Not of This World

If the followers of Christ are to focus on the heavenly kingdom, why do we try so hard to make one here on earth?

The United States, as the story goes, began simply as the result of a boat of Christian pilgrims seeking freedom from the oppression of the state-run church in Europe. They then formed a Christian nation that promoted Christian values. I say "as the story goes" because such a statement only tells part of the story. This misremembering of history comes from a belief in "The United States is a Christian Nation" myth. (For more details on how this myth became official, read a previous post). This myth of a Christian nation has led, and continues to lead, to all sorts of persecution and subjugation of non-Christian and Christian people alike simply because they believed differently than those in power.

Beliefs Then and Now

This persecution and subjugation has taken many forms in American history. From early on, the Puritans persecuted dissenters from their colonies, notably Roger Williams, the future founder of Rhode Island. He wrote,

"God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and inforced in any civill state; which inforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civill Warre, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls." (source link here)

Such "inforced uniformity" most likely came from the belief that in order for Jesus Christ to return, God must have a pure people, and it behooves governmental authority to be the key agent of this purification. Often referred to as postmillennialism, an adherent to this view

"[B]elieves that the millennium is an era (not a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from an literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium." (source link here)

To find a notable proponent of a form of postmillennialism called dominionism, one need look no further than former presidential hopeful, and current Texas senator, Ted Cruz. (A more in-depth look at his views can be found here) Dominionism promotes, among other things, a Christian-controlled government in the United States. While few talk so openly about their belief in this concept as he and his family, its pervasiveness can readily be seen. One finds a clear example of this pervasiveness in the reaction of many professed Christians to the United States Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality.

Going the Wrong Direction

 

Such a ruling went directly against the goal of the "gradual Christianization of the world" which caused a lot of consternation in certain Christian circles (because many believe that the nation cannot be Christian if same-sex couples are allowed to be married). However, instead of renewing a zeal to preach the gospel, the ruling renewed a zeal to pass laws at the state and local levels to restrict this newly found freedom. Laws such as these, often passed under the guise of establishing religious liberty, tend to backfire in the long run. Many people now equate the terms "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" with intolerance and bigotry, and actively pursue means to erode the legal foundation for such laws (for more explanation of this issue go here).

To those who may think that I'm painting with too broad of a brush, answer this question for yourself, when you see society's morals eroding away, is your first reaction to find a spiritual solution or a political one? Spiritual solutions bring people together, political solutions drive people apart. I write this post because I have seen too many well-intentioned Christians heading in a direction that draws them away from God.

Jesus' Example and Rejection

As Christians we need to follow Christ, and a careful look at Scripture shows no occasion where He used political power to spread the gospel. After Jesus fed the multitude as recorded in John 6, the people wanted to make Him king, by force if necessary. Jesus recognized their intentions, but instead of accepting this political role, He withdrew from their presence (see verses 14 & 15). Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) 

The common people who rejected Jesus as the Messiah wanted a political leader to deliver them from pagan Roman oppression. The religious leaders had another reason. John 11:47-48 states, 

 "Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, 'What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.'" 

They did not want to lose their favored status with the government. Sound familiar?
 

The Bottom Line

 

Religion and politics should be coworkers, not marriage partners. Whenever religion uses politics to achieve its goals, it not only goes against the example of Jesus, but also alienates the very people God said we need to reach.

[Video] The Dark Side of Chocolate

For those of us who want/need a reason to stay away from chocolate this Valentine's Day, the documentary "The Dark Side of Chocolate" offers one very good one (Hint: It's probably not what you think it is.)

I was on youtube watching a video on the negative health effects of sugar, and one of the related videos was one titled "The Dark Side of Chocolate". Since I had just finished watching a video on health, I naturally thought that this chocolate video would talk about how eating chocolate is bad for me. What I discovered was something completely different. Here's the trailer.



If you want to watch the video in its entirety you can do it here, and you can visit the website here. Suffice it to say that I won't be buying chocolate anymore. I also plan on writing about some of the issues presented in this video in a later post, so stay tuned.

Have a Happy (Chocolate-free?) Valentine's Day.

Spiritual Hotspotting

Can an innovative approach to dealing with people's physical health translate into the spiritual realm?

I recently watched a relatively short (13 min) video about a doctor named Jeffrey Brenner in New Jersey who has taken upon himself the task of dealing with the sickest people in his city of Camden.  He found these people through analyzing medical billing data and by doing so mapped out "hot spots" where people incurring the highest medical costs lived.  He developed the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers as a means of helping improve these people's lives.  While innovation is definitely needed in the healthcare system, should we implement such innovation in our dealings with people's spiritual lives?

First off, how would we determine people's level of spirituality?  Dr. Brenner found his high cost patients through analyzing medical billing records.  Similar records showing spirituality simply do not exist.  Sure, we could go such organizations such as The Association of Religion Data Archives and find all sorts of data on religious attendance and adherence, but as we probably all know, a high level of spiritual health and regular church attendance do not always go together.  We could go to the impoverished, high-crime areas in hope of finding those with the greatest spiritual need, but as I mentioned in a previous post, Jesus did not have many positives to say about the spiritual health of rich people.  Simply put, it is virtually impossible to get an accurate picture of someone's spiritual health by focusing on the externals.  Sure, a man who systematically abuses his wife is definitely not one who has a high level of spirituality, but Jesus made it quite clear in His famous Sermon on the Mount that it is what is on the inside that matters most to God.  So, since our lack of the ability to accurately determine spiritual health (even, oftentimes our own) prevents us from spiritual hotspotting, what about the One Who is able to accurately determine spiritual health, does He target only high-need individuals?

No, and Yes.  Jesus was the best representation of how God deals with people, and we read about Him dealing with everyone from the profligate Samaritan woman to the well-behaved Nicodemus.  God does not demonstrate a favoritism in regards to how He deals with people.  So, then where does the "Yes" come from?  The "Yes" comes from the fact that "all have sinned" and therefore all need to be saved.  "All" means "all", from the person who systematically commits open sins, to the person whose sinning resides only between their ears, nobody can save themselves, and therefore everybody need a Savior.

So if the temptation comes to deal with the spiritual needs of only a specific group, remember "hotspotting" may work for the physical life but does not work for the spiritual life.

Enforcing God's Law

Wow, it has been quite awhile since I've posted anything here, but as someone once said "Life is what happens when you make other plans." In any case, here is something I would like to share with you.

Every once in a while I read or hear something that makes so much sense that I'm surprised I hadn't read, heard, or thought of it sooner. In this case it was something I just read recently in a book written a long time ago, but first a little background.

A little while ago I was at a Christian book store thinking about buying a book. I was looking for a religious book to complement a non-religious one I was already reading. There are, of course, many good books out there, but I found one that especially caught my eye. It was a red, white, and blue paperback entitled "Rights of the People" and was written sometime in the late nineteenth century by A. T. Jones and reprinted in 1998 by TEACH Services, Inc. I just started reading the book and the thought that really struck me has to do with the role of the government in regards to morality.

Early on in the book Jones establishes the thought that the church, acting as the voice of God, and the government, acting as the voice of the state, have distinct and separate roles in society. He states that God is the sole promoter of morality, and that the state can only promote civility. To put it in other terms, the government can only judge one's actions, they cannot judge one's thoughts, and therefore cannot enforce God's law because it is based on one's thoughts and beliefs. He then poses the question that I have had in my mind for some time and that is "Doesn't the civil power enforce the parts of God's law that say that you should not steal, kill, commit adultery, etc.?" He states that it doesn't enforce them as commandments of God, then explains it in two main points.

1. If a government were to enforce those standards as God's law, then it would have to charge a man for murder if he hates someone else, for perjury one who simply tells a lie, and for adultery if one were to have lustful thoughts.
2. Punishment for crimes would be nearly impossible to carry out because if one breaks God's law and repents, he is forgiven and is no longer guilty of that offense. The government would have to release offenders on the sole basis of them asking forgiveness regardless of how many times they were to commit the offense.

These thoughts definitely shed some light for me on the concept of legislating morality, and I hope it helped you as well. Stay tuned as I'm sure this will not be the last post I make regarding thoughts from this book.