MENU

Politics
Category

On October 18, 2021 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

On August 18, 2021 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

On February 5, 2021 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

On January 25, 2021 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

On January 12, 2021 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

On November 17, 2020 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

On November 15, 2020 By In Culture, Politics, Theology, Wisdom

Taxes

The issue of taxes can be a volatile subject. A political party’s position on taxes is one of the great dividing lines that emerges in many political campaigns. Taxes don’t merely concern issues of dollars and cents (though we are all happier to keep as much money as we possibly can). Taxes speak to issues of authority, the size and scope of government, charity, private property, civic responsibility, and many other issues.

Let’s look at one particular tax for illustrative purposes: property taxes. We pay property taxes to provide a number of different services for the local area. Whether you agree with those services and the place of government in providing them is not my concern at this point. The tax itself is the issue. What does the property tax say about private property? Quite frankly, it tells the citizenry that there is no such thing as private property. You have the privilege of spending money on a piece of land and building a house on it, but the land is owned by the local government. If you don’t believe me, don’t pay your property tax. You will see who owns the land within a few months. You will be evicted from the land and house you thought you purchased.

(more…)

Read more

On November 1, 2020 By In Church, Culture, Politics, Theology

The Politics of All Saints Day

From the earliest days of history, there has been a war going on; sometimes with more visible intensity and sometimes with less, but it is always there, churning underneath friendships, marriages, and geopolitical relationships. This war is the war between the woman and the serpent, between her seed and his seed established by God just after the fall, declared plainly to us in Genesis 3.15. From the beginning, it has been a bloody battle. Cain, the seed of the serpent, killed his righteous brother, Abel, the seed of the woman, because Abel’s deeds were righteous and Cain’s were wicked (1Jn 3.12).

The battle has continued through the ages, both before and after the coming of Christ Jesus. Those opposed to God and his way of ordering life have sought to eradicate the righteous, whether they were the prophets of the old creation, Jesus himself, or his apostles. The war continues even after that first generation after Jesus’ resurrection. The early church tells us of men such as Polycarp and Justin, women such as Perpetua and Blandina along with many others. The cruel ways in which all of these died cannot be matched, but the numbers of modern-day martyrs far exceed the numbers of our early church. One author says that 2019 was one of the bloodiest years in church history. We hear of eleven Christians beheaded in Nigeria in December of 2019, and this is followed up by over 1,200 being killed in Nigeria in the first six months of 2020. Then there is the Middle East where there is what some are saying is coming close to Christian genocide. North Korea, China, Sri Lanka, and many other countries are targeting Christians for persecution and death.

The war has never stopped. While we know that there is a war, the question must be asked, What are we fighting for? Is this war merely the fact that these individuals over here don’t like the individuals on the other side of the line? No. This is a political war, and the feast of All Saints is all about politics.

The feast of All Saints began in some form or fashion early in the church. Though it is celebrated at different times in different branches of the church, there is a time in churches all around the world that the church commemorates the lives of all of the unnamed martyrs along with those loved ones we have personally known who have borne faithful witness to Christ throughout their lives and have now, having fought a good fight, have gone to their rest. Many saints’ lives are celebrated by name throughout the year. All Saints is the day for the millions of others who have no special day, giving the church a time to reflect upon those unsung heroes, as we might say, or those whom we knew personally, who encouraged us and left us an example to follow. This follows the pattern of Hebrews 11 of remembering and being encouraged by the departed faithful.

When we think about the martyrs and celebrating their lives, we probably recall the courage of a Polycarp or Thomas Cranmer who faced the flames, or Ignatius, who was torn to pieces by lions in a Roman arena. Their courage rooted in faith was exemplary and is to be emulated by all of us in our daily lives. But their deaths witnessed to more than just personal courage rooted in their own convictions. Their deaths were a proclamation to the world, and particularly their persecutors, that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.

In Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection, the nature of his kingdom was revealed as one that had power over death itself. Being that this was the greatest power of any government over its people, a power that kept people subservient through fear of death, Jesus Christ and his people declared through their willingness to die that all political systems, all governments, were ultimately subservient to Jesus’ lordship and would, eventually, be subjugated by him. The Christian faith threatened to undo all of the political systems based on the fear of death. Martyrs were and are the ultimate witness to the principalities and powers that their time is short.

We have a hard time in America understanding martyrdom because we view religion as a private commitment that is not to interfere with politics. As Amy Coney Barrett proudly proclaimed, her personal religious beliefs would not interfere with judgments about the law. And that’s the way it ought to be. Don’t bring religion into politics. There should be a wall of separation between the church and the state, right?

When we think like this, we yield the field, forsake our mission, and are poor stewards of the inheritance left to us by the martyrs. The Christian mission has always been political because the purpose of man is political; that is, we were created to take dominion, build a kingdom, build the city, the polis, of God so that every area of life images the life of God’s heaven. There is no “secular” space in this sense; some sort of neutral space where God does not claim absolute rule. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus was granted all authority in heaven and on earth by the Father (Matt 28.18; cf. also Phil 2.5-11). Through the blood of his cross, Jesus reconciled the world to himself, putting everything under his lordship, visible or invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers (Col 1.15-20).

The word gospel itself, as it was used in the first century, was a political announcement. It was used to speak of the birthday or the conquest of a king. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the announcement that Jesus is Lord; that he reigns, having received the nations as his inheritance, just as the Father promised. All kings must come and bow and kiss the Son lest he be angry (cf. Pss 2; 72). As we proclaim the gospel, the church is a threat to the political systems in rebellion against the Christ of God.

As we worship, offering up our prayers, God shakes up the geopolitical landscape (cf. Revelation, esp. 8.1-4). Worship is a political action.

The martyrs did not give their lives because they had personal disputes about private, interior religion. They were killed because the church’s existence and her proclamation that Jesus is Lord threatened to undo all of the kingdoms of the world–the political systems. They could courageously give their lives because death had been conquered, stripping every satanic kingdom of its greatest weapon: fear of death (Heb 2.14-15).

We may not give our lives as many of our fathers and mothers did or as many of our brothers and sisters are doing even now. But we must live with the bold faith of the martyrs, pressing the crown rights of King Jesus through every square inch of the world.

Read more

On October 30, 2020 By In Culture, Politics, Wisdom

Our Founding Father

 For he [Abraham] was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

Hebrews 11:10 ESV

Much has already been said about this upcoming presidential election, probably too much. All sides of the political carousel assert the importance, urgency, and historic consequences of choosing the right man for such a time as this. There will undoubtedly be more to say in the coming week as the results come in and we know, or think we know, the direction of our nation for the next four years. Even in a society inundated with words, public discourse is still a crucial element for growth and health as a people. I am thankful for the free exchange of ideas. But the ideas themselves are not free. They are always rooted to something that gives those ideas veracity and potency. As we consider the next president of the United States, we must maintain a clear vision of the nature of the presidency itself and the true foundation of a just and good society if we are to speak and respond appropriately to this election. 

The founders, at least as much as I understand them, never intended the presidency to ascend to such great heights of power and influence. They were very aware of the dangers, as well as the blessings, of monarchical rule. A good king can do much more good for his people than a good president. But that same principle applies to bad kings as well. Therefore, these men set in place certain restraints and protections. There were really two dangers through which they had to navigate. They had the danger of overt tyranny on the one hand and mob rule on the other. The tyrant says that the king is law. The mob says that the majority is king. The Christian must say that there is a King of all kings and a Law of all laws; and They cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted without consequences. Or as the Scottish presbyterian, Samuel Rutherford, argued so beautifully in his great work, Lex Rex, “the Law is King.” Once you separate justice or lawfulness from a Divine Lawgiver, you will always be drifting toward tyranny- either a tyranny of the few or the many. 

One of the reasons, though certainly not the only one, that we have a 200 year history of a transfer of power through free elections without violent revolution or the shedding of blood is because of the relatively limited power which transfers hands every two or four years. Things tend to go badly in the end for royal lines and dictators. Elections should not generally be the catalyst for broad change. The right and privilege to vote should rarely become the urgency to vote. Rather, elections ought to be smooth transitions without the need for much anxiety from either side because most of the power would rest at the local levels. Most of the reform would have to happen from the bottom up not the top down.

We have experienced something much different in recent history. The power at the top is great. The President is considered by many as “the most powerful man in the world.” The Supreme Court just may be even more powerful behind the scenes. Recent headlines provide examples of both. First, listen to the questions and concerns directed at Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. The underlying expectation driving all of the objections is judicial legislation. They fully expect her to use her authority as judge to legislate from the bench. They almost seem not to have a category for a judge who would do otherwise- despite Judge Barrett’s words or record to the contrary. In their minds it is not a question of if but how.

Second, listen to the criticisms leveled at the president concerning his handling of Covid-19. Implied within their comments is the expectation that the president should exercise a tremendous amount of authority. It’s not the overuse of power that they lament but its restraint. One would be tempted to think that there are no such things as duly elected governors to make decisions for their own states or duly elected mayors to make decisions for their own cities. To permit such diversity of rule concerning the pandemic is inexcusable in their eyes. One ring to rule them all. 

There is no doubt that this election is a crucial point in our country’s history. One of the things I hope will continue to change after the dust settles is a move back to the center of what a good federal government should look like. It is the rule of law subservient to its Foundations that makes a just society. Untethered from this authority, government inevitably becomes a rule of the few, a rule of the majority, or a rule of the oppressed and marginalized. America indeed has a King and no amount of campaigning or voting or court rulings can change that.  As He himself definitively proclaimed, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” a

All this leads me back to the issue of public discourse. The Church must lead the way if there is any hope of true liberty and justice for all. During such times, Christians would do well to take an internal poll of their own motives and desires. How do our opinions and concerns line up against the clear and indisputable authority of Scripture to govern all of life? Do our visions of justice, mercy, authority, and submission have their roots in the deep, rich soil of Truth or the shallow, hard dirt of modernity? One vision will sprout up quickly and look impressive for the Instagram post; the other will bear fruit for generations to come. A sense of urgency will always invite compromise.

This election is important. There are real implications in the choice we make for our next president. But the president is not our savior; he is not our sovereign. We must venture clear-minded and patient-hearted into the public square. Whatever the outcome of this election, we know that “when the tempest passes, the wicked is no more, but the righteous is established forever.” b

There lies within us a divine longing to see goodness flourish and love abound in society, but we must advocate for these things as Christians. The good of society cannot grow apart from the Supreme Good of the universe. A common weal c is built most surely upon the summum bonum. d Whether that means preserving certain founding principles or progressing beyond others, our Founding Father must be the beginning and end of it all. His supreme Good rightly orders our common good, starting with self-government and working outward. Christians who desire social justice must first seek to rightly order their own lives. e Again Augustine is helpful here. He argued that a true love for someone is the desire for their greatest good and fullest happiness. Since God alone is the source and object of this goodness and joy, then to truly love your neighbor is to speak and act in a way that seeks to bring them closer in conformity and communion with God. Anything less is not love. Period. Only with this truth firmly in view should a brother or sister venture into the realm of politics. Social media would never be the same. And neither would we the people.  

  1. Matthew 28:18  (back)
  2. Proverbs 10:25 ESV  (back)
  3. Lit. “the common good that binds a multitude of people by a mutual recognition of rights. Famously put forth by Cicero and later taken up with great insight by Augustine, the question becomes, “What is the common good that builds a society from a crowd or mob into a just society of men?”  (back)
  4. Lit. “the supreme good.” Augustine argued that Rome was never a just society because the “will”of the people is never a sufficient foundation for the “weal” of the people.  (back)
  5. “If a man who takes away a farm from its purchaser and delivers it to another man who has no claim upon it is unjust, how can a man who removes himself from the overlordship of the God who made him and goes into the service of wicked spirits be just?” – Augustine, City of God, XIX. 21  (back)

Read more

Photo by Kristen Price from FreeImages

On October 27, 2020 By In Politics

Voting & John Piper

John Piper has written publicly about how he will probably vote. I’ve shared my voting “philosophy” with friends but now Piper’s statement prompts me to make my own on this site.

Of course, whenever you get in a political discussion with others, you find that they don’t just disagree with you on one point, but on a host of points. They are convinced of many things that you “know” are not true. And they think the same of you.

(more…)

Read more