Evangelical Reformation

Truth is a scarce commodity in our society. This dark reality reveals itself graphically in our current financial crisis. One can listen to television, the major source of “truth” in our society, 24/7 and learn practically nothing about the realities of our financial crisis. Though we hear a lot about Wall Street greed, this accusation seems to be aimed at taking the attention off of the culpability of Congress. One thing is for sure. You won’t get to the bottom of it watching television. 

Why has truth fallen? Several forces in our society work hard to knock it down and prevent it from getting back up. One is communication by sound-bite. Whether a newscast or presidential debate, you only get at most a two minute treatment of any subject. In the Bill O’Reilly type format, you might get four minutes comprised of two people yelling over each other. We get no thoughtful, factual development of a topic. The Vice Presidential “debate” last night consisted largely of accusations being made and denied and countercharges being leveled. Just by listening you could learn practically nothing, and to make matters worse you would probably come away believing errors. 

For this reason such an event has deteriorated into a “gotcha” game, the highest hope being to hurl a one-liner that will zap the opponent such as the memorable, “and you’re no John F. Kennedy.” Substance comprises a small part of the exercise. We all remember the downfall of Richard Nixon in one of the early television debates. His makeup was not done well. Then there is the issue of style over substance. I recall hearing an announcement at church indicating that the speaker for an upcoming men’s retreat was “one of the great communicators of our day.” It struck me at the time that the concern was not over his content by how well he could communicate it. 

This preference for delivery over data hits at the heart of our current election. Barack Obama communicates well. The facts related to his background, platform, and tactics mean little to a majority of the American public. We would rather hear lies said well than truths said poorly. At the heart of the problem resides the difficulty in discovering truth. Truth does not come easy, especially in a world in which people profit from distorting and hiding it. Even in studying the Bible, a book containing pure truth, we have to work hard to grasp the truth. Many have drawn erroneous conclusions from Scripture. 

Therefore, in a culture that implements strategies that serve to muddy the waters rather than expose the truth, we have little hope of finding it. Our culture reflects that of Isaiah’s day. “Justice is turned back, And righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” (Isaiah 59:14) Note the bitter byproducts that accompany the fall of truth.  The recovery of our society from its economic, political, moral, and other woes must begin with a thirst for truth that will lead us to adopt methodologies that will reveal it. 

Recently leaders of the Muslim community wrote an open letter addressed to Christians entitled “A Common Word between Us and You,” calling us to work together for the common good based on the mutually shared commitments of both communities to love of God and of neighbor. A group of Christian leaders, including some evangelicals, formulated a response that they called “Loving God and Neighbor Together.”
My purpose in this post is to express the following concerns related to this Christian response:
·    “A Common Word between Us and You” keeps referring to a line from the Koran regarding God which asserts that “He has no associates.” That sounds very much like a repudiation of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Though this term is discussed, this discussion does little to assuage concerns that this language might constitute a rejection of Christ’s deity. We must have their assurance that this is not the intent of this language before we proceed. We must insist on that as a condition for working together.
·    The “Loving God and Neighbor Together” response extends a groveling apology about the Crusades— a misguided attempt at humility. As we look over the history of Islam and Christianity, we have done substantially better than they have in conveying the love of God and neighbor. Had they begun by owning up to their shortcomings, perhaps this response might find warrant. They did not. Therefore, this apology leaves the impression that Christianity has failed in the area of love while Islam has succeeded. Though the church’s record is stained, it has done a far better job of manifesting love of God and neighbor than any other institution in history. Therefore, such an impression impugns the name of Jesus, the Lord of the church.
·    This misrepresentation of the record leads to my third objection to the Christian response. “A Common Word between Us and You,” which recounts the commitment of Islam to love of God and neighbor, fails to address the deafening silence of the Islamic community in the face of atrocities committed in the name of their religion. If they believe in love of God and neighbor, where is their condemnation of their Islamic brothers who are murdering innocent people in cold blood, and continue to do so? Where is their disassociation from them and from their behavior? Though there has been some denunciation, it has been far too weak to be meaningful. I remember the memorial service convened in Washington, DC, after 9/11, which included a Muslim cleric. I waited for any repudiation at all of the horrendous deeds that have been perpetrated in the name of Allah. None were forthcoming. Nor does this document seem to notice the continuing atrocities. To write this letter to us without first addressing that issue, and without addressing it in the letter, represents the grossest form of insincerity, especially since the bloodletting in the name of Allah continues. And what of the Muslim nations that make becoming a Christian a crime or the inequities of sharia law or the widespread preaching of hate? This unloving behavior that seems to be an integral part of the practice of Islam in much of today’s Muslim world should have been addressed in any Christian response. Where was it? What is the point of dialogue about love if they are not willing to display love of neighbor by confronting the ongoing, widespread destruction of neighbor by their fellow Muslims? The failure of the Christians responding to their letter to address this issue constitutes a betrayal by them of brothers and sisters in Christ and others who suffer mercilessly at the hands of Muslims with no significant outcry from the Muslim community or its leadership.
It is my hope that stronger evangelical leadership will rise up to provide a better response to this offer to work together extended by Islamic clerics.

The Democratic approach to winning elections has remained rather consistent across the years beginning with the New Deal. They promise to distribute your tax money in a way that will buy them the most votes. What is new about this presidential election is the extent and shamelessness to which this technique is employed. The Democratic candidates are working to outdo each other in promising handouts paid for with your money.

They are not the only ones dispersing your money. Congress and the President recently approved a plan to stimulate the economy by passing out money to selective groups of people. Financial experts almost universally agree that this free money program will not help the economy. However, it does serve to buy favor for those distributing it. It is redistribution of wealth to gain political favor.

This practice is problematic on several counts. First, at root it is dishonest. There is something essentially unethical about the government using its power to forcibly extract that which belongs to one person and give it to another. The so-called progressive income tax might be viewed as unethical for the same reason. However, the current practice of redistribution of wealth is even more egregious. It is one thing to force those who make more to pay disproportionately more in order to maintain highways and armies and make other expenditures that represent the legitimate role of government. However, it is quite another matter to take that which has been coerced from those who make more and hand it over to those whom the government deems worthy.

In addition to being unethical, this practice seems to be patently unconstitutional. Though a majority on today’s Supreme Court may not view it as such, one suspects that if the writers of that document could be resurrected, they might consigned to the stocks for robbery those implicated in this practice.

This practice is also problematic because it is destructive to our economy. It is the opposite of supply-side economics, taking wealth from those who create jobs, which leads to a decline in tax revenues, which leads to higher taxes to make up the difference, which leads to further decline in tax revenues, and so on.

Yet another problem with the redistribution of wealth for political gain is its tendency toward escalation to the point of ruination. This is evident in the Democratic primaries. We find candidates seeking to outdo each other in the amount of handouts that they promise. They have already passed totals that our economy can sustain. They are bankrupting us in order to gain office.

However, our greatest concern should not be with the problems of this practice but with its political effectiveness. The fact that it works tells us that many of the American people either can’t see the dishonesty and destructiveness of this political approach, or that they don’t care that it is dishonest and destructive.

If they can’t see its problems, we have finally become a nation too poorly educated to function as a democracy. If they don’t care, we have become a nation too perverse to function as a democracy. I would be interested in your perspective on which of these problems is making this political gimmick into an effective tool.

In our next blog our plan is to consider the cultural and spiritual roots of this problem.