Politics
Category

By In Politics

No More Political Pulpits?

For those of you following the great theological brouhaha of 2022, there is a grand conspiracy against culture wars unfolding before our very eyes. Falwell and all his glory did not see this coming. Schaeffer and all his goatee didn’t see it coming either. Blame these warriors for their inadequacies and I will blame certain T4G characters for all their false comparisons.

The problem is that there are so many fine people saying things that frustrate me that my inner happy-clappy self wishes I could stay away from such entanglings. But, as I write, there are people out there wondering, “But if Ligon Schpunkin’ says it, it can’t be that bad.” And, as Joe Rigney would say, “I sympathize with that!”

Some of these men are men that I respect and find beneficial in some areas and men with whom I have personally interacted in my seminary days, and in my conference-attending days. I should also note that there is not a fabric of malice in these individuals. They desire the good. But, Nancy Pelosi is in the details.

And if you analyze this whole conversation, the thread goes off track at some point and someone needs to interact a little bit so that when records are stored in section 78B of Elon Musk’s Mars units, some curator will be able to observe that not everyone was silent.

The general thesis for those at Lake Wobegon is that there is an increased concern with the politicization of the pulpit. That is, too many people are using the pulpit for political causes. Now, why is such a topic so relevant today?

We should not be naive and act as if we don’t know the source of such antagonism. The man who is about 300 miles south of where I stand here in Florida carries a private tanning booth wherever he goes. But he also had the audacity to elevate the tribalism during his four-year reign. People were mad, in case you forgot. Like, “Mad Max” mad. David French was so upset that he left Fox News and all of the sudden started acting concerned for the environment. To say Trump brought things to the forefront is an understatement. To be more precise, he blew up the underground D.C.’s secret railroad and exposed the lies. Now, I am a Bud-Light critic of Trump and I am eager to not see him run ever again, but let’s remember that this man made the right people upset and there is something to that gift.

So, what’s the concern with political sermons? And why should we be more concerned about “Gospel” preaching? And why doesn’t Tom Brady just retire?

(more…)

Read more

By In Culture, Politics, Theology, Wisdom

Live Not By Lies

“I don’t trust the media. I don’t trust our political leaders. I don’t trust foreign governments. I don’t trust my own government. I don’t trust the mob. I trust almost no one at this point and that’s not because I want to be this way. It’s just because I’ve been paying attention.”[1] This is the lament of Matt Walsh regarding our current cultural environment. Who can blame him? It is quite difficult not to be cynical when government officials along with their allies in much of the media are using the language playbook of 1984. Reversals on positions (at least with words) happen so fast that your brain is disoriented with a type of cognitive whiplash. The conspiracy theorists that we once believed were insane have become the prophets of culture. The difference between many conspiracy theories and the news of the day is about six months. We live by lies at the highest levels of our society, and it is destroying us.

Solomon told us it would. God hates a “lying tongue” and a “false witness who breathes out lies” (Pr 6.17, 19). With the smorgasbord of sins to put in his seven-fold list, Solomon includes two forms of lying. God must really hate lying.

(more…)

Read more

By In Culture, Family and Children, Politics, Pro-Life, Theology

Blasphemy Laws

While people condemn the blasphemy laws in God’s law as being barbaric and severe, every society has blasphemy laws. These are the laws that tell you what you can and can’t say about certain people and subjects; “gods” you must worship or, at least, refrain from criticizing. These laws are not arbitrary. They tell you who defines the culture and what the culture is. They tell you who the gods of the culture are; that is, what or who is worshiped.  Sometimes these laws are codified and enforced by authorities. At other times they are general cultural practices that are endorsed by the authorities’ unwillingness to stand against injustice. Pressure by activists is put on companies to conform to their morality. If they don’t conform, they will be canceled or attacked. Whether codified or passive among government officials, or a loud, powerful, cultural movement, blasphemy laws exist, and violators will be prosecuted.

(more…)

Read more

By In Politics, Wisdom, Worship

10 Theses on Ecclesiastical Conservatism

What I wish to do is to establish some principles for thinking rightly about politics. I have done my very best to reflect these principles over the years with a certain level of success, and am also fully aware of the temptations that come with easily deviating into one side of the aisle over the other.
I want to first begin with a legitimate concern in our evangelical ethos. And again, for the 400th time, I am addressing evangelicals, because I am one. I am not addressing my family members out of spite, but because God has given me some ability to see things. Now, whether my sight of the current issues is a gift from God or an incredibly astute self-deception is for you to decide. I speak only for myself and my three-old who still believes my flaws are merely superficial.

Back to the concern: there is a legitimacy among my friends who have sent me private notes about the dangers of over-politicizing things and how evangelicals are very susceptible to accepting bribes from politicians. And there is also a danger in making the Church so political, so trumpian, and so americana that we become a wing of the GOP receiving special favors from Donny Jr.

I see that concern and raise the bets. It’s real and if you have been reading me long enough, you know that I have attacked 4th of July celebrations in the Church and the exaltation of the Pledge of Allegiance over the Nicene Creed, etc. I have attacked these so much that as the great prophet says, “If you don’t know me by now, You will never never never know me.”

I am a Reformed, Evangelical, Christian with the bona fides to prove it and the letter of recommendations as well. I preface that to ensure that no one thinks I am some ecclesiocrat. I am not, but I do love the Church, like, a lot. She is my mother and I honor her as the bride of my only Lord. The result of this happy marriage and what ought to be our interest in the political sphere makes me an “ecclesiastical conservative.” And since those two words according to a google search have never been put together into a sentence, I’d like to define some of it in ten theses. Whether you find it fruitful or silly is up to you, but here I stand and I can do other things, but I want to park here for the moment at least to begin formalizing some thoughts:

Thesis I: Ecclesiastical Conservatism begins thinking about politics first as a churchman and then as a citizen of the body politic. His loyalty is first as a worshiper and then to his responsibilities to think about the politics of the day. The first must flow into the other and not the reverse. Our temptation to view government as the answer is a sign that we are eager to give up the role of the Church in society. Conservatism observes the expansion of the state and the overreach of the government in areas where the Church should be independent. We, therefore, oppose such actions and accept that our fundamental duty is to obey God rather than man.

Thesis II: Ecclesiastical Conservatism affirms that the Church is central to the purposes of God in the kingdom and that from her flows the wisdom of God to the world (Eph. 3:10). Wisdom comes from above through the lips of ministers and the gifts of bread and wine. The lessons or rituals from D.C. should never take precedence over the Church.

(more…)

Read more

By In Politics

Nietzsche and the Religious Nature of the State

Astute observers have noted that there is a religious component to government actions. I don’t wish to prolong further the point, but it is a good one to contemplate, which means that I have already changed my mind and will happily prolong the point.

The point is clear: the religiosity of the government is a quest for moral tyranny. There is no doubt that there is a religious component inherent in the Romans 13 code for state officials. They are servants/deacons of righteousness (13:4). In that institution, there is a clear religious dimension to how the state operates in its functional demands. Yet, the overarching concern of citizens like myself stems from the overreaching of its religious duties.

Nietzsche once referred to the “theologian instinct,” which was not a compliment. For the “God is dead” atheist, the problem with Christians is that they are too prone to dressing their moral language with too much “God language.” This was our dreadful theologian instinct. In other words, we like to have our cake and eat it too with gratitude and doxology and all. In my book, that’s a good thing and I am eager to dress up more of my foundational theological morals with “God language,” which is ultimately the language of redemption and eternity and judgment.

The reason such leaps in language are so alarming to many, and especially our nationally elected officials, is not because they don’t like “God language,” it’s because they wish to reserve the right to use it only for themselves. They don’t want to respect familial and ecclesiastical languages, they want to exercise the theological instinct and dress their language in transcendent categories. The idea is that they get to determine what “Love Thy Neighbor” looks like.

If the government officials with its decreed limitations according to the Scriptures have the right to go beyond its boundaries and exert their supreme influence in church and family, then it can easily exert religious and theological influence in the moral sphere of church and family. When the CDC has an entire page dedicated to LGBT issues, then you know that the concern is no longer with health, but with the application of health issues to diverse sexual expressions. As they observe:

“The perspectives and needs of LGBT people should be routinely considered in public health efforts to improve the overall health of every person and eliminate health disparities.”

They are digging into the abyss of sexual diversity so they can take the priestly robe and self-authenticate their ordination before church and family. This is easy to see, but we are a blind generation.

(more…)

Read more

By In Politics

America’s Foreign Policy and the Ethics of Paris Hilton

I have always opposed neo-conservatism and a massive part of the Trump attraction to me was his opposition to nation-building, which incidentally was what built the conservative movement’s opposition to the Bush and Obama administrations post-Iraq war. That said, what is taking place in Afghanistan is barbaric in too many ways to count. I am of the opinion that a word can paint a thousand pictures, but the scene of Afghans clinging to the U.S. military plane painted a thousand words.

Without delving into a thesis on the role of the United States foreign policy and how fast or how slow withdrawal needs to take place if at all, I want to delve into two brief implications of the current crisis that touches on the subtle ways in which we have re-imagined ourselves after the ethics of Paris Hilton.

The first is the American administration’s failure to understand basic patterns of culture. Charles Taylor uses the language of “immanent frame” to describe those who build ideologies on the basis only of what they feel and sense. In other words, only what we see is valuable in grounding our philosophy of war, sex, and language. This is in contrast to a “transcendent frame” that allows our worldviews to be shaped by transcendent/divine meaning and morality.

There was an interview where an American journalist interviewed several men of the Taliban. The discussion turned rather transcendent when she posed whether the Taliban would vote in favor of putting women into office. The men laughed and the interview ended. It ended because that journalist was operating under an “immanent frame” category. She failed to see–what leftists fail to see–that Middle Eastern tribal men function on the basis of an other-worldly view of the cosmos. Of course, we’d affirm that Islam is both satanic and sadistic, but that’s beside the point. They still function on the basis of an unalterable law called Sharia. The journalist couldn’t comprehend the totality of a worldview that functions with divine imperatives.

The second failure stems from a variety of voices, but most namely Twitter’s dissent from reason in allowing the Taliban to function as if they are good schoolboys operating under basic rules. “Ok, Jonny, you follow these basic rules and we will allow you to speak your truth to millions of people.” This entire brouhaha stems from a confusion of determining who are the real enemies. We, humble Christian people, should know that you don’t negotiate with satirists. And that is exactly what these individuals are doing to the effeminacy of American politics. They are satirizing us and we are too stupid to pick up on subtleties. We are more eager to allow Abdul Ghani Baradar to speak to our audiences than the rural, good-guy, wife-lovin’, church conservative who defends Trump. It’s a failure of epic proportions and distortions, which they are targeting daily.

The moral of the story is that when we allow the Bidening of America, we are making America disgraced again. It’s a tough thing to say, but Schwarzenegger was right: “We are led by girly men.”

Read more

By In Culture, Politics, Theology

Jesus Is King!

When Jesus appeared for trial before Pilate, the Roman governor in Judea, Pilate had one question for him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” The Jewish authorities had dragged him through their own “grand jury” throughout the preceding night. They determined that this man was claiming to be the Christ, the King of the Jews. This charge was worthy to bring before their provincial governor to be tried in the court of Rome.

When we read this story in twenty-first-century America, we tend to read it the way we have been trained to read it culturally: this is a religious story, not a political one. The Gospels, Jesus’ life, etc., all deal with our inner spiritual life. These were simply the necessary, external trappings that had to take place in order for our souls to be saved. (And, generally, when we hear of our souls being saved, we tend to think of a disembodied bliss that is free from a material world.) The authorities obviously misunderstood Jesus’ claims to being king. He was to be a “spiritual” king, not a king that actually challenged the governments of the Jews and Rome. It was a great, big misunderstanding that Jesus allowed to happen so that he could die for our sins.

(more…)

Read more

By In Church, Politics

What Have the Last Four Years Accomplished? And What Have They Revealed?

Guest Post by Rich Lusk

“The old alliances are dead.”

 – Theoden

“The world is changed…
I feel it in the water…
I feel it in the Earth…
I smell it in the air….

Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.”

                                        — Galadriel

“Our list of allies grows thin.”

                                        — Elrond

“All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”

                                        — Gandalf

“The West has failed.”

— Denethor

Now that the Trump era is over, at least as far as his Presidency is concerned, it’s worth taking a look back at what happened in the 4+ years that he dominated the political and cultural landscape. I am convinced that Trump himself is nowhere near the most important thing that has happened. Rather, Trump exposed and accelerated trends that were already in motion. The Trump era brought to the surface and revealed many things that had been hidden from view. This has been an apocalyptic moment in American history.

I am most interested in what has happened to the evangelical and Reformed church context in which I am a pastor, but that cannot be considered apart from the political trends that have generated so much discussion and division.

Obviously, and understandably, Trump was a very divisive figure. His foibles, real and imaginary, are well known because we have been bombarded with them 24/7 for years now. There is no question he is something of an egomaniac, and could often be his own worst enemy. Policy-wise, he was generally conservative and should be applauded for many things he did (e.g., building a strong economy until COVID hit, gaining energy independence, removing the nation from entangling alliances, taking seriously the China threat,  brokering Middle East peace deals, etc.) as well as things he did not do (e.g., no new wars, respecting states rights in regard to COVID responses, etc.). But I do not think Trump himself is the most important barometer of the church’s health at this point — indeed, far from it. While it is virtually impossible for me to reconcile any kind of support for Biden/Harris with Christian faith, I can certainly understand why many Christians have been reluctant to throw their support behind Trump. Frankly, I can sympathize with many of the criticisms of Trump that came from the “never Trump” camp….until I consider what the alternatives to Trump were. Making a Christian case that Trump has serious issues is not that hard to do. Making a Christian case that he is somehow worse than the alternatives that were available to us is virtually impossible — and “never Trumpers” never seemed to grasp that. Making a case against Trump is not the same as making a case for the Democrat options (or any other available options), which is what “never Trumpers” needed to do. “Never Trumpers” failed to develop any kind of alternative vision to Trump, even at a theoretical level. Nevertheless, they continued to cast aspersions on Christian and conservative Trump supporters. But this was an entirely unhelpful strategy. Caring about the political realm and expressing patriotic convictions are not necessarily signs of idolatry and voting for Trump in ’16 or ’20 does not necessarily mean one has sold his soul to the devil; indeed one can argue it was the best and most prudent course of action. But, again, how Christians feel about Trump is NOT the best litmus test for where we are anyway. So what is?

(more…)

Read more

By In Church, Culture, Discipleship, Politics, Theology, Worship

Crossing the Rubicon

(Sermon preached at Providence Church in Caro, MI on January 10th, 2021, Feast of the Baptism of Christ Light modifications have been made.)

On this day, January 10, in 49BC, Julius Caesar set in motion the Roman Civil War. He had been governor over a region of Gaul and, when his term had ended, was to return to Rome. Instead, he lead his army across the shallow Rubicon River, a clear declaration of war on the Roman Senate. “Crossing the Rubicon” has, ever since, meant crossing a point of no return, taking a definitive and clear step of war, whether literal or metaphorical. 

In our text this morning (Mark 1:4-11,) we see Jesus, in His Baptism, at a river-crossing event. Jesus is at the Jordan River, not the Rubicon, but the symbolism is just as powerful. And in fact Jesus’ “Rubicon crossing” in the Jordan is no less  a declaration of war.a

(more…)
  1. Thanks for Chad Bird for pointing out, in a recent video, the historical and thematic connection of Jesus’ Baptism and the Rubicon Crossing.  (back)

Read more

By In Politics, Theology

Sexuality in the Age of Harry Styles

By now, some of you have seen the Dunkirk actor, Harry Styles, receive the acclaim as the first solo male to appear on Vogue Magazine. The reason for his astronomical debut is because he dare push the norms of masculinity. But Harry is already known for his theatrics. In his own words, he wishes to be the role model for fashion fluidity. His heroes, Prince and Elton John, are icons whose flamboyant pieces of clothing meant they could reach the stars with their expressive colors and spontaneity. Masculinity, that old archaic, word is only functional when he sees fit; at other times, it’s just the West’s assumption; after all, if I deem to be female while inheriting male organs, I can; because ultimately, I create and re-create myself in my own image.

And this, ladies and gentlemen (and you should identity yourself with one of those two options exclusively and without possibility of alternation) is precisely why we, Christians in the West, should have two immediate reactions to what took place:

First, we should feel enormous pity for such human beings. There is high degree of chance that there is some form of abuse that took place in his life. He may be the exception, but the fact that he surrounds himself with the Hollywood elites is a sure sign that this young man has suffered in some way either sexually or verbally to achieve this level of insanity. This kind of confusion is most often the result of the sexual bifurcation that happens early on, and of which Hollywood is complicit in perpetuating its culture.

But the second reaction to Harry’s dress-up session is absolute, unadulterated mockery. Not only is this young man a tool of the left, but he is a tool of the devil who loves to insinuate that what is obscenely abnormal should be the norm. Styles put on a dress and went on Vogue to reveal that his masculinity can play games with God. Make no mistake: Styles is taunting God’s style. But God is not mocked, neither does he favor image-bearers returning their masculinity back to the Creator. When God gave us a sex, there was a “no-return policy” attached to it.

Candace Owens jumped on this display of weakness and asserted that this is not what a “manly man” looks like and that “no society can survive without strong man.” The fact that her opinations earned the wrath of the right pagans is good enough for me. But, I would like to go a step further and assert that Styles is the embodiment of judgment. He is what happens when good men do nothing; when dads don’t take their boys out to the ball game; when dads choose domestic obscurity over domestic presence; when they choose profession over pouring affection on their young boys.

Adam attempted to cover himself with fig leaves to cover his shame, Styles attempted to cover his masculinity with an outdated subversion of gender norms. In the end, a man is a man is a man. You can’t hide your uniqueness and you can’t hide your identity from the One who sees your nakedness and form.

If there is ever a time to pray for our young boys, it’s now! If there is ever a time to seek the good of our children’s education, it is now! As Justin Trudeau stated recently, “it’s time for a reset.” Except, unlike Trudeau, who wishes for more more Harry Styles to populate the earth, I am petitioning God to take us back to the foundational steps of civilization when men knew that we dress up to attack evil, and women dress up to mother young boys to put on the armor God gave them in their baptisms.

Read more