Asking Questions and Struggling

I just put the following words on Facebook, then decided to throw them out here. They aren't the best edited, but rather a free flow of thoughts. Maybe someone can help me out here. They are:

Since when did it become OK for Christians to compromise who they are, and what it means to be God's children, today, in order to hopefully "avoid" some consequence in the future? Since when is it OK for Christians to say that the end justifies the means? Since when is it OK for Christians to yoke themselves with those who stand against the core heart and intent of God's Words, saying, "Well, God uses anybody"?

I am really struggling with this. I am not wanting to start any arguments, and if the comments get nasty I'll just erase them or this post, but I'd really like to hear some thoughts as it is hard for me to see the support that Christians are giving Donald Trump who, to my eyes (and I could be wrong), seems to be:
1. A lover of money
2. Proud
3. Unrepentant
4. Rude
5. Disrespectful
6. A lobbyist for his own self interest who will donate his resources and influence to anyone who benefits him, regardless of their stands on core issues like abortion, religious freedom, etc.
7. Arrogant
8. Without a core baseline of values that are Biblically linked about which he won't compromise or lend support to

I get the anger. I get the refreshing sense he brings in a world of political correctness and Washington garbage, but I can't bring myself to yoke myself with him when it seems to me he is the living opposition of so many things the Bible says to avoid and separate ourselves from. Maybe I'm totally wrong. Again, I'd love to hear respectful, thought out responses. If he is elected I believe God can use him, but I just am struggling to see how Christians can see him as a man representing the values, humility, servanthood, truth, and light that God calls His men to be---and then yoke themselves to him with their support. I would rather choose to stand for that which is uncompromisingly Christ, and trust God with my future, than to---as I perceive it---compromise myself today trying to secure my own future.

These are just my thoughts and things I'm trying to work through. I know I struggle with a lot of things and fall very short of Christ's standards, and I am not being judgmental in a haughty or superior sense. But God does call His children to be discerning, and when error is noted in our walk and heart, to be repentant and have a Godly grief over it. I just don't see that.

Oh My . . .

Well, the distinction between the atheist and Christian world views has taken on even more clarity. Check out this article:

IRS Strikes Deal with Atheists to Monitor Churches

Churches aren't supposed to endorse candidates . . . but now we can't talk about abortion or gay marriage? There are a lot of articles out there on this agreement, and I've only read this one, but even if it doesn't cover the whole story what it does cover is scary enough. Here's a quote from the article:

A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit. The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.

Here's the thing. This is about something far bigger than politics. It is about the moral fabric of our nation. If there is no God then there are not absolutes. Nobody has any right to say anyone else is right or wrong. And everything about any issue is simply "politics." But . . . if there is a God, then there are absolutes. We can choose to ignore them, but it doesn't make us right. God defines right and wrong, good and bad, truth and lies.

This is at the core of it all. Again, it is world view. The issue transcends politics. It is not political. It is an issue of supreme truth. If God is real then we are fools to ignore Him or what He says. If we put ourselves or politics above allegiance and submission to God we have become fools. When we speak against something God speaks against, or stand for something God stands for (providing we are Spirit-led), we are not being "political," we are putting God forth as supreme. But to someone who doesn't recognize then we are, inherently, being political. It comes down to who we recognize and who we are serving in the action and words.

That is the ultimate question our nation faces. We can say nobody can be discriminated against for their religious or non-religious views, and that is fine (see next paragraph for caveat), but if we don't submit to some higher standard of right and wrong we will crumble in the decay of society as we inherently seek our own selfish good. The only other alternatives to determining right or wrong are things like a dictatorship, or majority rule, or simply saying that the strongest/biggest/baddest will prevail. All of these have been tried and are scary.

At some point we must decide, "What is discrimination?" This is a huge question, far bigger then we might realize. The reality is we all—even atheists—advocate discrimination at some level. We discriminate against people who want to murder and rape. We discriminate against people who want to steal. The issue isn't discrimination, it is what is right and wrong. Then, in the realm of right we don't discriminate, but in the realm of wrong we all do by forbidding that action. Where those realms divide is the question of the ages, but all the "tolerance" people are being hypocrites. They all have things they don't tolerate, they just have a different line then others do. The key question is who, or what, draws the line? That is at the heart of it all. For those who see homosexuality as OK then it is discrimination against them to forbid marriage. To those who see it as sin in God's eyes, it is legislation against a wrong (and everyone legislates against wrongs—the real issue is, "What is wrong?"). The same for abortion causing contraceptives. If you see the baby as simply a fetus then you see it as discriminating against women and their choices. If you see the baby as a life then you see it as legislating against wrong and sin and protecting the defenseless.

Atheists are ticked because churches have tax exempt status and can then talk about, in their eyes, politics. Well, can you imagine the pressure the government could bring on churches if they could tax them? Especially this government in this era? They could drive them out of existence as recognized organizations. But are we, as they see it, talking about politics when we talk about a candidate or issue in terms of God's laws and heart? Or are we, as we see it, talking about God and bringing His views into the issues we face? It is a key, pivotal question that there is no way to come together on with such divergent world views. No way. Period.

What kind of pastor could truly lead and equip a fellowship if he didn't talk about the issues that we face and how God sees them? If our faith is simply for stained glass windows and seminaries and funerals then we've missed the faith Jesus brought. He came into this world, into its pain and brokenness, into its people, and He brought the Father's heart and words and life into it. Our faith can—and it must—impact every area of our lives or we are not being true to it and our world view. If we compartmentalize God into the "proper" boxes then we've missed the God who breathes out stars and speaks life. My God can't be boxed, and He is interested in and involved in every issue of my life.

Who is right, or who is wrong, in this issue? It is a question that will define our nation and our future.

A Religious Test for President?

A recent article on FOX News reported on Mitt Romney wanting Rick Perry to apologize for a pastor's comments about Mormonism being a cult. In the article it quoted Mitt as saying, "Gov. Perry selected an individual to introduce him, who then used religion as a basis for which he said he would endorse Gov. Perry, and as a reason to not support me," Romney said. "I would call upon Gov. Perry to repudiate the sentiment and the remarks made by that pastor."

There is a huge error, I believe, in Mitt's statement. While I do not believe our nation can, or should, have a religious test for offices as a law, I find it ignorant and irresponsible for people to say individuals should not use religion as a basis for personal voting choices and endorsements. To me this is just one more inroad of the enemy that has already so powerfully succeeded in blocking faith from life—to so many faith has become a thing for Sunday and heaven, whereas science and their own strength and capability are left to provide the "real" answers to "real" life.

We find so many who have bowed to science's words over God's Word, and so many who find themselves in a hollow gospel that saves Jesus for Heaven, but leaves them alone to walk through life on a day to day basis and deal with all of life's "stuff" on their own. Now we are told (or at least it is implied) that someone shouldn't use religion as a basis for endorsing and supporting a candidate (or not endorsing or supporting one). How sad! Do we realize that if everyone who proclaimed to be a Christian actually voted on their faith and not on their own definition or right and wrong, or on their own economic best interests, we'd have a majority every time? Already, it seems to me, too few people are voting (or caring about) God's values and priorities.

If we don't understand a candidates world view then how can we possibly understand what makes that candidate tick, or how they will vote on issues that aren't even on the table for discussion yet? How can we understand a candidate if we don't understand their attitude toward right and wrong, man's condition, good and evil, humans and the environment, etc.? If someone is true to their world view it will define everything they do! For people who believe in evolution, they will find themselves believing that in man the answer will eventually be found because we just keep getting better and better. On the other hand, a Creationist recognizes the fall and decay of man and the absolute necessity for God to move and man to move in partnership with Him. To the evolutionist we are equal to animals and plants, but to a Creationist we are clear that we are custodians of them and that they were given to us for us, but not as our equal. To an atheist there is no absolute standard of right and wrong and moral relativism is the rule. To a Christian God is the source of right and wrong. To an atheist there is no explanation for evil, but to a Christian we see evil as real and having a source, and we are careful in dealing with people ruled by it.

On and on we could list the issues that should be dramatically affected by our faith and world view. If we are true to it, and it isn't just a political expediency to woo a mass of voters, it will be the very definition of who we are, how we act, etc. It should be true for every individual, not just politicians, but in the case of those running for office it is, to me, sheer ignorance and foolishness to imply a candidates faith should not be an issue in individuals deciding who they will support. To the contrary, I wish more professing Christians actually voted the way they feel God's Word reveals God would feel on an issue.

Fear Not . . .

It has been a long time since I have made a post to this blog. One of these days soon I will try and put together a post that explains sort of where I have been at and why I have been so silent. I am still trying to process it all myself. But, for today, I read an article this morning that is very pertinent to our times and I felt needed to be passed along. It is one of the best I have read at firmly, but lovingly, drawing us back to proper perspective and priorities in these days and times. It was posted this morning in the Christian Post, and taken from a blog by Russell Moore. Here is the link:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100323/don-t-be-afraid/index.html

After you have read the article I think you will best understand and appreciate the image I have included. It is a scan of a copy of an old poster I have on my office wall which was, I believe, put up in Britian after their hero, Admiral Nelson, had died. I can only imagine that, to an island nation who relied on its navy to protect it from all of its enemies on land, the death of their naval hero was a scary moment. The poster (and I have no idea who put it up) points them back to their true protector, and reminds them to fear Him alone. Once we are right with God, all other fears fall in to proper place.

P. S. If you don't subscribe to the Christian Post e-newsletter, I recommend subscribing to the daily one. It is a good, once a day, email with links to pertinent articles and news and commentary to Christians. You can subscribe from the above link.

World View and Politics . . .

(Note: I mention the phrase “world view” multiple times in this post. By this I mean the belief of a person about what this world is made up of in both the seen and unseen realms. For example, a true Christian world view would include one all powerful, loving God who is active in the world; the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible as His revealed Word to man; the reality of sin in man and man’s need of a Savior which is found only in Christ and His death; the fact that to follow Christ is to allow Him to live in you; and the inherent reality of Satan who runs rampant over this world driving the evil in it. A secular world view, on the other hand, might hold some beliefs like there isn’t a God, or if there is He is inactive in the world; that man is inherently good and capable of getting better and better; etc.)

I read the other day of the debate around some candidate for political office in the U.S. being called to defend a paper he wrote 20 years ago that expressed some strong religious views that affected his views on some social issues. I remember the last presidential election where debate raged about the legitimacy and "correctness" of exploring a candidate’s faith views. I have some thoughts about it all . . .

While, in America, we are a free country and I believe that people of different religious (or even non-religious) views should be allowed to run for office, I believe that it is naive to try and separate them from their world view. It is one thing to say that there shouldn’t be a religious test for office (I agree), and it is another thing to say that a person’s religion shouldn’t affect their decisions in office (I disagree, and think that it is impossible).

I do not believe that it is legitimately possible to separate a true believer in something from that belief—nor do I think that we should. The world view of a candidate (if it is truly held and not just declared or claimed for political expediency) will define their life and their role in that office in a dramatic way. Think about the office of President, for example:

A President’s world view will affect their attitude on good and evil, and the inherent nature and tendency of man. This will dramatically affect their dealing with other nations, their expectancy from other people, their trust, how they see and deal with terrorism and nations that support terrorism, etc.

A President’s world view will define how they see and understand the situation in the Middle East, as well as their stand on Israel. A President’s world view will dramatically affect where they seek their wisdom from. A President’s world view will define their own moral code—affecting how they operate—and it will affect their stand on social issues. A President’s world view will define their expectancy and outlook on the future. A President's world view will define their priorities. A President's world view will define if they see a spiritual component to situations. (And, I believe, because of my world view, that a true Christian President will give our nation a spiritual cover at the highest level whereas a non-Christian, or only professing Christian, President won't.)

It is one thing to disagree with a candidate’s world view and not vote for them (that is a precious right in our country), but it is simplistic and, I believe, ignorant (not meant derogatorily) to think that a person can sincerely hold a world view and not have it affect who they will be in office (hence, knowing their world view becomes important). How can, for example, someone who truly holds a Christian world view that includes at its highest place an almighty Creator who in love died for them set aside that Creator’s heart (regardless of the opinions of man) and support something that is reprehensible to that Creator? Likewise, how can someone who holds a world view that there is no Creator (or only an inactive one) come up with a true moral, absolute standard that is steadfast if they don’t recognize that there is an absolute in the world? How, in fact, do they come up with any litmus test for testing what is truly right or wrong and not just someone's opinion at the time?

Ultimately, someone with a true Christian world view holds that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that it derives from God—and someone who rejects God comes up, somehow, with their own standard of right and wrong which is, logically, no more valid than someone else who has an entirely different standard of right and wrong (because, by their very own belief, there is no higher standard or place to use as a base or foundation or yard stick). Moral relativism is basically a “what is right for you is right for you, and what is right for me is right for me attitude” and it’s logical extremes are so dangerous and deadly that a philosophy professor at West Point once told me that he would do all he could to get me kicked out of the academy if he truly thought I was the moral relativist I thought I was. The ultimate end of that philosophy is chaos and the reality that there is no "right" or "fair" way to say someone is wrong who says that for them some things we would call horrible and unthinkable are right!

So, I believe that a candidate’s world view is absolutely critical to know, and I don't think I would vote for a candidate whose world view I didn’t know or agree with. Candidates, during an election, can give their opinions on every issue on the table at the time, but it is only in their world view that we will be able to predict how they will decide on issues that come up later. If they are true to their world view it will define them. If they are not true to their world view, I don’t know that I can trust or believe or have confidence in them, or that I want them in office or leading my country.

None of this is to say that a candidate should, when in office, try and force others to follow his/her religion (in fact he should protect their freedom), but when deciding on issues and policies, and in dealing with other people and nations, he or she must, by necessity, have a world view that they draw on to understand situations, make their decisions, and define their values. Knowing their world view as a candidate should help us predict how they will be in office when a decision has to be made and they have to make it. Then, knowing that, we can decide who will best represent us, and what we believe and stand for, and we can vote for them.

Worth Watching . . .

I thought that this short video clip of Congressman Forbes was well worth watching and that it asks some excellent questions. Our children need to see this, and we need to be reminded of it.

Congressman Forbes on our Judeo-Christian Heritage

God bless all of you.