Religion & Politics

Kingdom of God is BIGGER Than Your Political Party

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

A week has passed since the 2012 Presidential Election, and many (who voted like me) are still licking their wounds and awaiting armageddon.  OK. That may be a bit too strong, but that is what it has at times seemed like to speak with those who (like me) did not support the re-election of Barrack Obama.

I understand the disappointment, and even the concerns. But what troubles me, more than anything else, is when I hear Christians demonizing other people, especially other Christians,  just because they voted for Obama.  I do not want to minimize the passions. I just want us to regain our perspective.

Here is a penetrating question posed by one writer:

If I feel more of a kindred solidarity with those who share my politics but not my faith than I feel with those who share my faith but not my politics, what does it say about me?

I find that question, which I read in piece by Scott Sauls in Redeemer City to City, to be an excellent perspective-shaping querry.

Sauls goes on, and profoundly answers his own question:

“… It suggests that I have sold out to Rome. I have rendered to God what belongs to Caesar, and to Caesar what belongs to God.”

Maybe you can’t bring yourself to agree with Sauls’ specific conclusion. But I hope you will find his prevailing premise resonates with you, as it does with me.  In short, if you find yourself more akin with folks who share your political persuasions than you do those who share your faith foundations, something is amiss.

So, if either of the following describes you:

  • You are struggling with resentment about the results of our recent election, or when you find yourself in the midst of people who voted for Obama
  • You are so elated that you find it difficult to refrain from gloating and you feel twinges of subtle delight for any opportunity you get to rub Obama’s re-election in the face of your more conservative colleagues

… let me encourage you to consider Sauls’ whole article: To My Elated & Despairing Post-Election Friends.

Here is what I have been reminding myself for the past week: God says, “I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” (Psalm 2.6)  That’s all I really need to know.

The Kingdom of Heaven is bigger than a political party.

Christians & Politics: Faith-filled or Faith Fooled?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

In case you have been sleeping like Rip Van Winkle, this is a Presidential Election year in the USA.  Faith will be declared, inspected, invoked, and provoked from all sides over these next few months.  Some will offer opinions from positions of knowledge, while others will offer authoritative sounding opinions from positions of functional ignorance.  It may become particularly true of this election since both presumed candidates have expressed faith traditions outside the American norm.  One, the Republican, is in no respects a Christian. The other, the incumbent Democrat, professes a form of Christianity that leaves many understandably skeptical.

So, given these choices, how should American Evangelicals approach the coming season?    Should we vote for a darkhorse Independent or Third Party candidate, who has no realistic chance to win but, who matches our Evangelical identity?  Should we sit this one out, and wait until next time when we might have a viable candidate more in line with our theological ideologies?

Dick Doster says forgoing the election is not an acceptable option. Here’s why:

Christians, when rightly informed and motivated, change the character of political debate. They bring the moral standards of God’s kingdom into the civic realm and thereby become agents of His common grace — of His provision for those who believe as well as those who don’t.

This is the opening paragraph of Doster’s thought provoking article, Politics: Why Christians Must Be Involved, published at byFaith Magaizne.  Click the article title to read Doster’s whole piece.

What is Your Moral Gauge?

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Here is a provocative article by Ben Stevens for the Huffington Post: Two Lesbians Raised a Baby: A Response.

The premise behind Stevens’ piece is derived from the logic of  a video of an Iowa college student named Zach Wahls that has gone viral.  Wahls makes a compelling argument that he, though having been raised by two lesbians, has turned out well.  As Stevens writes:

Wahls is arguing that a practice is not necessarily bad if something good can result from it, and that his similarities to other people (others who were raised by heterosexuals) constitute a strong argument for the normative and morally upright nature of homosexuality, and indeed of homosexual parenting.

There seems to be little or no debate that Wahls has indeed turned out well.  And if you have seen the video you will have no doubt about his intelligence or his oratory abilities either. But, as Stevens explains:

We do not evaluate things simply based on whether good or bad may be fostered in their wake. In every sector of life and policy, regardless of the debate, we evaluate them on their own merits and moral qualities.

This is a thoughtful and thought provoking article, with a moral one friend expresses this way:

Evaluate your beliefs, not on whether or not good can result from them but, whether or not they are good in and of themselves.

Mormonism vs. Christianity

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

With the hubbub surrounding Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress’ endorsement of Gov. Rick Perry with a denouncement of Mitt Romney and his Mormanism, the bigger, more important point may be easily overlooked.

It is easy to get caught up with the politically related issues. I for one wonder what the opponents of California’s Proposition 8 think about Jeffress’ statement.  They vilified the Mormons after that referendum in defense of marriage was passed, accusing LDS activist of mobilizing a force that distorted the views of the population. (Click: here and here).  Those who protested this proposition will certainly not find Jeffress’ Consevative Southern Baptist ideals a viable alternative. Jeffiress’ morality views will be nearly identical (as are mine).  But as much  entertainment and intrigue as this political dilemma may offer, there is a question far more important to me:  Are Mormons Christians?

Despite the commendable moral values of the LDS, the answer is unequivocally “No”.  Morality is a by-product of Christianity, a demonstration of it, not the substance of it.  It is what one believes about Jesus Christ that makes one a Christian. And the Mormons have a dramatically different view of Jesus than do Christians.

Two respected Evangelical leaders recently expressed their own thoughts:

I think what Mohler &  Stetzer have to say should be considered.  It is far more foundational than the simplistic pragmatic question whether an Evangelical should vote for a Mormon.  The question of whether Mormons are a form of Christian will likely linger,  lasting long beyond the outcomes of the Republican Primaries next year.

Never Exchange the Pulpit

/ Dennis Griffith / 4 Comments

 

With all the hubub that has surrounded Glen Beck and his aspiration to ascend to top of the Religious Right leadership, I was encouraged by an open letter written by Nancy Guthrie to the pastors of her church. 

Guthrie states that what has concerned her more than the fact that Beck is a Morman is a statement Beck made on The O’Reilly Factor:

“240 pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams on stage all locked arms saying the principles of America need to be taught from the pulpit.”

In short, Guthrie affirms her love for America, but is grateful that her pastors have refused to neglect the preaching of the gospel in exchange for preaching American principles. 

Like the Apostle Paul, I am “astonished” that so many are turning from the Gospel that they claim to have received (and are charged to preach) and are turning to another gospel – which is no gospel at all. (Galatians 1.6-9) 

If the ministers of the gospel turn to preach politics, who will proclaim the Word of Life?

To read Nancy Guthries thoughts, click: Open Letter

To Speak or Not to Speak

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

I am torn.

According to a recent article by the Florida Baptist Witness, a group of concerned citizens are recruiting pastors to challenge a 55 year old law that prohibits non-profit organizations, including churches, from endorsing specific political candidates.  Practically speaking this law empowers the IRS to censor the content that is offered from church pulpits. 

On the one hand, I am sympathetic to this cause because I do not believe that anyone should censor legitimate speach.  In a free society political speach should not be censored. Further, while not being an alarmist, I am concerned that allowing the government this authority to regulate what is proclaimed from a church pulpit may one day broaden and include other issues that are moral-theological in nature but that have political implications – or that have simply become politicized.  The IRS is an agency with all authority and functions with a “guilty until proven innocent” M.O.  Having them as regulators is a dangerous proposition.

On the other hand, the pulpit is a place that should be unconditionally reserved for the proclamation of the Gospel.  PERIOD! While I do not like my civil rights infringed, I have no right, under God’s direction, to use the pulpit for anything other than declaring, teaching, and applying God’s Word.  Political speach becomes an easy – and often seductive – substitute for the real responsibility that ministers of the Gospel are charged to do.  Loosening the present law will not change my conviction, nor my practice, whatsoever.  But if the present law will keep some of my clergical colleagues focused on our collective purpose, well, that seems to be a good thing.

For those interested in this discussion, you might want to check out: Speak Up Movement

Navigating the Narrow Path Between the Gospel and Politics

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Golden Path

It is a constant tension for me.  How do I juggle my personal political views with my responsibility to remain faithful to the Gospel? How do I strive to keep the Gospel message pure and not pollute my teaching with  political biases interjected?

It is a difficult dilemma. Many political issues have moral roots, and can be informed by theological reflection.  At the same time God is not partisan. No party, nor candidate, can claim God’s endorsement.  All are flawed to some degree – some more obvious tha others. None sufficiently reflect the character and commands of God.

In fact, the Gospel itself creates somewhat of a tension. It simultaneously compels us to be both conservative and liberal.  It leads toward conservatism in the sense that it compels us to recognize that there is absolute truth, there is right and wrong, righteousness and evil.  God calls us to seek truth and to walk in the light of truth.  Yet the heart of the message of the Gospel has a very liberal emphasis: God gives graciously and lavishly to those who do not deserve what they receive.  We are to seek justice and to show mercy, two words often associated more with classical liberalism yet are reflections of the character of God.

Rejecting the notion that there can be a pure Church-State, a theocracy, in this era between ancient Israel and the future Kingdom, I am left with the realization that we are to discern wisdom in order to govern effectively, and to address contemporary problems.  Wisdom is discerned from God’s Word. But specific application of wisdom to lifes various issues is not always spelled out by God’s Word.  That leaves room for good people to disagree about solutions, and sometimes even about the nature of the problems.

I cringe whenever I hear Christians indiscriminately integrate a party platform with the true Faith, as if it is an undeniable marriage, making it impossible to distinguish or separate one from the other; or that to choose an opposing party is akin to spiritual adultery.  In my circles, which tends to lean right, even far right,  I hear stupid things said – including from some pulpits – such as: “I don’t see how anyone can be a Democrat and a Christian”.  I try to stay as far away from such inane rhetoric as I can. But I suspect sometimes I try too hard, and therefore stand too far away.

I want to be clear: Such sentiments are not only wrong, they are EVIL.  To attach partisan politics to the Gospel is a distortion of the Gospel. It keeps people from understanding, and sometimes embracing, the only hope we have, which is God’s grace received through faith in Christ.  It prevents some from thinking outside the box of strict conservatism, and therefore may rob our society of possible solutions for very real problems, that just may be both Biblical AND “liberal”.  All of these are, in my estimation, evil consequences, no matter how well intentioned the rationale behind it.

But lacking wisdom about how to navigate the narrow path beween politics and the Gospel, my tactic has been to forgo engaging in political discussion at all, except in close circles where I am sure not to offend.  I am becomming convinced that this is not really wisdom, it is wimpy-ness on my part.

I have very definite political views. I have strong opinions about many of the issues that are plaguing our society and world; and which divide people.  If I refrain from partaking in the conversation I offer nothing toward the solutions. I want to re-enter the discussion.

Here are a few things I will need to do to keep my balance on this narrow path:

1. I will continue to refrain from bringing my partisan views into the pulpit.  This includes not only avoiding stupid comments like the one I previously mentioned, but personal or partisan allusions that could reasonably alienate or offend people of either political leanings. The pulpit is for the proclamation of the Gospel. If the Gospel is not proclaimed from the pulpit, not only is it an abuse of the purpose of the pulpit, but it is to deny the people the Gospel. If the Gospel is not proclaimed in the pulpit, it will not be proclaimed anywhere else.

2. I need to grow in my ability to clearly communicate the  various aspects of the Gospel, and affirming the tension it creates for those who follow Jesus.  The Gospel is an offense. It is like a stone that makes man stumble, a rock that causes them to trip and fall.  If I am faithful and articulate I should become an equal-opportunity offender, causing discomfort to people on both the Left and the Right.

3. I will commit to pray for the good of those who are in positions of authority, especially the President, whether I agree with them or not; whether I even like them or not.  God has commanded that we do this. My personal preferences cannot mitigate God’s clear command. (See Presidential Prayer Team) 

4. I will be diligent to dilineate political views in such a way that I give no occasion for anyone to infer that I am making them a basis of  Christian fellowship.  Somehow I must learn how to enter the discussion without attaching Gospel authority to my political perspective.  In other words, I want to learn how to dialogue yet affirm that those who differ may well still be more godly than I am – whether they are wrong and I right or I am wrong and they are right.  Fellowship is rooted in what Christ has done, PERIOD.

None of this is profound, I know.  But I just need to wrestle through it to guide me if and when I address any political issues.  If anyone has other suggestions, I’m all ears.

Why I Am NOT Part of the Religious Right

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

stump-speaking

One would think I’d be a good prospect to be a part of the Religious Right.

1. I am a conservative Evangelical pastor.

2. I first identified my political identity as a Republican in the 2nd Grade.

(My teacher at Cedar Road Elementary School, Mrs. Manning, wanting to teach us a little about Civics, listed several candidates running in local elections on the board.  I mistakenly thought the Republican candidate for one of the offices was my across-the-street-neighbor, so my hand went up as being for that group.)

3. By the fourth grade I actively worked for the campaign of the Republican running for County Commissioner in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

(No I was not that advanced. My father was working on the campaign, and I delivered flyers all around our town.  Come to think of it, it was probably good that I identified as a Republican in the 2nd Grade.  I’m not sure how it would have been growing up if my father had a Democrat for a son!)

4. And now that I am at least a little more aware of politics and the issues than I was when I was in the 2nd Grade, and now that I think for myself, I find I share most of the social concerns expressed by the Religious Right; and I am at least sympathetic to most of their positions.

Still, I am not part of the Religious Right, and have no desire to be identified with them.

Why not?

1. The Religious Right trusts too much in government.

It is odd. One of the loudest laments of conservatives is that Democrats historically favor BIG government; that Democrats believe that government will solve our social problems.  So I find it ironic that those identified as the Religious Right place such faith in electing the right people.  In other words, it seems to me they are putting their hope in those governing.

Don’t get me wrong.  Electing qualified people is important to the functioning of our government, in its various spheres (i.e. Federal, State, Municipal, etc.).  But the social problems we have are more a reflection of the heart than imposition of public policy.  Further, I do believe that there are policies that are immoral. These policies are in place either as a reflection of or to address the corruption of our hearts – the effect of sin.  But the policies do not shape our hearts.

Like him now or not, I remember when George W. Bush was running in the primaries of Y2K, he was asked about a particular policy- I think it was hate crimes. Bush said: “You cannot legislate the heart.”  I think that is profoundly true.

Notice he did not say the typical “You can’t legislate morality.”  That is an absurd statement. All legislation is an expression of morality (or lack of it).  He said “You cannot legislate the heart.”  I’ll go a step further, “You cannot legislate Righteousness”.  Right behavior is not itself Righteousness.  Without faith it is impossible to please God. Righteousness is faith expressing itself in right action – in behavior reflective of God’s character and standards.

Please understand, there are a number of laws and practices I want to see changed; and others I want to see averted.  As a whole our society would be better off.  This would restrain behavior influenced by our sin-infected hearts.  But this is still not Righteousness.  And anyone who believes that simple laws will make us righteous is kidding himself.

Civil Government has a God-given sphere.  It is to provide structure for society. And Civil Government has authority to enforce the common standards for the benefit and protection of the members of society.  It is an important but limited role.

Matters of faith – faith that shapes values & behavior – belongs in the other two governing spheres: Family & Church.  It is God’s Word that instructs us concerning what we are to believe, and what is good & right.  This faith is shaped and expressed in the family and Church.  And when we live-out our faith, we express the righteousness God is working in us.

I’m afraid the Religious Right converges & confuses these God-given spheres.  Consequently many are trusting too much in government, and not enough in what God does, and is doing, by the power of the Gospel.

2. The Religious Right Distorts the Gospel

The Gospel is not: “Be good and you will be righteous.”  It is certainly not: “If you don’t do evil, you are righteous.”

The Gospel is: There is none righteous. But despite the fact we are not good, God has loved us. He sent his Son to take upon himself our guilt and punishment. Whoever trusts in Him – and particularly what He has done on the Cross – is not only forgiven of sin & debt to God, but declared by Divine judiciary to be righteous; we are credited with the righteousness of Christ.

All of this is a matter of faith.  And faith cannot be removed from righteousness.

Faith that is genuine will be expressed in a noticeable improvement of our attitudes and actions (in other words, they will incrementally become more in line with Christ’s).  These actions of faith are what the Bible calls works of righteousness.  Again, righteousness is not the actions themselves.

Sadly, I believe the political emphasis of the Religious Right distorts the Gospel by too often appealing to behavior as the basis of our relationship with God, and not in faith in Christ.  I recognize that the vast majority of those who identify themselves as part of the Religious Right personally make this distinction, but in the heat of political battle the message is not clearly or often enough expressed.

I also often wonder if the leaders of the Religious Right appreciate the power of the Gospel to bring change to individual lives, and thus to a society.  Far better to have people experiencing the power of the Gospel that transforms our hearts, our perspective, our desires, and ultimately our behavior, than to merely restrain behavior.

Government cannot change anyone, really. That is why the efforts of the Religious Right to energize the Evangelical Church into little better than a Political Action Committee sadden me – and angers me.  Too often politics has become the substitute mission of the church.  But the message being proclaimed is no substitute for the Gospel.

3. The Religious Right Has Made Partisanship a Condition of Christianity

I have no idea how many times I have heard it: “I don’t know how someone can be a Christian and be a Democrat”.

I know when that is said it is almost always in reference to some of the social issues, that I agree need to be addressed and, that are supported more prominently by Democrats than Republicans.  But I fear that some may really wonder if political affiliation is a condition for salvation – in other words, that receiving Christ requires Faith AND Voters Registration.  NO! NO! NO!

Being a Christian = trusting in Christ + NOTHING!  Salvation is by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone.  PERIOD.

How we live that faith out may vary. And I see both parties lacking.

Again, I am a lifelong Republican. But I must recognize that Republicans do not always have a good track record, for instance, for directly helping the poor & outcastes.  I don’t think it is as bad as caricatured. Neither are the Democrat policies as good as some would want us to believe. (See Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion.) But I understand how someone filled by the compassion of Christ would choose to identify with those promising direct involvement and resources for the poor. This is an expression of their Faith. One can do this without necessarily embracing every plank of the party’s platform.  And I can understand them, without necessarily agreeing with them.

I was struck several years ago by this comment byMichael Horton:

“At the risk of hyperbole, one wonders today what would be more dangerous in some Evangelical gatherings: disagreeing with someone over the doctrine of the Incarnation or disagreeing with Rush Limbaugh.”

(From Beyond Culture Wars, pg 18)

Sadly, I think the emphasis of the Religious Right, for whatever good may have been done, has had this effect on many conservatives.

Today is Super Tuesday. And now that I got all that off my chest, it’s time for me to go vote.  I have been wrestling with this for several weeks, and made my decision a few weeks ago.  But I’ll refrain from  naming my candidate.  I’ll cast my vote and pray…

“Lord, Have Mercy on Us!”