Trump is Our Problem

I am not a political pundit. I rely on friends for much of my political understanding. I read theology often and politics only occasionally. I have not watched any of the debates in their entirety. This post is therefore not a foray into deep political thought. It is more like the rambling thoughts a political novice. When Trump announced his candidacy I never thought he would get as far as he has. He was like a cheap firework; all flash, no substance. But somehow the inevitable did not happen. Now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee it is worth considering why.

The Failure of "Conservatives"
I am sure other people have noted this, but Trump's rise is a backlash against conservatives.  By conservatives, I do not mean true conservatives. That is why the word is in quotes. True conservatives, the hold to the Constitution, small government, less spending, low key foreign policy conservatives, are a very small minority. By conservative, I mean those who affiliate with the Republican party and generally oppose the Democrats. For most Republicans the last couple of decades have not been that great. Our last two conservative presidents were weak and left a trail of wreckage.  Both the nominees against Obama were weak and impotent. Conservative appointees to the Supreme Court have voted liberal over and over again. When conservatives were in power in Congress they too often compromised. Conservative politicians have repeatedly failed the ones who voted them into power. Trump is not Romney or McCain or Jeb Bush. He is not a conservative establishment candidate. Is it any surprise that he is getting the traction? Why vote in another GW or nominate another Romney?

This also why I am not sure all those Republicans opposing Trump are going to make a dent in his appeal. His appeal is that he is not like those guys. Their opposition makes him look more like an outsider, which is one of the reasons he appealing.

The Disdain of the Average American
Remember Duck Dynasty? For years it was one of the highest rated shows on cable television. It was mercilessly mocked not just by the secular media, but also by many Christians, especially the more sophisticated type. They just did not understand how something so low class could be watched by millions. For years the church and the country has despised the average American. The guy who works 50 hours a week in a low paying job, mows his lawn on Saturday, goes to church on Sunday, and watches football in the afternoon. The single mom who cares for her two kids after waiting tables all day. The elderly man barely surviving as a greeter at Wal-Mart. The housewife who greets her children when they get home from school.  Maybe I am wrong here, but these are the folks Trump is appealing to. All politicians talk like they care about this very large group of Americans. But most Americans believe politicians care more about the elite ruling class than the factory worker, the farmer, or the school teacher.

It is odd that a millionaire businessman would get the ear of the American people before Cruz or Rubio. But one reason is that he has convinced conservative Americans that he cares about them. This is what people mean when they say, "He says it like it is." Trump does not listen to the elite. He is not tied to the ruling class of Harvard and Yale grads who give $25,000 a plate dinners to raise support. He does not care what the media thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him. He doesn't care about polls. He is not posturing for his donors. I am not sure Trump does actually care more about the average worker, but America feels like he does. And given our current climate, that is enough. He parallels Obama's candidacy on this point. One reason people voted for Obama is they felt he cared for them.

Silence in the Gates?

Amos is one of the lesser known prophets. He does not have the same stature among Christians as Isaiah, Jeremiah or even Hosea. Yet Amos is a fascinating book for 21st century Christians because of the intersection in the book between worship, money, politics, and the church.

Amos preached to the Northern Kingdom prior to her destruction by Assyria in 722 B.C. He is the only prophet who preached exclusively to the Northern Kingdom, also known as Israel. Amos begins his book by denouncing the sins of the nations surrounding Israel (Amos 1:1-2:5).  Of course, if you were in the North at the time this would have been wonderful news. Edom, Gaza, Moab, and even your brother to the South, Judah, were directly in the path of God's wrath. Lots of amens from the pews for this part of the sermon. But then Amos turns his guns on the Northern Kingdom (Amos 2:6-16) and folks begin to fidget, look away, and hope the clock moves faster. Not only does Amos rebuke Israel for her sins, she gets the longest and most scathing rebuke of all. The rest of Amos from 2:6 until 9:10 is devoted to the condemnation of the Northern Kingdom and the coming judgment for her sins.

Amos focuses on several sins he sees in Israel. First, he condemns idolatry. Bethel is mentioned seven times in Amos. What was special about Bethel? That is where Jeroboam had set up one of his two golden calves for the Northern Kingdom to worship (I Kings 12:25-29). Throughout the book Amos condemns Israel's idolatry (Amos 2:6-8, 3:13-14, 4:4-5, 5:4-5, 21-23, 7:9, 8:13-14). Israel has bent her knee to the gods of this world, not to Yahweh. Her worship is a mockery. It is not according to God's Word. It is not sincere (Amos 8:5-6). No matter how much pomp and show there is, God hates it (Amos 5:21).

The second sin is greed, which leads to bribes, theft, oppression of the poor, luxurious living, and crooked business practices (Amos 3:10, 15, 4:1, 5:11-12, 6:4-6, 8:5-6, 10).  There is a close connection between idol worship and economic injustice in Amos.

The third sin is that of rejecting God's Word, in particular the word of the prophet. We see in this in Amos 3:7-8 where Amos defends his ministry. We see it in Amos 7:10-17 where Amaziah the priest, on orders from Jeroboam the king, orders Amos to go prophesy somewhere else. We see it in the promise that God will remove his word because of Israel's sins (Amos 8:11-12). We read it in the repeated use of the word "hear" (Amos 3:1, 13, 4:1, 5:1, 7:16, 8:4).

 And we see it in Amos 5:10-15. Here is the text:

They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth. Therefore because you trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions and how great are your sins— you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time, for it is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said. Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph. 

I find this text interesting because it shows how wicked men are not tolerant. They do not want equal voice for all. Wicked men hate righteous men who rebuke them in the gates. Amos is not mentioned by name, but the implication is clear, especially in light of 7:10-13. Israel does not want his public condemnation of her sins. The prophet is told to quiet down and stop creating such a fuss. Israel doesn't want or need his speeches on the steps of capital. They don't like his sermons that mention the sin by name and hints at those who might be engaged in it. They don't like the letter to the editor from the local pastor or the minister who shows up at a city council meeting. The prudent are silent. They know which way the wind is blowing. Those who strive to be righteous are afflicted. The people don't want to hear God's anointed messenger. Amos has got to go. Therefore God will send a famine of his word. Men will wander seeking God's word, but will not find it (Amos 8:11-12).

Justice is mentioned 4 times in Amos all between 5:7 and 6:12 (5:7, 15, 24, 6:12). In 5:7, 24 and 6:12 it is coupled with righteousness. God expects there to be justice and righteousness in the gates (c.f. Isaiah 5:7). The gate was where public business was conducted (See Genesis 23:10, 18, 34:20, Deut. 21:19, 22:15, 24, 25:7, Ruth 4:1, 10, 11, II Samuel 15:2).  In other words, God expects Israel to obey him in all spheres, including the civic one. Israel is not free to ignore Amos and his preaching. God expects his word to be honored in the courtroom, the business office, the legislative office, and city hall. Amos tells Israel that justice is not a private matter reserved for dinner table and sanctuary. It is not enough to have God's word in the pulpit and with coffee in the morning. God's word must take up residence in the public square.

Several points flow from this. I assuming that while the specific application might have changed from Old Testament to New Testament, God still desires righteousness and justice in the gates just as he did in Amos' day.

• The link between idolatry and economic injustice is often overlooked. The frequent mention of Bethel in Amos points to Israel's idol worship as the center of her decay. Therefore our worship must be according the God's Word.  When our worship becomes encrusted with man-made traditions we are risking judgment. We know this. But what we don't realize is that a community, church, denomination, or country that worships idols will be a greedy culture that tramples on the poor and cares little about economic justice. Theft, from both private and public sectors will become rampant. People will begin to rob God of the tithe due to him. Like vultures the rich will strip the poor. You can be sure that where idols are worshiped money will be as well. Too many Christians want to fix economics without fixing worship. That is impossible. If we worship God as he ought to be worshiped then our economic problems will begin to heal. Without right worship economic justice is a vapor. 

• The world expects, indeed demands, that the church is silent about wickedness in the public square. Evil men, whether in the church, government, media, the academy, or Hollywood do not like being called out publicly. Therefore any Christian who speaks to the public sins of our age, such as sodomy, fornication, adultery, abortion, corrupt business practices, politicians who can be bought, denying that Scripture is God's Word, or female ministers, and rebukes the men and women who commit such sins can expect kickback. They will be told to never again prophesy here (Amos 7:13).

• A pastor is not identical to an Old Testament prophet, but there are connections between the two. One of the tasks of a minister, just like the Old Testament prophet, is to confront the sins in his church and in society. He is not to be silent in the face of evil and wickedness.  This does not mean every sermon must be fire and brimstone or a political screed. But his head should be up and his eyes open for what is happening out there and in here. If the sins in his congregation or the sins of the culture are never addressed with clarity and calls to repent then what exactly is he doing up there? If no one ever says to him, "Sit down and shut up. We are sick of hearing about our sin" then perhaps he is not doing his job.

• Despite some clamor that God has no place in politics and ignoring some unhelpful ideas about Christian political engagement, Amos does teach us that God expects holiness in the civic realm. The courts, the laws, the rules about businesses, how money should impact elections, and care for the weak and poor among us are all legitimate concerns for Christians, including Christian ministers. All our questions will not be answered by simply saying we need to seek Biblical justice and righteousness in the city gates. Nor am I saying Christian ministers should develop economic policies. But just admitting that God expects holiness in the civic realm is a good start. Too many Christians, jaded perhaps by past failures or influenced by bad theology, believe that politics, economics, law, and similar subjects are unworthy of our attention. Amos, and indeed all the prophets, tell us this cannot be. Christians must work for justice and righteousness in the gates.

• Finally, looking at Amos 7:10-13 we can see that sometimes prophetic preaching will also be treasonous. Amos is preaching to Israel not America. America does not stand in the same relationship with God as Israel did. Nonetheless, every country has its idols. Israel's was a calf at Bethel. America does not set up golden calves, but she does have idols. When Amos preached to the idols in Israel he was accused of conspiring against the king (Amos 7:10). When a pastor attacks the idols in his land he can expect to not just be accused of religious intolerance, but also of conspiring against political powers. He is not just religiously out of touch, but also a traitor. We can see this unfolding already with the issue of sodomy. 

Where is the Real Abuse of Power?

Earlier this week the State of Kentucky, acting on an anonymous tip, removed ten children from a family that is living "off the grid."  As usual in such cases emotions run high and there is little doubt more information will come out.  Here are several thoughts about the case.

First, I am not inclined to trust our local, state or federal governments. Call me jaded, cynical, or perhaps just a good learner. But a country that routinely lies, kills babies, starts wars it has no business in, takes more and more of our money, spies on its own citizens, wants to legalize gay marriage, allows its leaders to be bribed by corporations and lobbyists, and thinks smoking marijuana is a crime worthy of years of incarceration does not engender trust.

Second, child abusers should be arrested and punished. If the father was abusing his children then he should be punished. This is the government's job. But a government that thinks refusing to vaccinate or send your kids to public school is similar to child abuse and abortion isn't has some twisted moral values.  Along with that, child abuse is not the same as a refusal to do what the government or society thinks you should. While I am glad for indoor plumbing, an outhouse does not constitute child abuse. Here are the two main complaints of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services:

According to a CHFS affidavit, there are two main concerns that the state found with the family's lifestyle. The first was that the family's homestead only has one "shed" and two "tents" that don't have a running water supply. The affidavit also asserts that the children are not registered with the local school board.

No mention of child abuse, malnutrition, bruises, beatings, etc.  An older son from a previous marriage came forward and said that the father was an abuser. If he is then he should be punished. But at this point there is no evidence of that. If fact, social services had come out on May 8th, three days before the children were taken, and inspected the home and suggested one minor change, but did not indicate there were major problems. Here is quote from  another news article:

Although Brow's [the older son] allegations definitely raise concerns, the reasons why the Naugler children were removed from the home have nothing to do with allegations of physical or sexual abuse.

Third, there should be no anonymous tips. If a person wants to accuse someone of something they need to own their accusation. I know anonymous tips are woven into our justice system, but how can a person be held accountable for bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16) if there is no record of the person who actually made the accusation?

Fourth, note these paragraphs. I added the bold.

"The allegations were that the family was residing in a tent, mother had given birth in a tent, there is no running water or septic, none of the children were enrolled in school and the father threatened the neighbor with a weapon," the police report states. "Sheriff Pate made contact with the family via telephone who spoke with the father who said a search warrant was the only way the children could be spoken with and Mrs. Naugler contacted SSC at this date, at the request of Sheriff Pate, and she too said no one could speak with the children about the report or come back to the property without a search warrant."

Because the Nauglers wouldn't let the police officers or a representative from CHFS speak with their children without a warrant, the parents were deemed to be not cooperative, according to the report. The report added that the parents' lack of cooperation helped lead to the assumption that the homestead's living conditions are not safe for the children

The parents by asking the police for a search warrant to talk to their children were deemed "not cooperative" that is, assumed guilty. Too often this is how our justice system works, as many African Americans know. Guilt is presumed because you are not bending over for the government. We live in a country where the government assumes your guilt before they ever knock on your door.

Fifth, just because a family is doing things differently does not mean they should have their children taken from them. I think a vigorous education rooted in reading the great books is essential for a child. I also think living off the grid leaves you with some social issues. But neither unschooling nor living off the grid constitutes a good reason for the government to remove children. In other words, I do not think it is wise to live the way the family does, but I do think they have the right to live that way. That does not mean every situation falls in this category. If a father is sexually molesting his children, beating his wife, or not feeding his children then something should be done. But as the state continues the unending march towards controlling our lives more and more spurious accusations are being used to separate children from parents.

Sixth, the government is not a good substitute parent. These children are now spread out over four counties in four different homes. In certain cases children should be removed from their parents.  But that is usually a lateral move from one tragic situation to another. In many situations siblings are split up and the rights of parents to visit the children is severely reduced. While there are many loving homes that these children get put in, there are also many ugly situations. And no matter what the situation is being cut off from family and siblings leaves a scar. Removing children from parents should be a last ditch response to an awful situation, not a knee jerk reaction to anonymous tip from a disgruntled neighbor.

In summary, the government taking these children from their parents, based on the current evidence and the statements of the authorities, is a bigger abuse of power than the way the parents were living. We shouldn't be surprised. If the government thinks it has the moral authority to spy on it citizens, run Iraq, tell other countries to accept sodomy, and kill babies then why wouldn't it have the moral authority to remove children from a backwoods family in Kentucky for a failure to register in school?

Did the Mission Change When Obama Won?

We often forget our mission until God brings some disaster along to remind us of what we are supposed to be doing. The mission of the church did not change on November 7th. Matthew 28:18-20 did not all of the sudden show back up in the Bible. It has always been there. But prior to the election  many had forgotten what that mission was. The never changing mission of the church is to bring glory to God by evangelizing and discipling the nations. But every church in America will agree with this. Mission statements and bulletin boards are filled with this type of language. We know we are supposed to evangelize and disciple the nations. But the Devil is in the details. And so is our love for and obedience to Jesus. How can the church grow more obedient to Jesus over the next four years? Here are ten things I think we should do. They are not radical for most of us. But they are essential. There is more that could be added. Only the first four are in order.

First, we must live in obedience to Jesus Christ our Lord, repenting where we are wrong and confessing that we are sinners saved by grace. This must be preached, sung, and lived in every home, pew, and pulpit in the land.

Second, God’s Word must be central to everything we do. We need to delight in it, preach it, study it, listen to it, sing it, memorize it, pray it, and above all believe and obey it. Any man who seeks to undermine God’s Word is a wolf and should be chased away from the sheep.

Third, we must show dependence upon God by steadfastly seeking him in prayer and thankfulness to him by rejoicing in all his kindnesses to us.

Fourth, we must preach the Gospel, calling upon men to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or they will perish in eternal fire.

Fifth, we must work to disciple the men.  For our country to change our homes must be in submission to Christ. This begins with godly husbands and fathers who love their wives and train their children.

Great Expectations

A friend of mine noted that the numbers do not indicate that President Obama won by a large margin. I looked into this and found that this was true. Here are the numbers from all seven elections since 1988.  All the data is from uselectionatlas.org. Some sites have slightly different numbers on 2012 election. 

1988-George H.W. Bush wins with +315 electoral votes and +7,077,121 popular votes.

1992-Bill Clinton wins with +202 electoral votes and +5,805,256 popular votes. Ross Perot took 18.9% of the popular vote that year.

1996-Bill Clinton wins again with +220 electoral votes and +8,201,370 popular votes.

2000-George W. Bush wins with +5 electoral votes and -543,816 popular votes.

2004-George W. Bush wins with +35 electoral votes and +3,012,171 popular votes.

2008-Barack Obama wins with +192 electoral votes and +9,549,105 popular votes.

2012-Barack Obama wins with +126 electoral votes and +2,947,720 popular votes.

          Several things stick out as one looks at this election versus the other post Ronald Reagan elections. President Obama got the least electoral votes of any Democrat since Reagan and he also won by the smallest margin of popular votes.   Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush improved their numbers when they were reelected. President Obama did not. President Obama received over 9 million less votes than he received in 2008.  All the numbers indicate that President Obama lost ground over the last four years and this win was not numerically impressive. So why does it feel so impressive? What happened on Tuesday that caused most political conservatives to feel as if they had got kicked in the gut?

Here is my shot at why conservatives think they got beat soundly despite the numbers being close. I am no political expert. So take this with a grain of salt. 

1.     In the 2010 mid-term elections the conservatives cleaned up. The expectation was that they would do this again. By my last count the Republicans lost two seats in the Senate and two in the House.  When you expect to win by a lot and you lose by a little it can feel like you lost by a lot.

2.     President Obama’s first four years were a debacle. The economy was destroyed. The stimulus package did not work. Obamacare got passed, but most polls indicated that a majority of the country did not want it. Unemployment was never really fixed. All of this led conservatives to believe that the country was ready for a change, much as it was in 1992 when Bill Clinton beat out George H.W. Bush. President Obama seemed ripe for the picking. They were wrong.

3.     The voting blocs that are growing went with President Obama. The Hispanic vote was 70% in favor of President Obama. The younger generation vote was 60% in favor of President Obama. These two voting blocs will likely determine the president for years to come.  The older generation, who will be dying out over the next couple of decades, largely voted with Governor Romney. The writing on the wall from this election is that it is going to be increasingly difficult for a conservative to win the White House unless they can somehow reach Hispanics and younger votes.  

4.     The conservatives anticipated a more energized base. Despite the rhetoric of the months preceding the election, this did not happen. Governor Romney got 2,600,000 less votes than John McCain. The conservative base was not energized.

5.     The final reason the numbers do not tell the whole story is that social conservatives lost on numerous fronts. Three states, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, voted to allow gay marriage. This marks the first time that a popular vote has been in favor of gay marriage. Conservatives are also losing ground in the abortion battle, although there is more debate here than about gay marriage. One national exit poll had 59% of the voters believing that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Add to this the passage of Obamacare and it appears that more Americans are in favor of abortion than ever before.

          I am no expert on political matters. I could be wrong on some or all of these points. But I would argue that despite how close the numbers were most conservatives were stunned by the results and felt that President Obama got a huge win on Tuesday. 

The Empire is Dying

On Tuesday night I went to bed at 10:05. I did not stay up late. My heart was not overly concerned about the outcome of the election. I woke up Wednesday morning, started a fire in my fire place, read my Bible, checked the internet to see who won and then began my day.  I was discouraged by President Obama’s win, but only a little bit. What was most discouraging for conservatives was the margin of victory. They felt that Governor Romney was a better candidate than John McCain. They also felt that the last four years were terrible in so many ways. Therefore they could not see how a majority of Americans would re-elect President Obama. But they did and by a large margin. Here are some of my observations from the election. It is a rant of sorts.  It is probably overly pessimistic. But it won’t do Christians any good to sit there and pretend all is well in a country where President Obama is the most popular man on the ballot.  Later I will put up another post, which will be more optimistic, about what Christians can and should do in the coming days. I do not say much about the Church and her role in this debacle. That will come more in my next post. By the way, I am not saying that Governor Romney would have done better than President Obama. 

1.      Jesus is still Lord. All this happened because the Triune God thought it was best for his glory and for the good of His people. If we don’t believe this we should close our Bibles, shut down our churches, and go home.

2.      Jesus is still Lord. That means we have a job to do as Christians. We are supposed to disciple the nations (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus is Lord does not mean we sit by and say, “Whatever will be, will be.” More on this later.

3.      Christians are entering a situation where the teachings of Scripture will treated with increasing hatred by both parties. Democrats already hate the Bible. At least some Republicans are blaming Governor Romney’s loss on the abortion issue and gay marriage. Christians will be increasingly marginalized, hated, cast out of positions of power, and blamed for what goes wrong. I am reminded of Carl Trueman’s quote that those who hold to Christian sexual ethics will eventually be looked at as white supremacists. Are we ready for that? If the last couple of decades are any indication the answer is no.

4.      This is a fight to the death. The pro-sodomite, pro-abortion, pro-sin crowd will not go quietly into the night. We are not sitting on our back porch drinking lemonade with men we can agree to disagree with. We are on the front lines of a battle.  They will slit our throats, watch us die, and dance on our graves. I am not encouraging Christians to be mean and cruel.  I am just reminding them that this is a battle, not a tea party.

5.      President Obama’s win shows the moral corruption of our country. We are a country that wants a blood thirsty, sodomite loving president, who will steal other people’s money and give it to us. We want a president with no moral compass.  Isaiah 1:5-6 comes to mind.

6.      Slavery has not ended. It has just become voluntary. We are a country that wants to be enslaved.

7.      Popularity and style rule over substance. We live in a land of celebrities and we want our President to be one as well. President Obama built his campaign by appealing to men like George Clooney and Jay-Z. His policies matter less than his personality.  We like him and he is cool so we vote for him.

8.      Truth has been sacrificed on the altar of self-preservation, personal advancement, and personal pleasure. The President does not care about what is true.  Apparently neither do a majority of the American people.

9.      All empires die. America is no exception. Mel Gibson’s gory movie Apocalypto opens with this quote, “"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”  America is destroying itself. That is all she can do if she leaves God. To leave God is to choose cursing, destruction, and death.  It may be 4 years or 40 years, but if America continues down this path there is only one possible outcome. You reap what you sow and God will not be mocked.

10.  The two greatest influences in this country are popular culture (movies, T.V., radio) and public education (K-12 and at the college level).  These are the institutions that shape and form our culture. All of these are, for the most part, dominated by those who hate God. Do we really think that millions of men, women, and children can watch Modern Family , listen to Justin Bieber, and get sex education at public school and still make godly decisions? Here is where Republicans and many conservative Christians are fools. Republicans think they can win by focusing on the halls of congress and on the ballot box. Conservative Christians often think the same thing. But the people’s hearts are being won through movies, songs, and public education. When they get to the ballot box they vote their heart. On Tuesday we saw the heart of this country. 

Book Review: Economics in One Lesson

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Hazlitt exposes one of the basic fallacies in economic policy: Most policies are made for one group of people and only look at short term results. He argues economic policies should be made with all groups in mind and should look at long term results. It contains a lot of common sense economic wisdom. He repeats himself as he shows how the fallacy works itself out in various governmental policies. I found it eye-opening.

View all my reviews

Peter Leithart on Political Theology

Here is an interview Peter Leithart did with the Society for the Advancement of Eccelsial Theology.  I have not heard of this particular group before. However, the interview is very helpful. Dr. Leithart makes the simple point that the entire Christian life is political because we serve a King and live in a Kingdom that is not of this world. I especially enjoyed the phrase "Christians never have limited political capital."  I have reprinted the interview in full below.  It can be difficult in places, but I think you can get the main point. 

1. For those who are not familiar with your work, can you describe your contribution to the question of how the individual Christian and the Church relates to the State?

PL:  I have addressed church-state questions in many of my books, though obliquely rather than directly.  I have explored those themes in various books – The Kingdom and the Power, Against Christianity, and more recently my historical study, Defending Constantine, where I address church-state relations more directly.

But I am convinced that political concerns are inherent in theology.  Political theology is not some specialized branch of theology, but a dimension of all theology.  Politics is not simply about passing this legislation or electing that candidate.  Politics addresses questions about the distribution of power, and more broadly questions about the shape and future of a group.  Theology cannot help but address those questions, and do it all the time.  The Bible certainly deals with political questions like this.

So, even when I am not doing political theology, I am doing political theology.  Let me given a couple of examples of what I mean.  Ecclesiology has been a major focus of my work, and, as I see it, that bumps directly up against political questions.  The intimate connection between ecclesiology and politics has been obscured in modernity because the church has been marginalized and has allowed itself to be transformed into a sociologically invisible and politically innocuous religious group.  Scripture, by contrast, treats the church as a political entity in itself, each individual congregation as an outpost of the heavenly empire of a heavenly Emperor.   That means that the church and its claims about Jesus, sin, and salvation are political claims, necessarily.  I’ve also written a lot on sacramental theology, and I have had the same concerns in view.  Sacraments ritualize and represent the kind of community that the church is and aspires to be, and that again means that the sacraments inevitably have a political dimension.  I think in fact that the eclipse of sacramental consciousness and sacramental theology is one of the great political tragedies of the past several centuries of church history.  The Eucharist has been privatized and individualized, and that means it lacks the political edge – as the table of the kurios, the Lord – that it has in the New Testament.  How many wars among Christian nations would have been avoided if our sense of community had been shaped by being table fellows with one another?

2.  Richard Mouw and Carl F. H. Henry have suggested that the Church’s role is not coterminous with the responsibility possessed by individual believers.  Do you agree or disagree?

PL:  Yes, I think that is fairly obvious.  An individual believer might be a judge who sentences someone to prison or to death; the church as an institution can never do that. As always, though, the devil is in the details.  I don’t take that distinction to imply that the church as an institution has only an “indirect” political role, that it can never intervene in political affairs as the church.  Over the centuries, the church as an institution, or representatives of the church, have addressed political issues directly, without overstepping the bounds of churchly authority.  Ambrose rebukes Theodosius and denies him communion because of a rash and bloody military episode. During the middle ages, the church disciplined nobles who defied the truce and peace of God. I think it’s entirely proper for the church to speak as church to political injustices.

Worship as Politics

"Worship is Political Science 101. In every worship service, the Christian ekklesia is renewed in her unique story and language,  her unique political experience and vocation.  Every worship service is a challenge to Caesar because every Lord's Day we bow to a Man on the throne of heave, to whom even great Caesar must bow...Every Lord's Day, the Church is reconstituted as a polity whose obedience is owed to Christ, and we are taught to name Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords." (Peter Leithart, Against Christianity, p. 67)

Why Worship is Political

1. In worship we declare Jesus to be the King of Kings. We say that Caesar must bow to Him. We say that Jesus rules right now, not the President or the Prime Minister or ever else may be sitting on the throne.

2. In worship, we offer prayers before the throne of God, as a body. We can pray anytime, but the corporate prayers of the saints have the ability to turn the hearts of kings. (See I Timothy 2:1-2) In worship we appeal to the one who holds the king's heart in his hands. (Proverbs 21:1)

3. In worship we come to hear and obey a law that is higher than our constitution. We declare that the Supreme Court or the UN does not have the final say in what is right or wrong. God's law is supreme.

4. In worship, we are reminded that in the end there will be only one city. There will not be Morgantown or Fairmont or West Virginia or the United States or Madagascar or Australia. In the end there will only be the Church, bought by the blood of Christ, sanctified by the Spirit, singing praise to the glory of the Father. (Revelation 5:9)

5. In worship, we are being prepared for and participating in that one final city, the heavenly city, where our citizenship lies. (Philippians 3:20) This is a city of song, fellowship, God's Word, water, bread and wine, and forgiveness of sins.

6. In worship, we are reminded that nations are converted not through fleshly power or coercion or swords, but through sacrifice. We are reminded that we are being saved because He died. If we want to be a witness then we too must learn to die. (Ephesians 5:1-2)

7. In worship, we sing the Psalms.  The Psalms are deeply political.  (Psalm 2, 45, 110, etc. )

There is more that could be said, but that is a good start.

A Better Crop

Here are some of my thoughts on Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and politics.

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are both good candidates, but I do not think either will beat Romney for the nomination. Call me a pessimist.

We should be grateful these two men have gotten as many votes as they have. Paul has opened doors for future fiscal conservatives. Hopefully, they will have they will have the courage to walk through them. Santorum has said things that no recent legitimate GOP candidate has had the courage to say.  They both have their faults, but we certainly have a better crop to choose from than 2008.

I would vote for either man without a second's hesitation. Santorum and Paul are light years ahead of McCain. I will not vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

The blatant disregard for Ron Paul in the mainstream conservative media is appalling and revealing. I am thinking particularly of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Conservative media is just as biased as liberal media.

Abortion, despite its age, is still the defining issue for Christians in politics. Not because other types of killing are okay (such as civilian casualties in war) but because abortion is willful, blatant, and prevalent.  Abortion is the sacrifice America makes to the god of pleasure.

The declining interest in abortion among young conservative voters comes, at least partly, from the distracted age we live in. A generation raised on blogs, sitcoms and thirty second commercials is going to have a hard time fighting a battle that will probably take generations to win. 

If we are going to be consistent about sexual ethics then adultery must be brought into the conversation. If we give the pornography industry or a conservative who has a questionable sexual history a pass, but hammer the sodomites we are being hypocrites.

Our fiscal policy and our sexual ethics are linked. That is why abortion, homosexuality, our wars, and over taxation belong in the same conversation. Ron Paul supporters are correct to point out Rick Santorum's poor financial policy.  Isn't love of money behind both abortion and the wars we fight?

I don't think libertarianism or big government will fix our problems. We are only as good as the men who lead us. Ron Paul's idea of giving power back to the states is Constitutional and a good idea. However, does anyone really think that California or New York would be more godly just because the state legislatures were in charge? At this point the federal government might be holding them back. Our goal should not be a Constitutional country, but a godly country. Therefore, we need godly leaders. Men who live their life and  make laws based upon God's Word.  Therefore the key is to raise godly sons.  Only when we have godly fathers and husbands can we expect to have godly civil servants.  If conservatives Christians want long term change then they should put more time into loving their wives and raising a host of godly sons and daughters than into who will win the nomination.

Doug Wilson on Santorum, Paul, and Politics

Doug Wilson has weighed in on the Rick Santorum vs. Ron Paul debate with some good words of balance. I know many of you are Ron Paul supporters, therefore you should listen to what Wilson says. Wilson is not trying to get anyone to stop voting for Paul. But rather he is trying to keep us from making broad sweeping statements and overreaching. Ron Paul will not save America and Rick Santorum is not the antichrist. Rick Santorum will not save America and Ron Paul is not the antichrist. This does not make them equal, but it should make us careful about how we talk about them.

Here are three of Wilson's posts that are worth your time, even if they make you mad. 

First, he explains why Rick Santorum's foreign policy is not equal to abortion. This is an important point to remember.  Abortion is the most heinous sin in American history, maybe the history of the world. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the fire bombing of Dresden pale in comparison to abortion. It is easy for the abortion debate to become stale. It shouldn't.  That does not mean we should only think about abortion when it comes to voting.  But it should be first on the list. Any candidate who does not vocally oppose abortion is ungodly. This does not mean Rick Santorum has a good foreign policy. It just means his foreign policy is not the equivalent of being pro-choice.

Second, he muses on why certain Ron Paul supporters feel like anyone who is not on the Ron Paul bandwagon has "insufficient zeal for the cause."

Finally, Pastor Wilson reminds us to not sacrifice the important things for our political ideas.

Leithart: All Theology is Political

Peter Leithart is a man I greatly respect, even when I disagree with him, which is not often. Here is a wonderful interview where he lays out how he thinks the Church should intersect the world, particularly politics. What I liked about this interview is the practical suggestions Leithart gives. He can be long on theory, short on practice. But here he gives many excellent ideas as to how a local pastor can see the church as a political body. The interview is well worth your time. Note especially the strong stance he takes against abortion and sodomy and the fact that he believes all men, including rulers, should be called upon to submit to Jesus as Lord.

Obama as Fool

Biblical Horizons has been putting up some really good posts lately. In this latest one James Jordan analyzes Obama as the fool and does some surface comparisons to Nazi Germany. It is an excellent article pointing out the biblical requirements for leadership and how Obama doesn't have them. Here is a short quote from the end of the article. "The sooner God destroys the world of evangelical gnosticism, the sooner authentic Christian churches can begin to do what we are called upon to do." It is worth your time to read this. The link is here.