Michael Horton's Recent Critque of Evangelicals

The title of Michael Horton’s Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church is emblematic of this  piece, which appeared in Christianity Today  (CT) last month. 

First, the title of the book. Is there such a thing as a Christless Christianity? For that matter, is there an alternative gospel? A Christless Christianity is no Christianity. (1 Corinthians 1:23) Christianity has a way of being binary in that regard. And as for the gospel, if it’s “another” gospel, then it’s “really not another” but rather a contrary gospel that is to be accursed by the church. (Galatians 1:7-8)

So, obviously, Horton does not think there is literally a "Christless Christianity" or an alternative gospel in the Christian church, let alone the American church. Indeed, he wrote so much just a few pages into the book. “Second, I am not arguing in this book that we have arrived at Christless Christianity but that we are well on our way.”

This sort of walking back harsh and alarming rhetoric has come to be expected from Horton. The recent CT article is no different.

Horton announces that President Trump said, we’re “one election away from losing everything.”

Horton is correct here. “As evangelicals, we would do well to correct the president on this point. If an election can cause us to lose everything, what is it exactly that we have in the first place?”

But is he really correct? Horton is definitely not correct if we recognize that Trump didn’t mean our eternal soul (or even Mar-a-Lago for that matter). Obviously, Trump didn’t mean literally (in an exhaustive sense) “everything.” A context of political momentum places boundaries around “everything.”  But to acknowledge that would have left no reason to have written this particular article. 

But let’s see what else he says.

Surely we can be grateful for any public servant who upholds the First Amendment. And we should applaud fellow believers who ply their education and experience as lawyers to defend religious freedom (as long as they don’t seek to privilege Christianity legally above other religions).

I’m not sure what Horton has in mind by “privilege,” but I have no problem seeking Christian privilege over some of the privileges that might be sought by adherents of other world religions. I know of one religion that condones polygamy. How about one that offers celestial reward for flying airplanes into buildings? I have no reason to believe that orthodox Mormons and Muslims would not want to gain equal protection under the law, like the privilege Christians enjoy in partaking sacramental bread and wine without fear of molestation. Should Rastafarianism, with its sacrament of ganja (or “wisdom weed”), get a seat at the table of the religious privileged? How about the occult?

Something tremendous is at stake here: whether evangelical Christians place their faith more in Caesar and his kingdom than in Christ and his reign. On that one, we do have everything to lose—this November and every other election cycle. When we seek special political favors for the church, we communicate to the masses that Christ’s kingdom is just another demographic in the US electorate.

Let’s take a closer look at whether evangelicals place their faith more in Caesar than Christ. If one trusts government for eternal life, they’re not an evangelical. So, when Horton refers to one who would “place their faith more in x than y,” what is he saying? Surely the Christian, by definition, places that which is most valuable in the hands of the right Person.

The word “more” is in this instance Horton’s free pass. In one very qualified sense, I have more hope in government to curtail policy than I do in God. But that’s because I believe in the Christian doctrine of decree and second causes. God is the ultimate cause of all things, but he accomplishes his decree through means – even government. (That's why I don't hope that God picks me up at the airport. I hope that Lisa does.) So, it’s not un-Christian to “hope” that legal abortion ends through legislation, or if need be from the bench. To place my hope in God without acting is fatalism. To act without prayer is humanism. It’s difficult to say much more on the matter given the vague rhetoric that permeates the article.

Let’s face it. Liberal and conservative, Catholic and Protestant, have courted political power and happily allowed themselves to be used by it. This always happens when the church confuses the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this present age.

If to court "political power" means to lobby for better laws, then there’s nothing contrary to the gospel about it. To be “happily… used by it” certainly sounds sinful; so I’ll concede on that to make a simple point. The former does not imply the latter!

As for, “this always happens when the church…” – that is such a nebulous remark it’s difficult to comment.

“Jesus came not to jump-start the theocracy in Israel, much less to be the founding father of any other nation.”

No, Jesus came to make disciples of all nations. Horton’s problem is that Christ’s offices of Prophet and Priest have seemed to eclipse his appreciation for Christ as King.

“Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and a long period afterward that would be marked simultaneously by persecution and expansion of his kingdom. How? Armed with nothing more than his gospel, baptism, and the Supper, fueled by the freedom of grace and love of all people, the low and the high, who need to hear this saving message.”

That’s terribly simplistic. First off, the gospel is meaningless apart from law. Any good Lutheran (or Presbyterian) knows that. Secondly, the erosion of cultural norms, which were shaped by natural law and the Bible, has done much to distort the moral backdrop against which the gospel is intended to be understood. Consequently, (i) resurrecting just laws, (ii) calling abortion murder and homosexuality an abomination, and (iii) courting political power - all, in their proper place, complements the gospel mission. It does not detract from it when done properly before God.

If one wants to talk about real violence against Christians, surely the persecution of the early Christians should count. Yet every New Testament command on the subject calls us to love and pray for our enemies with the confidence that Christ is still building his church.

Does admonishment and rebuke; a clarion call to repentance; the warning of imminent judgment; shaking the dust off one’s feet; and imprecatory prayer – in any way undermine one’s confidence that Christ is building his church? Given the passivity Horton seems to describe, I’m not sure the church would ever get persecuted (after having given up its place in the world).

Now for the dialing back of harsh words:

This is not to say we should have no concern at all about the state of our nation. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to avoid the responsibilities of our temporary citizenship, even though our ultimate citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). However, many of us sound like we’ve staked everything not only on constitutional freedoms but also on social respect, acceptance, and even power. But that comes at the cost of confusing the gospel with Christian nationalism.

Well maybe Horton is wanting people to sound the same way in all conversations. When speaking about politics, one needn't insert at every turn his hope in Christ. Secondly, if Horton does not recognize what is at stake in this country, there’s not much more one can say.

In his Great Commission, Jesus gave authority to the church to make disciples, not citizens; to proclaim the gospel, not political opinions;

That’s a bit equivocal. The church as an institution is one thing. The church comprised of individual professing believers is another. Certainly, the citizens of heaven, as sojourners on this earth, may proclaim political opinions. Or as Horton put is elsewhere, “Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to avoid the responsibilities of our temporary citizenship…” Is Horton's issue with Christian pulpits, or is it with politically minded Christians who don't share his sense of balance? Let's not forget - God created both the heavens and the earth.

Anyone who believes, much less preaches, that evangelical Christians are “one election away from losing everything” in November has forgotten how to sing the psalmist’s warning, “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save” (Ps. 146:3).

Remember, it was not a pastor, nor a layman known for his theological acumen, who made the statement from which Horton launches into his critique of Evangelicals. No, it was President Donald Trump who is known for hyperbolic tweets and pithy sound bites that people tend to remember.

As a final thought, "Losing everything” on an election is antithetical to true Christianity. So, either the statement was not intended to be taken literally or it’s the conviction of an unbeliever. Either way, Horton's critique becomes irrelevant.

Trump, grammar, partisanship and hypocrisy....

""I will tell you," Trump told Hannity, "you cannot disrespect our country, our flag, our anthem, you cannot do that.""

I must believe the President doesn't mean "cannot," proven by the fact that people often do. So, at best, he either means "may not" or "should not." If the former, then he's at odds with Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which concludes that flag burning is "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.*

Yet if all the POTUS means is "should not," then I'm fine with him holding to that opinion, which I share strongly, as long as he realizes that people *can* commit incendiary acts, even under the protection of the law. They can and they may.

What possibly amuses me most in all this chatter, maybe aside from the partisan imprecision I sometimes (sometimes often?) find with Sean Hannity, is that such extreme forms of protest are typically found only among *extreme* liberals; yet mainstream media refuses to admit that such behavior is at least a bit outside the norm, let alone completely out of step with what America stands for in principle. How did such truthfulness become only a conservative virtue? Or is it situational? If conservative athletes took a knee during the previous eight years, would it have been the protesting athletes or Obama's policies that would have received the blame by conservatives? There's good reason to think the latter. Yet should being right on an issue afford sympathy toward those who'd protest in objectionable ways? I should say not. As Michael Corleone aptly stated to the infamous senator from Nevada, "We're both of the same hypocrisy..." Until either side admits hypocrisy applies at least minimally to their own dealings, good luck.

What's at play here is both parties and the networks won't give an inch on the political field. Their fear is the moral equivalency factor. I won't acknowledge my wrong doing in fear that you won't acknowledge yours and yours is much worse! The moral equivalency factor gives way to "justifying" eclipsing of truth and telling outright lies in order to win an argument. Bias reporting is now somehow justified as long as the other side is behaving more unseemly than we. (No doubt, the ungodly are more comfortable among liberals. There isn't a moral equivalency between the parties, but that's not the point. Read on...)

Christians are governed by a radically different standard. A standard that often calls us to give up yardage in this world. A standard that requires us to acknowledge guilt, regardless of how little we think it compares to that of our opponents.

At the very least, all conservatives are to be about Rule of Law, but too often Rule of Law doesn't enter into the discussion when it undermines the point we'd like to make. Expedience trumps integrity. (Apropos Rule of Law - disrespecting our country is legal, whether we like it or not. Yet the Right is conspicuously silent on the constitutional rights of these juvenile knee-takers. Just like the Left refuses to acknowledge the inappropriateness of such outrageous behavior.)

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is much is permitted in this great country of ours under the rubric of "freedom of speech." For instance, we have this "American" idea that even blasphemy should be legal lest we become like a Muslim state. Where did that come from? False dilemma, obviously, but our schools don't teach critical thinking. Maybe that's where it comes from? No, bad reasoning is an ethical matter more than one of aptitude or education. Intelligent people can appear quite foolish when on the wrong side of an issue. Stephen Hawking.

Well, I'd say states' rights got swallowed up by the Federal Government long ago. I'd also say Texas pretty much had it right on this issue of flag desecration back in '89. (Though their criminal appeals court did rule contrary to the states' original ruling and subsequent appeal, as did the SCOTUS.)

Given the perpetual erosion of states' rights, maybe we can at least uphold NFL owners' rights? While I'm hoping, maybe players might one day consider taking a knee in church on Sunday - before heading off to work, of course. *sigh*

Truth may and can triumph over party. And, it most certainly should.

(*Antonin Scalia was in the 5-4 majority. Yet interestingly enough, what ended up being a defining moment in legalizing U.S. defiance took place during the 1984 Republican National Convention due to "disagreement" over certain Reagan policies. Be careful whom you appoint I guess. Oh well... If only man-on-the-street Jesse Watters could've interviewed the communist activist that night in '89 on the depth and breadth of his ideology.)

Triablogue on SCOTUS's recent ruling

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/06/watching-lions-at-kill.html?m=1

O'Reilly, Bloomberg and Saint Paul

"I've always felt there is a battle between good and evil and if there is a heaven you have to earn your way in through your actions on Earth." Bill O’Reilly / Roman Catholic (true to his Catholicism) 

“I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.” Michael Bloomberg / Reformed Jew (true to his Judaism)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Apostle Paul / Follower of Christ (true to the Scriptures) 

I don't typically watch Bill O'Reilly. (I don't typically watch much of anything not having cable television!) However, I made an exception last night from my hotel room because I wanted to hear how O'Reilly handled the topic of the after life.

After putting forth a doctrine of salvation by works, O'Reilly went on to express most ardently that he hopes that justice will prevail at the final judgment. O'Reilly couldn't have been more clear. Bill O'Reilly does not need God's mercy and grace. He, also, hopes others will receive the justice they deserve. (I prayed for this lost soul at various times throughout the day. Many verses came to mind, especially that Christ didn't come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.) Bill O'Reilly is self-righteous and, therefore, on his way to hell.*

I heard the Bloomberg quote on CNBC while driving home. Had I not heard his quote I would not have blogged on this matter.

Bloomberg is a blasphemer. The difference between him and O'Reilly is one of degree. Bloomberg has tried to convince himself (and others) that he has already earned heaven whereas O'Reilly, at best, tries to project that he can and hopefully will merit heaven. That's a distinction without a relevant difference in the grand scheme of things.

I guess it's now time to pray for Michael Bloomberg.

*If we cannot pronounce God's curses based upon His word, then we forgo the right to pronounce God's blessings. When O'Reilly professes that he is saved by God's grace alone, then it can be said that he is on his way to Heaven. It is not biblical to say one can be saved now while they clearly profess that they are trusting in self-merit alone.

"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator..."

Obama would use government to undermine what he considers the injustice (if not evil) of wealth disparity. Republicans believe in principle the same things, just more subtly and probably to a lesser degree. For instance, Republicans have no problem helping all people become educated through government schools funded by taxes. So why shouldn’t the government keep us healthy in the same way, through government "tax" dollars? It wasn’t Obama who ushered in the seeds of Socialism. Our progressive tax tables (originally aimed to fund the Civil War and later exasperated by the Great Depression and WWII); the new deal under FDR; and government education all preceded Obama’s birth. These are all means of “spreading the wealth” that are intrinsic to both parties. America has been on this road for a long, long time. One must either be a hypocrite or unthinking to accuse any particular party or candidate while giving a pass to others who do the same. (I'm not engaging in name calling here. I'm merely pointing out that those who accuse Obama and not the GOP are either ignorant of their own leanings or else unjust in their dealings.)

Moreover, Obama-socialism comports rather nicely with the recent bailouts of the Great Recession, supported by both parties. The bailouts were a difficult matter but only if predicated upon the question of defending our nation (the national security question). It could have been argued, I suppose, that an economic collapse would have put national security at risk, hence the need for a bailout. I don’t find that premise particularly persuasive, but that was the only possible rationale I could think of three to four years ago to justify the "loan" from a constitutional posture.

Reformed folk (whether R2K or stridently theonomic) have always grasped that the Bible doesn’t provide a blue print for economic theory, though it does speak in principle to questions pertaining to the three spheres of government - family, church and civil. Fathers and mothers are to discipline children and individuals are entrusted with feeding the poor. The church serves the Supper, and shows acts of mercy (along with individuals). The government wields the sword. Once we conflate those sorts of boundaries chaos sets in. That’s what we now have. People are to "render unto Caesar" taxes, but nowhere does God grant government the liberty to extort money at the end of a gun in the manner that both Republicans and Democrats have become so accustom. This is why I find the entire outrage over ObamaCare to be a mock horror. Sure ObamaCare is wrong; that’s obvious. But on what ground do we object to the theft of ObamaCare and not the laws and taxes regarding child education? How is nationalized health care any more insidious than national education? How is the “no child left behind act” constitutional and not a form of spreading the wealth? Faith based initiatives? Come now, Christian.

It is striking to me that both parties want to help their preferred classes of people who will indeed decide any election - the rich and the middle class. But God’s word would have us be concerned only for the financial betterment of the lowest income strata, who when at no fault of their own need financial aid. Even with Scripture's emphasis on  helping the (non-slothful) poor, the true privilege and obligation to extend financial charity always falls upon individuals and the church, not government. Yet Republicans, contrary to Scripture, foster the government-aid mentality, again – just to a lesser degree than Democrats. So again, both parties are of the same hypocrisy {no differently than Michael Corleone and Senator Patrick Geary (pictured above) were}; some are just more consistent than others.

Lastly, it is also my opinion that too many would find their hope in government, which is what true Communism would have, and it’s what Obama and Pelosi would have. But once again, I find Christians just as misguided here as they follow the GOP. Create a crisis and the people will run to government, or if I’m to believe the left – their guns and bibles. Christians, in their partisanship, too often do not think for themselves I'm afraid. They would sooner let Rush, Sean and Bill do their political thinking for them. Those men are far from conservative by my standards and certainly not intellectually honest, let alone biblically harnessed in their outlook and reasoning. They’re of the same hypocrisy as the community organizer from Chicago, just not as consistent as he. They are more selective in what socialistic, unbiblical laws suit them, but nonetheless they too want bigger government than what the framers intended and not substantially fewer programs than their opponents desire. Just look at RomneyCare. That he wants to contain it to his own state of Massachusetts is a distinction without a principled difference. (In this regard Romney reminds me of ficticious character Guiseppe Zaluchi who with his own irrelevant qualification wanted to keep drug trafficking "respectable" by restricting it in Detroit to a certain class of people that he thought were "animals anyway, so let them lose their souls.")

Every time you lick a stamp, ask yourself why the government is involved with delivering parcels. I remember a loyal Republican woman (also a Christian) who when presented this question replied in all sincerity, "Then who would deliver the mail?" (Remember Pork in Gone With the Wind? "Whose gonna milk that cow, Miss Scarlet? We's houseworkers.") Sadly, it never occurred to this dear saint that there could be private sector competition over serving the mail just like there is in picking up garbage from the curb.

Sure, Obama is the socialistic real-deal, which is why the thought of him for four more years terrifies so many, but how does Romney really differ?

In sum: I think what Obama stands for is deplorable. No equivocation there I trust. Now then, putting Romney's faith aside, I find his socialistic tendencies as misguided as his economic policies, and in principle he is no different than Obama. We can rightly consider ObamaCare a natural progression from what Romney, following the GOP, embraces. The two candidates might be at slightly different points along the trajectory, which only means that Obama is just slightly ahead of the curve, that's all.

"Obama" isn't just a candidate; it is an ideology that has been taught in public schools for years. It's in the culture and air we breathe. Everyone gets a trophy. All opinions are to be respected and, therefore, considered equally valid. There is no absolute truth, just better opinions possibly.  Romney is a disciple of that same secular philosophy. The difference between the two is Romney is not as good a student as the President. That is how Romney differs from Obama. He's not as far along as his opponent, but given time and the right providential circumstances he might just get there.

"Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman" George Harrison
(Written in response to the "supertax" with backing vocals' reference to Labour and Conservative Parties - Mr. Wilson and Mr. Heath - suggested by John Lennon to Harrison; though Wilson [Labour] was the real culprit I suppose.)

Romney, Another Jefferson?

I've heard in the past week people trying to equate the Romney-scenario to that of President Thomas Jefferson, also a non-Christian. A few comments might be in order (and more are in the coms-box two posts ago). Jefferson was not a cult leader. And although he showed himself in the end to be apostate - Thomas Jefferson did not mistake Satan's voice for Christ's. That is the material point.

Mitt Romney not only rejects Christ's testimony of himself; he confuses Satan's testimony for it. When the presidential candidate reads the writings of false prophet Joseph Smith, Romney believes he is hearing the word of the Lord.

The point stands. These are indeed unchartered waters, completely
unprecedented in the history of the United States. (see two posts below)

More On Romney and Muddled Thinking

My last post has been the impetus for much discussion, which prompts me to voice additional observations.

1.  Many will vote for Romney as the lesser of evils because Obama, they believe, will run our country into the ground in the next four years. As far as the outcome of the election is concerned, I have it on good authority, the testimony of redemptive history, that the legitimizing of blasphemy has precedence for economic consequences and social turmoil, more than anything that might result from Obama-care and all the rest. That is something that should be considered by those who would make this election a matter of economics and social concern.  Pragmatism would seem to side with not voting for Romney, especially given his moderate tendencies that in principle are no different, just less consistent, than Obama's.

1a. It hasn’t occurred to many that the spiritual decay of this land has paved the way for the social decay we now find normal. Fixing our economic thinking and all the rest is a mere band aid at best. At the heart of the problem is the question, How might we provide a climate in which God is honored given the current state of affairs? Do we seek God's good pleasure by voting for Romney? Do we say no to a heretical, blaspheming candidate, or do we elect him as the savior of this land? Enough is enough, but unfortunately the conservative media and the GOP leadership have evangelicals so scared of Obama that the masses would sooner support a cult leader with the hope of him getting us out of the jam that spiritual infidelity got us into in the first place. The irony is killing me.

2. People are quick to claim the sovereignty of God and divine election as reason not to be terribly concerned with an attack on the gospel, but not so willing to take such a fatalistic, hyper-Calvinistic approach when dealing with socialistic / economic concerns. In other words, many think as though God will take care of protecting the elect but we humans must fight against the evils of social agendas that are un-American. What is obviously skewed in such thinking is the fact that God no less decrees salvation than he does societal decay. So any appeal to divine sovereignty begs the question of where one’s efforts and priorities should be.

3. There is a common sentiment regarding voting against one’s favorite candidate that when voiced is more manipulative than valid. That being, “A non-vote is a vote for Obama.”  During the last presidential election, if a person who was intending to vote for Obama was prevented from doing so by traffic on the freeway, he would not have voted. Would that non-vote have been a vote for Obama? Obviously not, for nothing would have been gained by Obama. In fact, something would have been lost - the vote of the hindered voter. Now if it is said that the non-vote would have been a vote for McCain, then in a sense that would be right, but such an observation would be based upon a premise pertaining to the intention of the voter. Indeed, McCain would have gained something by such a traffic-providence, for the hindrance of an Obama voter to vote would have closed the gap of the race by one vote in favor of McCain. The point should be apparent. For a non-vote in this election to be regarded as vote for Obama presupposes that the person not voting would have voted for Romney if he could, but that’s obviously false because the person in view would not be voting because he had no intention of voting for Romney (or anyone else). When the voter’s will and not some external providence prevents him from voting, it is mathematically absurd and philosophically fallacious to claim that the non-vote would have been cast in any direction.

4. We live in a pluralistic, non-Christian nation. Accordingly, voting for the lesser of perceived evils is permissible. My concern, as I wrote earlier, is what one will consider as data and how he evaluates that which he finds relevant.

Rudy's Praise of McCain Went a Bit Too Far

Last night Rudy Giuliani with his eminent flare delivered some of the most quotable lines of both conventions in his repudiation of Barack O’Biden and endorsement of the McCain-Palin ticket.

For instance:

“Then [Obama] ran for the state legislature and he got elected. And nearly 130 times, he couldn't make a decision. He couldn't figure out whether to vote "yes" or "no." It was too tough. He voted -- he voted "present."… You have to make a decision.”

“He is the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years. Not a personal attack, a statement of fact. Barack Obama has never led anything, nothing, nada. Nada, nothing.”

“Well, I'll tell you, if I were Joe Biden, I'd want to get that V.P. thing in writing.”

“So -- so he changed his position again, and he put out a statement exactly like the statement of John McCain's three days earlier. I have some advice for Senator Obama: Next time, call John McCain.”

But how many of us who listened to the speech were struck by this:

“And we can trust [McCain] to deal with anything, anything that nature throws our way, anything that terrorists do to us.”

The last thing I was looking for in any of the speeches was a mistake, let alone a near-blasphemy. What does it mean, after all, that John McCain can deal with anything – again anything (!) – that “nature throws our way”? My immediate thought was, “Oh my, this man is challenging God, most unwittingly.” Hyper-sensitivity on my part? Well, maybe, but then I must ask, could one who was living in close proximity to Coram Deo make such boast? Would we have been O.K. had Rudy said that Senator McCain can deal with anything that God (not nature) throws his way? If not, then why does the word “nature” soften the claim? Isn’t what nature can throw our way equivalent to what God can throw our way?

Now some might respond with “Then why not qualify every statement of what you plan to do in the future with ‘if God so wills’”? In other words, is it not equally presumptuous to think that anything can be accomplished apart from God’s grace. Accordingly, if we don’t speak that way with respect to running an errand, then why need we take such care with our words when dealing with anything “nature” might throw our way? The difference, as I see it, is that when someone states “I’ll see you tomorrow” a claim of self-sufficiency in the face of adverse providence is not necessarily being purported, let alone promulgated. Accordingly, to add “if God so wills” to “I’ll see you tomorrow” need not alter or undermine the sentiment since it does not so much promote self-sufficiency as it does communicate a mere intention. In other words, leaving out “if God so wills” does not imply that the intention can be fulfilled apart from God’s will; whereas Rudy’s comment was aimed not at promoting a man’s intention but his moral fiber. Therefore, to have said that Senator McCain can deal with anything nature throws his way - if God so wills, does not make Rudy’s point at all! Instead, such a qualifier would actually eclipse his very point because given such a qualifier it could equally be said of Obama, and even the weakest of men.

In a last-ditch effort to save Rudy from his own words, we might be inclined to render his meaning as “McCain is so obviously full of grace, it’s unimaginable that God would not sustain him through anything he can dish out.” That, however, would be to overstate the grace God has bestowed upon this man (affording a frothy basis to anticipate extraordinary future-grace), while underestimating what God could bring upon him. Let's get hold of the fact that Katrina was less than the finger of God and that no man is to be compared to lesser men but to Christ. A healthy view of God's omnipotence and sober view of the fraility of man and his need for grace prohibts such sentiments as Giuliani expressed in his address. Obviously when put this way, Mr. Giuliani could not have meant what he actually said. But that's the point, isn't it? He wasn't even conscious of what he was actually saying. Autonomy got the best of him. His unthinking praise was grossly overstated and more importantly, highly offensive.

At the very least, in the realm of judgment in crisis, make no mistake that we are often preserved and kept from despair, even disgrace, because God prevents us from being exposed to more than we've been trained to handle. For anyone to presume that even the godliest saint will endure under any unprecedented disaster that will challenge judgment in unimaginable ways implicitly denies that we can be challenged beyond our understanding and experiences.

Ron
Counter since: 9/6/2006

Wright, Obama, Hannity & The Church

Jeremiah Wright has many problems rooting from deplorable theology. Notwithstanding, my concern is neither with Jeremiah Wright nor his undiscerning spiritual protégé who is incapable of distinguishing between covenantal obligations toward honoring one’s bigoted grandmother and the lack of obligation toward a reckless pastor. What is much more tedious is Sean Hannity’s abhorrence with Wright’s indexing of the 9/11 attacks to the United States military involvement on foreign soil. I could support a criticism by Hannity if it were grounded in the premise that Wright’s bald assertions are not philosophically defensible due to an apparent lack of revelational justification. After all, how does Wright know that the 9-11 providence was God’s judgment due to the mistreatment of innocent people, let alone the mistreatment of other God hating nations? How does an Arminian even come up with any God ordained purpose given their view of free will? Yes, Jeremiah Wright cannot reconcile his conclusions with his governing presuppositions. That much is obvious. What is more remarkable in this current political divergence is not that a prospective president might have a bigoted spiritual mentor but rather that the conservative right, which Sean Hannity fairly represents in his ideology, completely discounts the possibility that the United States deserves God’s judgment and that 9-11 might have been the finger of God pressing in on a rebellious nation.

If our nation is arrogant it is because its leaders have lost their way. If our nation is arrogant it is because its leaders do not plead the mercies of Christ. Any nation is arrogant that does not desire to submit to King Jesus, the head of nations. (Psalm 2) It is not only the duty of all nations to take heed to Psalm 2, it is wise to do so. If our leaders have lost their way, then it is most likely because the church is not the salt and light she is called to be. For instance, the United States has no just-war theory that is justifiable but how can she when the fragmented Christian church has none? Even should the United States ever enter into a just war (and even if it is in one now), it is not in a position to justify its actions due to its commitment to natural law theory. Does the church have good answers for a government with no guide? Not being able to justify killing should be a terrifying proposition for those who are called to wield the sword. It’s not, however, neither for most American Christians nor their elected officials. The church by and large wants to be pluralistic in the realm of civil government because the church, as a general rule, opposes the general equity of the civil case laws of the Old Testament.

Those with a high regard for Old Testament civil law do well to be politically involved. But they are not to overdue it because another principle abides, which is our kingdom is not of this world. It is more biblical to place the accent on educating the church and making disciples of all nations than to trying to persuade the irreligious how they ought to govern society. The Reconstructionist often needs balance whereas the American evangelical needs a more Puritan understanding of the universal relevance of God's law.

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006