot fulfill the purpose that God created him for until God has changed his heart from one of rebellion to one of obedience. When God has changed a man’s heart in this way he views the world in a new way. He no longer sees things as centered around man, but on God.
There are differing levels, or layers, of beliefs in a person’s worldview. Some of these beliefs are held to lightly, or with little conviction.[9] Other views, though, are very central to the overall worldview and are foundational in the way the person sees the universe. When these core beliefs are challenged it can cause a great crisis in the person who holds them. This crisis forces one to rethink their belief and they will either find an explanation for the point in question that is consistent with their worldview and continue to hold the worldview or they will be unable to answer the challenge in an acceptable way and find themselves having to change their worldview.

Worldview and Evangelism
The Christian worldview emphasizes that man is subject to a sovereign God and the purpose of man is to love and obey that God. One of the commands that this sovereign God has given to His followers is to make followers of others. The challenge in this is that those who are not followers of God have a mindset that is in rebellion to God and all His purposes.
The key concept in worldview that is helpful in doing evangelism is that unregenerate man thinks in a man-centered way. Because of this man is viewed as essentially good. This is totally opposite the view of man in the Christian worldview which states that man is essentially sinful and in rebellion against God. In evangelism, the first points that need to be made are that man is sinful and that he is accountable to a holy God. These points are typically met with much resistance due to the fact that most non-Christian worldviews either deny the reality of sin (or the person’s personal sinfulness) or they deny the existence of God (or at least of a god that would interfere in the affairs of man). With this in mind it must be pointed out that man is not perfect and that this lack of perfection is what constitutes sin. It is the area of apologetics to point out the evidence for the existence of God. This will be addressed in the next section. Ultimately it is the work of the Holy Spirit which changes the hearts of man in order to see the sinfulness of their heart and to bring about the repentance necessary for salvation.

Worldview and Apologetics
As mentioned above the ideas of man’s sinfulness and his accountability to God typically encounter much resistance when sharing the truths of Christianity with an unsaved world. This is where apologetics comes in. Anyone that is not familiar with Christianity is going to have questions about many of the beliefs within that system. The process of answering these questions and objections is the object of the discipline of apologetics.
Many, if not all, unsaved people believe that Christianity is based upon blind faith. While they may concede that Jesus was a real person they deny the supernatural aspects of His life. In actuality Christianity has solid evidence to support many of the claims it makes. While there is not necessarily evidence for all that Christianity holds there is enough evidence in other areas to indicate its reliability as a system of belief. Besides, if Christianity comes from an infinite God no finite mind will ever be able to understand it fully.
Again the key point is regeneration. A person that has not been touched by God will turn a blind eye to any evidence or argument that supports Christianity. So it is that the point is underscored that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[10] So in the final analysis it is the work of the Holy Spirit that enables a person to see the evidence for what it is and to repent of their sin and believe in Christ for salvation. Yet, at the same time, the Christian is still to have answers for the unbeliever’s objections so that they will be without excuse and all the more condemned on the Day of Judgment.

Summary – Is There Common Ground?
In summary it has been shown that Christians are to share their faith with those in the world around them. This command is obeyed because the Christian worldview holds that there is a sovereign God that created mankind for His glory and that, because of this, man is to obey God. The challenge in actually making disciples of all the nations is that their worldview is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.
The worldview of man is centered upon man and is in rebellion against God. Therefore many of Christianity’s truth claims are going to be challenged as backward and primitive. Simply put there is no common ground for the Christian to start with. Yet there is still hope in reaching the lost; for, while Christians are commanded to have a reason for their faith, it is not the reasoned argument that wins the soul to Christ. It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit upon the life of the individual that a person is regenerated and granted salvation.

Bibliography
Greer, James. Christian Worldview. class notes.
Nash, Ronald H. Worldviews in Conflict. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.
New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.
Thomas, Jim. Coffeehouse Theology. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2000.
Walsh, Brian J. and J. Richard Middleton. The Transforming Vision. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1984.

[1] Matthew 28:19, NASB.
[2] 1 Peter 3:15, NASB.
[3] Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 40-41.
[4] James Greer, Christian Worldview, class notes.
[5] Nash, 14.
[6] Jim Thomas, Coffeehouse Theology (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2000), 26.
[7] Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 31.
[8] Ibid, 34.
[9] Greer.
[10] John 3:3, NASB.

Pathetic "pastor"

After reading this, I will never buy anything by Joel Osteen (not that I have to this point anyway...but all the same).

Legalism and pluralism in the church

Sorry I haven't posted much lately... been very busy at work. Found this excellent point surfing through some other blogs (see the full article here):

"I find it odd that, in an age marked by an explosion of licentious antinomianism in the Church, most pastors are preoccupied with 'legalism' so-called. Teenagers in the church can be fornicating with one another; wives can be leading their husbands around by the nose; or husbands can be passive and withdrawn from their responsibilities, but is this kind of open rebellion against the law of God attacked by pastors? Hardly. They’re too busy condemning the father whose daughters wear head coverings and Pilgrim dresses. 'Legalism!' he cries, and most of his sermons denounce such 'false piety,' while temple prostitution takes place right under his nose. It seems to me that our priorities are all bent out of shape. The primary problem in the Church today is not an over-zealous, legalistic application of God’s Word to all areas of life. The primary problem is rank, unadulterated antinomianism. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is theological pluralism. It’s the 'I’m okay, you’re okay' theology of syncretism. It’s the ear-tickling, hip, Burger King ('have it your way') Christianity. "

Pluralism unmasked

Found this on the Stand to Reason weblog. Wonder how many other pluralists would be willing to admit to their exclusivism?

Worldviews in Conflict

Felt the need to post this excerpt from Dr. Albert Mohler's blog:

"As Christians, we are unavoidably engaged in a great battle of worldviews--a conflict over the most basic issues of truth and meaning. A worldview that starts with the existence and sovereign authority of the self-revealing God of the Bible will be diametrically opposed to worldviews that deny God or engage in what we might call 'defining divinity down.'"

That pretty much sums it up. And it accurately reflects the words of Christ in John 14:6 -- "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Sounds pretty exclusivistic to me.