I don't claim to know what is coming. I do know that increasingly I hear God speaking of judgement. Some I respect as devoted servants of God have even said the time is past for us to pray for America. That may indeed be God's word to us right now: it wouldn't be contrary to what I'm hearing.
For the Church what I hear most strongly is "dividing." We have followed deceivers for nearly a generation, and their false teachings have led many brothers and sisters away. The time seems near when those who will hear Jesus' voice, who will set their hearts on following Him, may find themselves being separated from those following such false gospels as "Americanism," "conservatism," and "patriotism."
Called to follow Jesus, it's not a time for us to congratulate ourselves on our prescience, or superior spirituality, or good fortune. Those who separate to follow other gospels may yet repent: God does not desire than any of them should perish.
Our place in God's purposes has not changed, but our fervency must. Let us be more humble, and more grateful for His mercy to us. Let us more fiercely seek His rule in our life and the life of the Church. Let us cry more loudly to those deceived by the god of this world, "Repent, and follow Jesus Christ !!"
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Statism
A word...more importantly, a concept...I'm increasingly hearing in "Christian conservatives' " discourse is "statism"...the essence of all evil in their formulation, which (of course, and self-flatteringly) they bitterly oppose.
The word triggered a faint memory. I'm sure he didn't invent the idea (or word), but in the 1870s the Russian thinker Bakunin wrote "Statism and Anarchy," generally considered a foundational text of modern anarchism. In his formulation, any kind of government was "statism," and the source of all human societies' woes. Bakunin's sovereign corrective, of course, was to have no government: anarchism.
I'd run across Bakunin when I was an anarchist, though I didn't start with him. Even 40 years ago, it was clear American government had failed, and I read Jefferson intensely: it seemed the one whose thought was the foundation of American government would be the place to start figuring out what had gone wrong. There's no missing the distrust and fear of government that pervades Jefferson's thought, but reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" was the actual spark for me.
Neither of my heroes counted themselves among (in Thoreau's dismissive phrase) "those who call themselves no-government men," but "Civil Disobedience" seemed to have no other logical point. Thoreau started his essay by "heartily" endorsing the motto "That government is best which governs least" (usually ascribed to Jefferson): which, he said, "...finally amounts to this, which also I believe,--'That government is best which governs not at all.' " I became a convinced anarchist soon after.
(Of course, I gave up anarchism when I became a Christian. I now understand human government as God's authorized (albeit limited) agent for mitigating some of the mundane consequences of man's rebellion. In the Christian view, anarchism seems as quaintly wrong-headed a corrective for sin as "naturism.")
It seemed necessary to read Bakunin, the "father" of modern anarchist thought. I'll confess, I found Bakunin heavy going, and gave him up quickly. But hearing "statism" condemned by today's "Christian conservatives" brought him to mind again. They, like Thoreau and Jefferson, lack the rigorous honesty to follow "anti-statism" to Bakunin's logical conclusion: but it's always instructive to know where any "new" idea comes from.
In truth, I doubt more than a handful of "conservatives," tea-partiers or "Christian," have even heard of Bakunin. Their faction probably owes its "anti-statism" less to him than to Ayn Rand. "Statism" was always her great bugaboo, the chief hindrance to her philosophy of "ethical egoism" (i.e., selfishness). I'll confess again, I tried to read her stuff and gave it up. Her writing is wooden and shrill, with the literary merit of supermarket tabloids.
Nonetheless, leading "conservatives" have found her "philosophy" compatible with their views. Ronald Reagan called himself her "admirer." Justice Clarence Thomas cites her as a major influence on his life. Alan Greenspan was a long-time member of Ayn Rand's inner circle: she stood beside him when he was sworn into government service as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974. (She died before Greenspan was appointed Reagan's Chairman of the Federal Reserve.) Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck recommend Ayn Rand's books to their followers. (Libertarian "conservative" Ron Paul was likewise an Ayn Rand admirer: but his son Randal, current Republican senator from Kentucky, chose the nickname "Rand" himself.)
I find it troubling that "Christian conservatives" adopt Ayn Rand's ideas and attitudes toward "statism." Her teachings (Bakunin's as well, for that matter) are militantly atheist: her core belief is the supremacy of human reason. The Judeo-Christian teaching of altruism is her particular bete noire, and comes in for repeated attack: man's highest good, she teaches, is "egoism."
Even those who embrace Ayn Rand's "philosophy" doubtless see its problem. Even corrupt human reason can work out that bad trees produce bad fruit (as Jesus teaches in Matthew 7, Matthew 12, and Luke 6); and I doubt any rational person honestly believes the world needs more selfishness.
My "Christian conservative" friends who profess to hear Jesus' voice in their faction's "anti-statism" may or may not know anything about Ayn Rand or Bakunin. I'd hope, however, they would consider, on Jesus' authority, what kind of tree that idea grows from. If God is gracious to them, perhaps they'll yet be able to hear His call to repentance above the din of the "doctrines of demons" their faction embraces.
The word triggered a faint memory. I'm sure he didn't invent the idea (or word), but in the 1870s the Russian thinker Bakunin wrote "Statism and Anarchy," generally considered a foundational text of modern anarchism. In his formulation, any kind of government was "statism," and the source of all human societies' woes. Bakunin's sovereign corrective, of course, was to have no government: anarchism.
I'd run across Bakunin when I was an anarchist, though I didn't start with him. Even 40 years ago, it was clear American government had failed, and I read Jefferson intensely: it seemed the one whose thought was the foundation of American government would be the place to start figuring out what had gone wrong. There's no missing the distrust and fear of government that pervades Jefferson's thought, but reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" was the actual spark for me.
Neither of my heroes counted themselves among (in Thoreau's dismissive phrase) "those who call themselves no-government men," but "Civil Disobedience" seemed to have no other logical point. Thoreau started his essay by "heartily" endorsing the motto "That government is best which governs least" (usually ascribed to Jefferson): which, he said, "...finally amounts to this, which also I believe,--'That government is best which governs not at all.' " I became a convinced anarchist soon after.
(Of course, I gave up anarchism when I became a Christian. I now understand human government as God's authorized (albeit limited) agent for mitigating some of the mundane consequences of man's rebellion. In the Christian view, anarchism seems as quaintly wrong-headed a corrective for sin as "naturism.")
It seemed necessary to read Bakunin, the "father" of modern anarchist thought. I'll confess, I found Bakunin heavy going, and gave him up quickly. But hearing "statism" condemned by today's "Christian conservatives" brought him to mind again. They, like Thoreau and Jefferson, lack the rigorous honesty to follow "anti-statism" to Bakunin's logical conclusion: but it's always instructive to know where any "new" idea comes from.
In truth, I doubt more than a handful of "conservatives," tea-partiers or "Christian," have even heard of Bakunin. Their faction probably owes its "anti-statism" less to him than to Ayn Rand. "Statism" was always her great bugaboo, the chief hindrance to her philosophy of "ethical egoism" (i.e., selfishness). I'll confess again, I tried to read her stuff and gave it up. Her writing is wooden and shrill, with the literary merit of supermarket tabloids.
Nonetheless, leading "conservatives" have found her "philosophy" compatible with their views. Ronald Reagan called himself her "admirer." Justice Clarence Thomas cites her as a major influence on his life. Alan Greenspan was a long-time member of Ayn Rand's inner circle: she stood beside him when he was sworn into government service as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974. (She died before Greenspan was appointed Reagan's Chairman of the Federal Reserve.) Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck recommend Ayn Rand's books to their followers. (Libertarian "conservative" Ron Paul was likewise an Ayn Rand admirer: but his son Randal, current Republican senator from Kentucky, chose the nickname "Rand" himself.)
I find it troubling that "Christian conservatives" adopt Ayn Rand's ideas and attitudes toward "statism." Her teachings (Bakunin's as well, for that matter) are militantly atheist: her core belief is the supremacy of human reason. The Judeo-Christian teaching of altruism is her particular bete noire, and comes in for repeated attack: man's highest good, she teaches, is "egoism."
Even those who embrace Ayn Rand's "philosophy" doubtless see its problem. Even corrupt human reason can work out that bad trees produce bad fruit (as Jesus teaches in Matthew 7, Matthew 12, and Luke 6); and I doubt any rational person honestly believes the world needs more selfishness.
My "Christian conservative" friends who profess to hear Jesus' voice in their faction's "anti-statism" may or may not know anything about Ayn Rand or Bakunin. I'd hope, however, they would consider, on Jesus' authority, what kind of tree that idea grows from. If God is gracious to them, perhaps they'll yet be able to hear His call to repentance above the din of the "doctrines of demons" their faction embraces.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Gun Rights
My state is voting today on rewording a state constitutional provision on "the right to bear arms." There is basically no opposition to this change: who would dare speak against peoples' "rights" ?
I'm suspicious. The question was put on the ballot by a "gun-rights" group (whose leader is, not coincidentally, owner of a local gun-shop and shooting range), and promoted by the usual Republican suspects, on the make for votes again.
Proponents say the contitutional change is necessary to "correct" a Kansas Supreme Court decision of 1905, which ruled that the provision in the state constitution was the "collective right" of having a state militia. Today's revisionists want the constitution changed to specify that the individual "right" to go armed is protected. It sounds suspiciously like "conservatives' " argument against the "militia" meaning explicitly stated in the wording of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment: which document I'm sure takes precedence anyway over any law my state passes.
On "gun rights" issues, the question that seems most relevant to me is always, "what problems of our society will be made better by more people having more guns ?" I have yet to think of even one.
But "gun rights" people always come back with the fact that our society is increasingly violent, and citizens need guns to protect self, home and family.
I find it particularly strange for Christians to argue we should have guns. It reminds me of the line in Tom Lehrer's satirical song about the atomic bomb, "Who's Next ?"
"Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self-defense.
'The Lord's our Shepherd,' says the Psalm...
But just in case...we better get a bomb !!"
Scripture's teachings about our relationship with human government all command Christians' peaceful subjection to rulers, the bad as well as the good. Jesus is our Example when He tells Pilate, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above..." (John 19:11).
We are subject to human rulers because God put them in authority. They exist to do the job He's given them: to punish evildoers (I Peter 2:14). In God's economy, human government "...is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." (Romans 13:4b)
If we take scripture's view as true, "anti-government" people are ultimately in opposition to God. It's His Authority behind the human governments He puts in place, and His Power that enables them to do the job He has set for them. Christians who align themselves with rebellious political factions might do well to rigorously check their thinking against scripture.
And "gun rights" people are always from the "anti-government" crowd. Their illogical argument that violence in our society requires LESS government control (especially of murderous weapons) seems to me an argument for MORE violence in our society. It's the fallacious logic of the argument made for "naturism:" that there would be less shame if more people practiced nudism.
Repentance is the corrective for disobeying or ignoring God's word. I hope my "anti-government" Christian friends will repent. But if repentance is also a corrective for plain muddle-headed thinking, perhaps my "gun rights" friends should repent as well.
I'm suspicious. The question was put on the ballot by a "gun-rights" group (whose leader is, not coincidentally, owner of a local gun-shop and shooting range), and promoted by the usual Republican suspects, on the make for votes again.
Proponents say the contitutional change is necessary to "correct" a Kansas Supreme Court decision of 1905, which ruled that the provision in the state constitution was the "collective right" of having a state militia. Today's revisionists want the constitution changed to specify that the individual "right" to go armed is protected. It sounds suspiciously like "conservatives' " argument against the "militia" meaning explicitly stated in the wording of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment: which document I'm sure takes precedence anyway over any law my state passes.
On "gun rights" issues, the question that seems most relevant to me is always, "what problems of our society will be made better by more people having more guns ?" I have yet to think of even one.
But "gun rights" people always come back with the fact that our society is increasingly violent, and citizens need guns to protect self, home and family.
I find it particularly strange for Christians to argue we should have guns. It reminds me of the line in Tom Lehrer's satirical song about the atomic bomb, "Who's Next ?"
"Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self-defense.
'The Lord's our Shepherd,' says the Psalm...
But just in case...we better get a bomb !!"
Scripture's teachings about our relationship with human government all command Christians' peaceful subjection to rulers, the bad as well as the good. Jesus is our Example when He tells Pilate, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above..." (John 19:11).
We are subject to human rulers because God put them in authority. They exist to do the job He's given them: to punish evildoers (I Peter 2:14). In God's economy, human government "...is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." (Romans 13:4b)
If we take scripture's view as true, "anti-government" people are ultimately in opposition to God. It's His Authority behind the human governments He puts in place, and His Power that enables them to do the job He has set for them. Christians who align themselves with rebellious political factions might do well to rigorously check their thinking against scripture.
And "gun rights" people are always from the "anti-government" crowd. Their illogical argument that violence in our society requires LESS government control (especially of murderous weapons) seems to me an argument for MORE violence in our society. It's the fallacious logic of the argument made for "naturism:" that there would be less shame if more people practiced nudism.
Repentance is the corrective for disobeying or ignoring God's word. I hope my "anti-government" Christian friends will repent. But if repentance is also a corrective for plain muddle-headed thinking, perhaps my "gun rights" friends should repent as well.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Pharisees and Pharisaism
We all know the Pharisees, the "hypocrites" Jesus excoriated repeatedly during His earthly ministry. He denounced their hyper-scripturalism that missed God, their traditions they made equal with (or greater than) God's words, their political-social agenda that ignored people's suffering. The Pharisees' self-congratulatory pretence earned Jesus' fury: religiosity separate from God always does.
The pastor's sermon this week was on the parable Jesus told about the Pharisee and the publican. But it was the introductory sentence that hit me: "And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt." (Luke 18:9)
It's the underlying mindset of partisan divisiveness: we ("I," and those who agree with me) are righteous and right, and "they" (those we've chosen to contrast ourselves with) are evil and wrong. Think, for example, of "Christian conservatives' " attitudes toward those they call "liberals" and "godless."
Indeed, there are probably other similarities between the "Christian conservatives" of our time and the Pharisees. If so, Jesus regards them the same.
The pastor's sermon this week was on the parable Jesus told about the Pharisee and the publican. But it was the introductory sentence that hit me: "And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt." (Luke 18:9)
It's the underlying mindset of partisan divisiveness: we ("I," and those who agree with me) are righteous and right, and "they" (those we've chosen to contrast ourselves with) are evil and wrong. Think, for example, of "Christian conservatives' " attitudes toward those they call "liberals" and "godless."
Indeed, there are probably other similarities between the "Christian conservatives" of our time and the Pharisees. If so, Jesus regards them the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)