XLVI: Application of Christian Moral Authority in Society

20 October 2007 Common Era

One of the "constants" in American society has been the role of religion in the sphere of social activism. From abolition to abortion, much of the impetus to change societal views, attitudes, and standards has come from the voices of many of the religious persons of the day.

As we enter the twenty-first century, however, we are in the midst of a vast and rapid secularization of society, the origins of which were sown in the founding of our country. When this reality is paired with the "Christian nation" revisionism inherent in the Evangelical "Religious Right," we see the presence of a "culture war," where "god fearing Americans" are pitted against "godless secularists". The rhetoric in these conflicts is extremely heated, passion for the issues involved consume many of those involved, and not a few "life and death" struggles regarding serious issues are being waged. How should we, as Christians seeking to follow the New Testament, approach such matters?

It is in this arena where the contrast between the "Christian America" theology of Evangelicalism and Biblical views of church and state could not be clearer. While the presence and even preeminence of Christianity and its values in America is assumed in such Evangelical theology, the Bible itself never assumes it. Furthermore, it is assumed that it should be the ideal that the government reflect Christian values.

Such concepts, in reality, represent a misplaced idealism. As it is written:

Ye adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vain glory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever (1 John 2:15-17).

The reality, for many, is likely to be uncomfortable, yet undeniable: the United States of America is a worldly country. It is of the world. It will pass away with the world (if it does not do so beforehand). While we can certainly have fealty toward the country in some ways, to embrace it without any consideration of the difficulties present would be amiss.

For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:20).

The "secularization" of America does not represent a "loss of godliness" as much as a removal of the false mask and the ugly reality contained behind it. America has never been God's chosen nation, nor ever will be.

An unfortunate consequence of the primary Evangelical view is the expectation that Christians should work to make this country more godly through the political/legislative process, or through protest, complaint, and declaration of offense. Indeed, it would seem that the only people more "offended" in the world than "Christians" are Muslims! Any time some kind of immorality is advanced, or some anti-Christian sentiment expressed, Christians get "offended" and go and complain. Does this really sound like what we see in the New Testament?

Concerning the relationship between a Christian and his government, we are told the following:

Tell us therefore, "What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money."
And they brought unto him a denarius.
And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?" They say unto him, "Caesar's."
Then saith he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:17-21).

Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7).

I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king (1 Peter 2:13-17).

In the whole of the New Testament, these represent God's message to the Christian in regards to the government: obey them when they do not transgress God's commands. Pay them the taxes due and the honor due them. Pray for them...that we may have tranquil and quiet lives.

Concerning salvation, it is written,

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:16-17).

Concerning God and the world, it is written,

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought."
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1 Corinthians 1:19-25).

From these Scriptures, the message is plain: America is not going to become godly because Christians spent their days striving to legislate Christian values. If America is to become godly, it is because the Gospel is preached in America and souls are obedient to Christ Jesus. America will become "God's country" when its constituents humble themselves before the Almighty and serve Him first.

The moral authority of the Christian has little to do with himself and everything to do with the Gospel he is charged to promote (Matthew 28:18-20). As it is written,

But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

Sadly, the way that many in "Christendom" react to anything that is offensive to their faith is not to suffer the wrong but to complain and act as if the government should do something about it. The New Testament makes it crystal clear that no Christian is owed anything by secular governments. Yes, Christians in many ways are blessed to live in America, since there are many freedoms present not granted in other lands and the ability is theoretically present to participate in the government of the land.

But how are all of these freedoms being used today? They are almost universally being used toward negative directions-- protest, condemnation, chastisement, and so forth. That is not what we see in the New Testament!

Although Paul lived in the Roman Empire, ruled by a dictator clothed as an emperor, he had many freedoms as a Roman citizen. One such freedom was the right to appeal to Caesar and a trial in Rome (cf. Acts 25:11). Paul was given the opportunity to speak to many of the rulers of the land-- Felix, Festus, Agrippa, and Nero. When he spoke to them, did he bring up the "rights" of Christians, how badly the Jews were persecuting them, and how idolatry should be made illegal in the Roman Empire? No. He preached the Gospel (Acts 24-26). He utilized the freedoms and opportunities granted to him under Rome to further the progress of the Gospel.

Sadly, however, I fear that this is not the case in America. As opposed to taking the opportunity to teach the world about the seriousness of sexual sin of any stripe, God's plan for marriage, and salvation from sin in Christ Jesus, we see legislation to condemn "gay marriage". Sure, it's a sin for people to do that-- but why should we necessarily expect the government of a theoretically free society to care? The opportunity is presented to teach the truth, and instead Christians are made to look like intolerant bigots.

But perhaps the most lamentable tragedy has been in the case of the contest regarding abortion. Since 1973, a life-or-death contest has ensued in this country over whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Untold millions (likely billions) of dollars have been spent to organize protests, contacting of elected officials, material distribution, campaign contributions, etc., attempting to keep it legal or to make it illegal. Many have resorted to picketing abortion clinics and verbally condemning those who use its services.

Is abortion wrong and a moral evil? Absolutely. On the other hand, a majority of the citizens of the USA believe that a woman should have the option available to her. So much time and so many resources are being expended, therefore, in what looks to be an interminable battle.

Meanwhile, a local pregnancy crisis center was forced to reduce its services and programs by half because of lack of funding. If only a fraction of the dollars spent to ensure that pictures of aborted fetuses are placed in front of abortion clinics had been redirected, perhaps many other abortions would not have taken place.

And that's the tragedy with this issue. Many feel as if any form of "compromise" is a moral evil, and we should not be satisfied with anything less than abortion being made illegal.

What did Jesus say?

"But go ye and learn what this meaneth, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13).

And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, "Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?"
And she said, "No man, Lord."
And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more" (John 8:10-11).

The very people concerning whom the entire issue rotates-- women in situations contemplating abortion-- are being lost in the midst of the fight. How sad! After all, the power to end abortion is not in government. Even if legislation were enacted, abortions would still happen. Even if marriage is defined as involving a man and a woman, homosexuals will engage in committed relationships. The following is said about spiritual things, but is no less true about laws governing political entities:

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust (1 Timothy 1:8-11).

Depraved people who do not honor the Creator cannot be expected to follow earthly authorities, either (Romans 1:18-32). Where is our energy best directed?

In the end, brethren, we must stand firm and speak out against the moral evils of our society. In so doing, however, we ought not speak as sanctimonious hypocrites, as many allege and too many have actually been; we must point to the Gospel of Christ. To seek the government's aid is to put trust in men; the government is not God's intended vehicle for moral reformation, but the Gospel of His Son. The Gospel will save, not the laws of America. There is not one person who will be going to Heaven solely because he or she observed the laws of the United States of America. The only way that we are going to make it is by being obedient servants of God, promoting His Gospel.

Part of the promotion of that Gospel is the recognition of our own sinful past and the humble recognition that we are no better than those "nasty sinners" who do the things we condemn. As Jesus indicated to the adulterous woman, she should go and sin no more-- but we have no right to condemn her. We are, however, charged to show mercy. Most women don't have abortions because they really want to; most are forced into it, either by her family, the father and/or his family, or other factors. If but a portion of the funds being used to fight the contest in regards to the law were redirected to crisis centers and other venues, abortion rates would decline even further. If we worked to show mercy to women in difficult circumstances, we may not just save her from committing terrible sin but might even save her soul...and what are we really about here?

I am not trying to condemn political action per se...neither am I trying to say that it would be a terrible thing to make abortion illegal in this country, or some other such thing. What I am trying to demonstrate, from the Scriptures, is that the moral authority of the Christian rests in the promotion of the Gospel in word and deed. Time is short; our resources are limited; we must make sure that we do all that we can to promote God's message while we still have the time and so does our fellow man. We must make sure that our priorities are properly centered on Jesus Christ, His Kingdom, and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33, Philippians 3:20, Colossians 1:13), and that our energies are expended in His service first and foremost. We must recognize that the government is fallible, of the earth, going to pass away, and invariably will not be pleasing to God because it represents, on the whole, people who are not pleasing to Him.

If we are doing what is right, society will see us as people who do their best to love their fellow man, showing mercy to them as we have received mercy. Even though society may be against us, we have the moral imperative to conduct ourselves so as to give them no opportunity to blaspheme, as it is written:

But even if ye should suffer for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye: and fear not their fear, neither be troubled; but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing (1 Peter 3:14-17).

Let us live according to this standard: when we speak and act, people see Jesus speaking and acting in us, and that we are humble and faithful servants, representatives, and ambassadors of Him and His Kingdom.

ELDV

XLV: Global Warming

17 October 2007 Common Era

Global warming has been the major environmental issue of the day. With Al Gore's recent Nobel Peace prize for his work on global warming, I figured that it was time to speak about the matter.
As I begin, let me say that I am no scientist; I freely admit that there are a lot of complexities of our climate and climatology that I do not fully understand. On the other hand, I am a student of history and the Scriptures...and there is much that is going on in our world today that concerns me.

One of the benefits of the modern interdisciplinary fad has been a greater understanding of the relationship between climate (and other aspects of the physical sciences) and history. There are many that have spoken regarding such matters. In terms of climate, human actions, and the fortune of societies, I highly recommend Jared Diamond's book, Collapse (likewise, his Guns, Germs, and Steel is absolutely necessary for understanding why things have turned out as they are).

Anyway...when the climatological history of the world in the "historical age" is compared with the vicissitudes of civilization, interesting patterns emerge. It would seem that pretty much every major disruption of civilization was somehow impacted by climate change.

For instance, we have the end of the Bronze Age between 1250-1190. Within two generations, civilization in general declined, with Mycenaean Greece and the Hittite empire falling off the map entirely. What happened? A string of years of drought following years of plenty, too many mouths for too little food, war to obtain food resources, leading to piracy (the Sea Peoples) and the collapse of civilization.

During the end of the Roman empire, the temperature of the earth declined slightly (possibly as a result of a meteorite collision); the period between 400-800 is marked by constant war, mobilization of persons, complete instability in northern Europe, and the darkest part of the Dark Ages.

The next part of the medieval period saw a warming (especially between 950-1300); population increased, greater political stability was established, and things were well. Then there was, as it is called, the "little Ice Age," the effects of which persevered until 1900. What happened when the temperature declined a degree or two overall? The Hundred Years' War, the Black Death, and the Wars of Religion culminating in the Thirty Years' War.

This situation is made clear specifically when seeing the Norse colony on Greenland: established at the turn of the millennium while it was warmer, it persevered until...the middle fourteenth century, when the colony was abandoned.

The situation is not dire only when the temperature cools down. While medieval Europe benefited from the warming period at the turn of the millennium, the Mayan civilization did not. The warming might have helped Europe, but it likely disrupted the monsoon seasons in the equatorial regions, and the loss of water likely hastened the decline of the Mayan Empire.

I provide all of these historical examples to illustrate a simple truth: our material prosperity is based on a planet that works well in a delicate balance. David marveled at how he was fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:14); this is no less true of the creation, and if science has demonstrated anything of value to us, it is just how complex our world is. Up here in the north, we are able to survive the cold winters because of the warmer summers; the constant fronts pass over us and provide rain on occasion, allowing plants to grow. Likewise, the ocean has plenty of water currents that allow some areas to be cooler and others warmer. Further south, the monsoons come and provide the necessary rainfall to sustain life. All of these things are in a delicate balance, and they are easily thrown off.

The Industrial Revolution has allowed mankind to have a vastly larger footprint on our world than ever before. We dig things out of the ground in vast quantities, change and adapt the surface to our liking, and impact the entire globe. Thanks to us, mercury levels are higher in fish throughout the world. Thanks to us, non-native species have spread throughout the entire world. Thanks to us, many chemicals and other such things that were buried underneath the earth are now in our atmosphere.

If the earth hangs in a delicate balance, the atmosphere more so. Ozone gets depleted, people in Chile burn. Volcanoes erupt, meteorites or comets collide with earth, and plenty of dust and other matter enters the atmosphere, and the earth cools (hence the "cooler" mid-90s: thank Mt. Pinatubo). When tons and tons of this material from the center of the earth gets in the atmosphere, the climate changes.

Thanks to the Industrial Revolution and the population boom of the 20th century, there is more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than ever before. That is really not a questionable reality: the evidence is there. The question, of course, is what that means.

Likewise, temperatures are hotter. That is also not deniable. Many of the hottest years on record have occurred within the past decade. Storms like Katrina, floods and droughts that we see happening more often attest to what happens when the temperature of the earth rises. Things get out of balance. Weather gets more extreme. Extreme heat is followed by extreme cold. Drought is met by flooding.

The standard claim is that this is not due to us but "natural cycles". I haven't heard many scientists denying that natural cycles have a role; in fact, the Earth has been trying to get warmer for a few centuries, but was hindered by many volcano explosions (like Krakatoa in 1883, etc.). Sure, we're in the part of the cycle that is warmer. But how does this necessarily exclude human impact? Is it not entirely possible that we are in a warming cycle and are in fact making it worse?

I share the puzzlement of many others regarding the standard Christian reaction to this concept. I understand why political conservatives are against the idea that we have a share of the blame for the current warming cycle: political conservatives tend to favor corporations and modern corporate practice; anything done about global warming would lead to short-term difficulties for corporations, and few corporations like that idea. But what bone do religious conservatives have in this conflict?

From what I have seen, it would seem that many hold to the idea that mankind cannot destroy the earth, based on passages like Genesis 8:21-22:

And the LORD smelled the sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

It is reasoned from passages like this that since the seasons will always remain, mankind cannot disrupt the environment.

The only problem with this argument is that it attempts to prove too much. No scientist is claiming that seasons will no longer exist; in reality, seasons will simply become more severe. There will be colder and hotter times, greater blizzards and floods, more severe drought. Yes, the earth will still be here when the Lord returns (2 Peter 3:8-10); I am not disputing that.

There is no verse in Scripture, however, that establishes that we cannot make the world miserable for us, or that how we treat the earth has no consequences. In fact, I do believe that the Bible says the following:

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Galatians 6:7).

We have abused the earth for nearly 200 years. By our excesses, many species have become extinct or nearly extinct. We, especially in the "developed world", use resources at a rate that cannot continue indefinitely. If everyone in the world had the standard of living of Americans, we would need at least three earths to supply the resources necessary. We, in America, have so much, and part of that is because so many others have so little.

If the earth is warming because of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trapping in the sun's heat, we are merely reaping what we have sown. We put it up there. We like our industrial lifestyles.

The solutions for this crisis are really not difficult; we can all strive to be less inefficient, and industrial processes can be updated to minimize emissions. With $3/gallon gasoline a reality, most of us would like a viable alternative, and more efficiency if nothing else. The technology is available, and we can eliminate our impact: it is just a matter of will.

And where there is no pressure, there is no will. Humans like to do things the way they've always done them, even to their own expense, as will be shown below.

This is what I fail to understand: I know of no scientist or person who has the ability to have the confidence to declare it impossible that part of the warming we're experiencing is due to human impact. The best that can be argued is that "we don't know" and "there's not enough evidence".

Maybe I'm just naive, but if the technology exists to eliminate the majority of our carbon dioxide footprint, why would we not be using it? The technology involved will lead to long-term financial benefit thanks to greater resource preservation, so it even makes financial sense. If we remove our carbon footprint and the earth still warms, we at least know that we bear no responsibility for it. But what if it is true that our carbon emissions are warming the globe, and we do nothing?

Many are wondering why Gore deserves a peace prize for what he has done. Personally, I believe that it's a bit of a stretch: the Nobel people are making a political statement by their choice. On the other hand, what was one of the consequences of climate change? War, and war on a great scale.

This is the great tragedy unfolding. Global warming, if it continues as it is going, will lead to further disruption of the monsoon season and the heightening of storms. Some will be flooded out while others starve in drought. This will be most acutely felt in the equatorial districts, already the poorest areas of the world. There will be more mouths to feed than food available, and the inevitable death toll due to famine or war will be numbing. If the glaciers continue to melt and are able to disrupt the currents in the north Atlantic, all of northern Europe and North America north of the Ohio will be all but inhospitable to most people thanks to the ice that will move in. Furthermore, if the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica melt, it is very likely that many coastlines will recede. Bangladesh, a poor country near India that is basically a river delta as it is, is already about to vanish thanks to the loss of wetlands and rising oceans. It's a sobering reality.

It can happen; it has happened before. As I conclude, I want to focus on two examples: Easter Island and Greenland.

By all accounts, Easter Island at one time was a quite nice island, full of trees and birds and many natural resources. It was settled by Polynesians who proceeded to exhaust most of the natural resources. Every tree on the island was cut down. Sure, the process happened gradually, and the individual who cut down the last tree probably didn't think about what he was doing (or even aware that he was doing it). The land could simply not support its population: conflict ensued, most of the population died off, and when European explorers finally found the stripped island, the human population was but a shadow of its former size.

More relevant to us is the example of Greenland. The Norse came to Greenland during a time of relative warmth and were able to found two communities. They brought their Norse way of life with them, involving crops and domesticated animals. They traded with the local Inuit, sure, but never really added fish to their diet or did much adaptation to their particular environment. They continued as they always did, even when it got to be colder. Even when the land was not as fertile, they tried planting crops; when they failed, they ate the last of their cattle and things. Some perished in conflicts with the Inuit; some perhaps sailed back to Norway. All those who remained died. In their stratified society, the rich kept a lot of the resources, so that the poor died out first. What did the rich gain for their inflexibility and hoarding of resources? The "honor" of dying last.

All of these people reaped what they sowed. When you tax a land that cannot support a population, the population will reduce. When you have certain rigid ways of life based upon a certain climactic expectation, and that climate changes, you either adapt or die.

We cannot keep sowing as we have been sowing and expect the earth to continue to be as it always has been. Sure, this earth will always be here: but there's no indication that the earth will keep its current population, and there's no requirement that the earth be as nice as it has been to us in past years.

We have been given stewardship of this planet. I do not understand the attitude of "God gave us this planet to use, so let us use it to whatever excess we desire." This sounds to me just like the man who tore down his barns and built bigger ones. Christians are called to be temperate people and self-controlled, no (1 Peter 4:7)? Yet we live in a society of excess. We throw more garbage away in a year than Jesus probably ever generated in His whole life. We act in ways entirely consistent with the Roman elite of Jesus' day in our "throw away" society.

I just hope that I'm not judged on the Judgment day for how we have abused our world. I hate to think that my excess and the niceties of life that I enjoy will cause starvation, death, and all manner of evils for people I do not know in other parts of the world...and desperately hope that God will have mercy on me for it.

In the end, I think that we need to take global warming seriously, along with the larger issues of our relationship to our environment and the use of resources. Where to go from here as individuals? I really don't know.

ELDV

XLIV: Yoked to the Religious Right?

16 October 2007 Common Era

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said,
"I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem. And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat,
"Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the LORD? for this thing wrath is upon thee from before the LORD. Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast put away the Asheroth out of the land, and hast set thy heart to seek God" (2 Chronicles 19:1-3).

It has been said that the two subjects that you do not bring up in polite conversation are religion and politics. I suppose that makes any discussion of politics in religion doubly difficult. On the other hand, a trend has developed among some brethren over the past fifteen to twenty years that is rather disturbing.

Around 1979 a major political force burst on the scene-- the "Religious Right", or the "Moral Majority". This is a movement that is predominantly Evangelical, and desired to give a voice and a political bloc for a large group of fundamentalist Evangelicals.

From what I have seen among the writing of brethren during the first years of this trend, a healthy ambivalence and desire for avoidance was promoted. Many then warned about allying with such persons with whom we have so much doctrinal disagreement.

That was before 1990. Since then, many among the brethren have entirely bought into the concept of the Religious Right, including their tactics and worldview.

This, brethren, is disturbing-- not necessarily on a political level per se, but religious. The issue is not the particular political stances, but buying into this manifestation of Evangelical thought and reasoning, much of which is simply not Biblical. My concern here is less political than it is spiritual: when one aligns oneself to the Religious Right, to what is one yoked?

1. The myth of the "Christian nation". In the past twenty-five to fifty years, a particular view of the origins of this country have been promulgated that thinly veil the idealization of America as a "Christian nation." When one considers the hermeneutics prevalent among Evangelicals, the concept makes sense. Oftentimes Evangelicals will apply Old Testament concepts into the new covenant without any consideration as to difference in context; likewise, since the concept of distance between text and believer is abhorrent to fundamentalism, any passage is understood as being spoken to us now. What I mean by this may be exemplified by a sign I saw in front of an Evangelical church in Rockford; the sign read, "Possessing this land for the Lord", and it went on to quote a verse in Deuteronomy. When the language of the Old Testament involving Israel the physical nation is transferred to the modern day without critical analysis, we get the common conception of America as the new Israel. This view is then retrojected into the past, and the American Revolution and the founding of America functions like Israel's exodus and conquest, and all the concepts of God blessing His people and so on and so forth is projected upon America itself.

Don't believe me yet? Consider the following:

"America's uniqueness is in the Christian consensus of the Founding Fathers, who penned documents guaranteeing religious and personal freedom for all. This nation was not founded by atheists, secularizers, or monarchists who thought the elite educated class should rule over the common people. America's founding was based more on biblical principles than any other nation's on Earth-- and that's the reason this country has been more blessed by God than any other nation in history" (Tim LaHaye, "The American Idea: Godless Society", The Atlantic Monthly, November 2007, 44-45).

And that's a tame way to put it!

This is an exceedingly dangerous view, for many reasons. First of all, it revises American history to suit the Evangelical agenda. The Founding Fathers have been ripped apart in the modern argument about their religiosity or lack thereof, and quotes are supplied by both sides to justify their positions. In the end, the truth is in the middle. Yes, most people were at least professing Christians in the late eighteenth century. On the other hand, America was not established in a "Christian consensus." It was founded by some "secularizers", Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin included. It was not founded on biblical as much as French Enlightenment principles.

Regardless, the main problem is the projection of Israel upon America. That LaHaye sees things in terms of physical kingdoms is not surprising (see #2 below), but we recognize that God's Kingdom now is spiritual, not physical (John 18:36, Colossians 1:13, Philippians 3:20). America is not Israel: we today are under a different covenant with better promises, and that is extremely good, because otherwise America and its people would in no way be inheritors of any promise!

What is most dangerous about this viewpoint is that it requires the presupposition that America was this Christian country that has been overrun by secularists and other religions. All this indicates is that the prevalence of "Christianity" as seen in the periods of 1650-1700 and 1790-1860 were deceptive: they were the exception, not the rule. Before the second Great Awakening (the latter timeframe mentioned above), most of the frontier was all but "godless", and it looked that the secular goals of the Enlightenment would be achieved in America. The same situation was true earlier in the seventeenth century. When one sees the reality of history from the first century to the present, any large proportion of fully practicing "Christian" persons is the exception, not the rule. America did not all of a sudden "turn secular"; America had some phases of professed religiosity and then returned to the status quo.

Should this surprise us? Absolutely not, if we believe that Matthew 7:13-14 is true. How can we cling to such a view of history, if we indeed believe that denominationalism is not true Christianity?

In the end, I cannot see how LaHaye has the right to say that "God has blessed America because it was founded on biblical principles". We have no idea why God has blessed America. We would mock and laugh if A. Romanus Christianus stood up in the second century in Rome and said, "God has blessed Rome with peace because it was founded by God." We realize that Rome was blessed because it served God's purposes, providing the infrastructure to promote His Gospel and to have vengeance on the Jews. Why did God bless Assyria? Why did God bless Babylon?

Sure, we all know that all those empires were really godless and did wicked things and were full of wicked people. This is all true: this is why all those empires fell. But guess what? We have a lot of godlessness around here, and that didn't start 25 years ago. America has done many wicked things throughout its history, and has acted in godless ways far too often.

If America fell tomorrow, or in a decade, or in a few decades, what is left of LaHaye's statement? If, say, China rises to prominence, will we then turn and say that God is blessing them because of how "biblical" they are?

In a time of God's spiritual Kingdom, arguing any reason why God blesses or does not bless a physical nation is tendentious indeed. In the end, if America is as Israel, it's for all the wrong reasons: a majority who conform to everyone else, following a perverted form of true religion, with a small minority remnant following God. America is not a Christian nation, never has been, never will be-- at best, America is a land with many Christians, but the very idea of a "Christian nation" should be abhorrent. If Jesus would not establish one, why should we?

2. Premillennialism. The Religious Right's view of foreign policy (and, it can be argued, environmentalism) flows directly from the premillennial presuppositions of its majority. If you believe that the Antichrist must desecrate the Jewish Temple so that Jesus can return, guess what you're going to think about Israel?

I have no desire to get into an argument as to whether the United States should support the nation of Israel. What is indisputable, however, is that we have allowed, justified, or tolerated innumerable evils committed by Israel for various reasons, and the Arab world is inherently suspicious of us and stands against us on account of our unwavering support of Israel. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II-- all have been directly influenced to support Israel on the basis of premillennial belief. If it were not for the prevalence of dispensational premillennialism in this country, our relationship with Israel would not be as it is. This embracing of Israel is at least partly responsible for the prevalence of terrorism and the fueling of terrorism against us by factions of the Islamic world.

Likewise, the view that Jesus will take us out of this world really soon has led many to treat the environment in irresponsible ways-- after all, if it's about to get thrown out anyway, why bother worrying about how we treat it? This does not sound like responsible stewardship and self-control to me.

Eschatology matters; how can we be yoked to persons who advocate such beliefs?

3. Legislating morality. This is the one aspect that should cause some cognitive dissonance in the Religious Right: if America was so clearly founded on biblical principles, why did the Founding Fathers not legislate, say, the ten commandments? Or some other such moral code from the Bible? Why do the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrine liberties and rights, not bothering to legislate morality?

The reason is that the Founding Fathers realized that the legislation of morality turns the government into a "parent state". The more legislation enacted by a government, the more pervasive (and tyrannical) that government becomes. There were plenty of examples of governments legislating morality-- they were the old monarchies of Europe, the very thing that Americans were trying to avoid.

No, the Founding Fathers recognized one essential trait of mankind: you can't force anyone to do anything. They established their structure of government to preserve and enshrine freedom, and hoped that the people would follow a moral code independent of government legislation.

This concept of government is actually extremely advanced and mature. It is always easier for a government to declare martial law or a "police state", and strictly legislate the conduct of its constituents. America is founded, if anything, on the principle of trust: America treats us like adults, expecting us to monitor and police our own conduct.

Yet the Religious Right, paradoxically, is about lessening the government's role in social programs while heightening the role of government in terms of personal conduct. This goes back to the concept of America as the Christian nation: even though it might not be necessary before, it is now necessary to legislate Christian perspective.

This is one step away from theocracy, and it ought to be disturbing on many levels. First of all, who says that the Religious Right will stop with mere "morality"? Remember-- Evangelicals don't take to us "water rats" too kindly.

I've heard Proverbs 14:34 quoted all the time: "righteousness exalts a nation." The statement is absolutely true, and I agree with it-- but it has never been realized. It was spoken by an idolater in the midst of an idolatrous nation. Israel was rarely "righteous". Assyria, Babylon, Rome, France, England, America-- none "righteous". In the end, people are righteous or unrighteous, and that will be chosen by those people, regardless of what "laws" are on the books.

What is legislation of morality really trying to accomplish? A salve to make us all feel better? How can we feel better if, say, abortion is made illegal but drinking is still lawful? Let's say that the Religious Right actually gets what it wants: abortion is made illegal across the board. What happens then? I can already see what will happen: "we win", and the problem "goes away". Never mind that abortions will still go on, even if "illegal," and plenty of young women and young couples are left in dire straits and require compassion and mercy.

Yes, abortion is wrong. Yes, sin is a problem in this country. But the solution, according to the Bible, is not for a country to declare it illegal. If one is going to be in rebellion against God by committing that which is lawless in His sight, one is not automatically going to give pause because man's government says it's wrong. Furthermore, is this not putting more faith in government than God, expecting legislation to cure moral ills? This is not Biblical!

The only recourse is obedience to God-- the promotion of the Gospel (Romans 10). Consider again Romans 1:18-32. What is the source of man's depravity? The rejection of God (Romans 1:18-23)! From this the depravity continues. When man becomes convinced that he mutated from sludge and is the highest intelligence in the universe, why should we who know better trust in man's legislation to compel such ones to be "moral"? To respect God's law requires respecting God. To live a truly moral life requires a healthy understanding of authority and the power of authority, and without a recognition of God, such cannot exist. The solution to the problem is the Gospel, not legislation.

The New Testament provides a picture of Christians united under the Gospel of Christ as part of His spiritual Kingdom, proclaiming to all who will listen that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. When Christians came before authorities, they testified of Jesus. Their obsession was the promulgation of God's Kingdom, not man's.

The Religious Right has corrupted this message, projecting old covenant concepts of an elect nation upon a nation that does not deserve the title. They now protest everything, indicating that they are "losing" their battle to "retake" America. When you see what the Religious Right is about and what they are doing, and you see what Christians in the New Testament are about and what they were doing, the contrast could not be more clear.

Consider again 2 Corinthians 6. How can we be yoked to such persons when we are to have such different views? What concord can we have when we understand the end of time so differently? What portion can a spiritual Kingdom have with a physical nation?

I quoted 2 Chronicles about Jehoshaphat because I believe that his example speaks clearly in regards to these matters. God loved Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat did many things pleasing to God, but when he went out in alliance with Ahab against Aram, the prophet Jehu comes and asks him, "Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the LORD?" He says this about an Israelite-- Ahab-- who would profess to be a worshiper of YHWH and part of God's elect. Sure, Aram represented a nation that was hostile to both Israel and Judah; after all, according to worldly wisdom, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In spiritual terms, however, this is not the case. The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy because we're not on the same path.

This is not an intent to persuade anyone to agree with my political opinions. I believe that one can hold to "conservative" political opinions about many matters without being in concert with the Religious Right. As established above, my concern is with associating with the Religious Right, even if there are times where our goals would seem similar. Our fealty is always first to Christ, and we must never allow some superficial similarities on certain matters to cloud the very substantive differences underneath.

ELDV