I can't remember what book it was: some Christian best-seller the class had decided to study: and I admit I was a reluctant participant. I prefer a Sunday School class that studies the Bible, but try not to be unpleasant about it.
But God hit me when I read the first sentence: "It's not all about you." I don't remember the title of the book, its author, or anything else the book said. But that sentence was exactly what God wanted me to hear: it remains written on my heart.
The lesson I took from that is that it's all about God. Christianity that's about me is no Christianity at all.
One place I notice it sharply is in our Sunday hymns. So many of the Nineteenth Century hymns are about my need, my joy at finding God, my struggles with faith, my trials in this world. Wallowing in my own sentimental self-centeredness I find contrary to the spirit of WORSHIP. When God's merely an adjunct of my emotional life, it's really all about me.
I grew up in a church that emphasized above all else salvationism...that the first priority of Christianity is our "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." We sang the dreadful same Nineteenth Century hymns every week, and there was an altar-call after every sermon. Its centerpiece was that one-time experience of going forward, then being baptized. The pressure to "be saved" was relentless, so I gave in.
After that, living the Christian life was primarily being in the pews for all the following weekly sermons on the need to be saved. Now that I was, it seemed Christianity had nothing further worth hearing: I abandoned (what I thought was) Christianity to try some things that were more interesting.
God was gracious to call me back, and showed me Christianity is vastly MORE than "being saved." Nobody starts this (I'd have to call it) adventure with Him unless they take the first step...but it is a first step, only a beginning. My experience is that we can't go any farther (and I'd question whether even that first step is meaningful) in the mindset that "it's all about me."
Salvationism can very much tend to that thinking. I'm especially suspicious when "being saved" is the first priority of a church, because that's not God's first priority. His purpose in all creation is that He rule, and that He be glorified. He's gracious to make those who love Him part of His rule and glory: to make us even HEIRS with His Own Son. We miss it all...God, His purpose, His rule, His grace, His glory...if we continue in the thinking that "it's all about me."
Let us repent not just our sins, but our self-centeredness. Let us cast that idol out of the temple and destroy it completely, "that the King of Glory may come in." (Psalms 24:7)
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Root Causes
It always takes me a while to work through problems, to their root. This one has taken even longer than usual; but I may have reached some kind of "ultimate cause" for the Church' waywardness. Perhaps our foolish assumptions have made us prey to deceivers.
Politicians are not our friends. Their purpose is not the Church' purpose, and their methods are not our methods. Their criteria is not our criteria, and their kingdom is not God's Kingdom. If politicians pretend to to be on our "side," it is to use us to their purposes.
This is the way of politicians in every age, in every nation. This is most dangerously true of politicians who profess to be one of us, and style themselves the "party of God." Let the American Church therefore be wise, and beware. Let the American Church follow her Head more closely, and shun the deceivers.
Politicians are not our friends. Their purpose is not the Church' purpose, and their methods are not our methods. Their criteria is not our criteria, and their kingdom is not God's Kingdom. If politicians pretend to to be on our "side," it is to use us to their purposes.
This is the way of politicians in every age, in every nation. This is most dangerously true of politicians who profess to be one of us, and style themselves the "party of God." Let the American Church therefore be wise, and beware. Let the American Church follow her Head more closely, and shun the deceivers.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
No Celebration
On this day 150 years ago, the Civil War began when secessionists fired on a U.S. Army fort. When it was over, 25% of southern men were dead, southern farms, mansions, and major cities were burned to the ground, and the south's economy was wrecked.
The Union lost more dead than the south: the wounded, maimed, orphaned and widowed on both sides probably totalled in the millions. The war changed America in profound ways, and repercussions of the human costs continue to this day in many of our family stories.
It would be blindly foolish to "celebrate" the day: but history's value is that we remember, and learn from past mistakes. Today I remember that the violent spirit of rebellion, of divisiveness, partisanship, and faction is still among us: that "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:21): and that the consequences of operating in that spirit are disastrous even in this world.
The Union lost more dead than the south: the wounded, maimed, orphaned and widowed on both sides probably totalled in the millions. The war changed America in profound ways, and repercussions of the human costs continue to this day in many of our family stories.
It would be blindly foolish to "celebrate" the day: but history's value is that we remember, and learn from past mistakes. Today I remember that the violent spirit of rebellion, of divisiveness, partisanship, and faction is still among us: that "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:21): and that the consequences of operating in that spirit are disastrous even in this world.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
A Test
God's tests are always a chance: rather, a mandate: to test ourselves...whosoever will. His test this week is even clearer than usual in letting us...even more, Him...see where our hearts are.
The tea-partiers held a demonstration against Congress, for more budget-cuts.
Jim Wallis and others are praying and fasting that Congress' budget-cuts would protect the poor, rather than military expenditures and corporations' tax-breaks (such as those the New York Times just reported let GE pay no taxes on $5.1 billion profits last year).
I doubt the contrast could be more sharply-drawn, or the decision clearer, as to which is God's purpose, and God's way of working His will. But even being able to see the test is God's grace.
God's grace too that we can make that choice.
The tea-partiers held a demonstration against Congress, for more budget-cuts.
Jim Wallis and others are praying and fasting that Congress' budget-cuts would protect the poor, rather than military expenditures and corporations' tax-breaks (such as those the New York Times just reported let GE pay no taxes on $5.1 billion profits last year).
I doubt the contrast could be more sharply-drawn, or the decision clearer, as to which is God's purpose, and God's way of working His will. But even being able to see the test is God's grace.
God's grace too that we can make that choice.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Not in Me
Earlier this week, while I was frantically trying to finish my work and leave for a meeting I was already late for, our lawyer-neighbor came up the driveway. I was thinking "I don't really have time for this," but I went out to greet her.
The first words out of her mouth were, "If your f---ing dogs come in my yard again, I'll kill them !!"
It blindsided me. Being blindsided with anger has often shown me some dark depths I didn't know were in me. This time, however, absolutely no answer-in-kind flared up in my spirit. The kids were there, so I wouldn't have answered her with angry cursing anyway: but what surprised me was that that filth was not IN me whatever. That surprised me, and I praised God for what He's done !
But she obviously wasn't in a mood to talk about the problem: so I waved at her and went back in the house, and sent the kids to get the dogs. (Only later did I think it might not have been the best course to send them out where an angry lawyer was screaming threats: but they said she didn't talk to them.)
That night I also talked to the kids about the other thought the experience raised: that a lot of people think the best solution to problems is to kill something (or someone). I advised them to stay away from such people.
The first words out of her mouth were, "If your f---ing dogs come in my yard again, I'll kill them !!"
It blindsided me. Being blindsided with anger has often shown me some dark depths I didn't know were in me. This time, however, absolutely no answer-in-kind flared up in my spirit. The kids were there, so I wouldn't have answered her with angry cursing anyway: but what surprised me was that that filth was not IN me whatever. That surprised me, and I praised God for what He's done !
But she obviously wasn't in a mood to talk about the problem: so I waved at her and went back in the house, and sent the kids to get the dogs. (Only later did I think it might not have been the best course to send them out where an angry lawyer was screaming threats: but they said she didn't talk to them.)
That night I also talked to the kids about the other thought the experience raised: that a lot of people think the best solution to problems is to kill something (or someone). I advised them to stay away from such people.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
A Christian View of Ronald Reagan
I don't usually bother to be for or against politicians. It's a mindless substitute for thinking through political issues, or having political principles. And in the nature of things, politicians have a short shelf-life. Today, however, NPR's "Talk of the Nation" was about Ronald Reagan, in honor of his upcoming 100th birthday, and I was reminded that politicians' impact can be lasting.
The talk was, of course, almost entirely laudatory: what a great President Reagan was, and what important things he accomplished. Even I weren't a Christian, I doubt I'd view any human, human event, or human idea as wholly praise-worthy. All things human necessarily include mistakes and failings. Not taking those into account is neither honest nor thorough. Nor does it allow us to be realistic in our assessment. Ronald Reagan is a good example.
Reagan based his political career on anti-communism. He often pronounced communism the source of all evil. It's a shallow understanding of evil: and not a Christian understanding, though it doubtless relates to communism's failure. We often hear that "Reagan defeated communism." More causative may be that God sets his face against evil.
We were also continually told communism was an unworkable economic and social theory. It seems wrong-headed to praise Reagan for stopping what can't work. To the extent that anti-communists' efforts had a part in defeating communism, some credit may be due the 12 Presidents who preceded Reagan. The most that can truthfully be said of Reagan is that he happened to be riding in our cab when the other guy's locomotive fell apart.
We hear that Reagan "restored America's honor." We should probably understand that, as he did, in terms of military power. But that too is not a Christian understanding. In fact, scripture pronounces a curse on those who put their trust in their armed might.
In mundane terms, his military expenditures produced our first trillion-dollar budget. For that money, American troops conquered Grenada, a nation the size and population of the rural county I live in. U.S. bombers once struck Libya in retaliation for a nightclub bombing. U.S. peace-keepers were sent to Lebanon, and withdrawn after 231 were killed by a truck-bomber. It's hard to see how, on his own terms of projecting invincible military power, Reagan's actions "restored honor to America."
Reagan's administration also took a tough stand against Iran, designating it a sponsor of international terrorism. That designation was justified. Its effect on Iran was probably undercut by the fact the we were secretly selling them arms at the same time (arms they needed to continue their war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, whom we were also arming). The Reagan administration, on their part, needed off-the-books money to fund Central American contras, which was against U.S. law. In both directions, Reagan's policy was run by evil men: law-breakers who delighted in stirring up war, and who (by Oliver North's own testimony) were proud to lie when caught.
Reagan's most famous dictum was that "government is the problem." It seems an illogical and disingenuous reason for wanting to head the government. Once in office, his anti-government belief was embodied in the policy of deregulation. We still live with the consequences, from airline and food safety, to the economic consequences of Wall Street's unrestrained greed, to the Murdochization of American media. On that operative spirit, Reagan also claimed he knew nothing (and did nothing) about the illegal war-mongering of Col. North and others in America's name.
Again, "de-regulation" is not a Christian idea. Restraining lawlessness is in fact exactly what scripture says is God's purpose for human government (Romans 13:4, I Peter 2:14).
America suffered, and suffers, additional harm from Reaganism. His ridicule of climate-science put us 30 years behind on dealing with the matter...or even thinking about it except as a POLITICAL issue. Reagan's myopia remains the operative mindset of his faction.
But his greatest harm was to the Church. He taught the Church to believe unscriptural ideas: that military might exalts a nation, that government is the problem, that evil is primarily political. On the latter premise, he taught the Church that political factionalism and its bitterness are "Christian;" contrary to Galatians 5:20, which teaches they are works of the flesh, and not of the Spirit's leading.
More than individual unChristian ideas, Reagan co-opted the Church' identity for his political purposes, persuading Christians that they were "conservatives" and should vote for "conservatives." (Not that Christians should vote for Christians, note: in that case he might have been at a great disadvantage against the strongly-evangelical Jimmy Carter.) It's an untrue characterization of the Body of Christ, and of Christ, taught nowhere in scripture. It's a self-concept which has misled the Church to do itself, and the country, irremediable harm. Worse, the Church continues to think of itself in Reagan's terms.
That the Church foolishly takes its identity from a politician, rather than its Head, doesn't absolve the deceitful politicians. God will judge both. Perhaps Ronald Reagan repented of misleading Christians. But my concern is that the Church turn back from following deceptions, and be and do what God created it for. May the Church be the Body of Christ, God's light in a dark world. To every extent we've made ourselves a sub-demographic of Reagan's political faction, may the Church REPENT its gross spiritual foolishness !!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Attacking the Church
It's well-known that persecution makes the Church stronger. We don't currently perceive that the American Church is under persecution (and often hear that perhaps we'd be a better Church if we were). But we need to realize the enemy has more than one way to attack us.
We are messengers, and more importantly, demonstration of the Kingdom of God in this world. Kingdoms of men, through whom the usurper prince of this world works, rightly perceive our message and our presence as a challenge to their rule. Satan's first attack against God's Kingdom is always what it was against the King, violence and murder.
The rulers of the Jews accused Jesus to Pilate for "...saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." (Luke 23:2) Roman soldiers to whom He was sent for flogging mocked Him as King of the Jews.
But Pilate was reluctant to sentence Jesus to death. The Jewish rulers egged him on, saying "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar." (John 19:12)
When Pilate then took Jesus before the crowd and they shouted for his crucifixion, he asked, "Shall I crucify your King ?" The crowd shouted back, "We have no king but Caesar !!" (John 19:15) In the end, Jesus was crucified under a sign proclaiming Him "King of the Jews."
The One we follow was judged and executed entirely on the question whether God or man (and through him, Satan) is the ultimate sovereign. The world's rulers and people, even God's Own people, rejected Jesus as King with violence and murder. Satan himself must have believed those tactics had thwarted God's rule. Instead, God's sovereign power and wisdom worked victory from the enemy's scheme, and confirmed Jesus as King forever.
But Satan and his minions continued to oppose God's rule. Rome persecuted the Church throughout its first centuries. Under that attack, the Church continued to grow, and grew stronger. In the end, the emperor Constantine (either because he himself became a believer in Christ, or as a political ploy to enlist Christians in his cause) made Christianity the religion of the empire. Caesar's purposes were thereafter officially deemed to be identical with those of the Kingdom of God. The slippery question of Church-state relations has continued every since.
Since Constantine, kingdoms of men have often made God an adjunct to their purposes and actions. Christian rulers notoriously enlist God in their wars, even against other Christians. Germany's army-issue belt-buckle in World War I, for one example, boasted "Gott Mit Uns" (God Is With Us). German troops wore it into battle against Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Americans whose leaders likewise vehemently assured them God was on their side.
Abraham Lincoln was one of the few human leaders who understood the spiritual issue for rulers and nations of men. A group of clergymen assured him the Union cause would triumph because "The Lord is on our side." Lincoln replied, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
The enemy isn't, at the moment, persecuting the American Church. His tactics are more subtle, and more successful. He instead co-opts the Church to the operative idea that America's national purposes are God's purposes. Most American Christians in our time are doubly co-opted, operating also by the unexamined idea that one political faction's purposes are America's hope, and thereby God's purposes.
When the Church' operative thinking is co-opted by the enemy, the result is co-operation in his opposition to God's Kingdom. Satan is no fool: he realizes that persecution, at best, produces only reluctant compliance, and will ultimately strengthen the Kingdom he seeks to overthrow. But a Church which will think as he wishes, and acts according to its co-opted mind, will do as he wishes, of their own will.
May God open the eyes of the American Church and send His Spirit of repentance on us !!
We are messengers, and more importantly, demonstration of the Kingdom of God in this world. Kingdoms of men, through whom the usurper prince of this world works, rightly perceive our message and our presence as a challenge to their rule. Satan's first attack against God's Kingdom is always what it was against the King, violence and murder.
The rulers of the Jews accused Jesus to Pilate for "...saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." (Luke 23:2) Roman soldiers to whom He was sent for flogging mocked Him as King of the Jews.
But Pilate was reluctant to sentence Jesus to death. The Jewish rulers egged him on, saying "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar." (John 19:12)
When Pilate then took Jesus before the crowd and they shouted for his crucifixion, he asked, "Shall I crucify your King ?" The crowd shouted back, "We have no king but Caesar !!" (John 19:15) In the end, Jesus was crucified under a sign proclaiming Him "King of the Jews."
The One we follow was judged and executed entirely on the question whether God or man (and through him, Satan) is the ultimate sovereign. The world's rulers and people, even God's Own people, rejected Jesus as King with violence and murder. Satan himself must have believed those tactics had thwarted God's rule. Instead, God's sovereign power and wisdom worked victory from the enemy's scheme, and confirmed Jesus as King forever.
But Satan and his minions continued to oppose God's rule. Rome persecuted the Church throughout its first centuries. Under that attack, the Church continued to grow, and grew stronger. In the end, the emperor Constantine (either because he himself became a believer in Christ, or as a political ploy to enlist Christians in his cause) made Christianity the religion of the empire. Caesar's purposes were thereafter officially deemed to be identical with those of the Kingdom of God. The slippery question of Church-state relations has continued every since.
Since Constantine, kingdoms of men have often made God an adjunct to their purposes and actions. Christian rulers notoriously enlist God in their wars, even against other Christians. Germany's army-issue belt-buckle in World War I, for one example, boasted "Gott Mit Uns" (God Is With Us). German troops wore it into battle against Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Americans whose leaders likewise vehemently assured them God was on their side.
Abraham Lincoln was one of the few human leaders who understood the spiritual issue for rulers and nations of men. A group of clergymen assured him the Union cause would triumph because "The Lord is on our side." Lincoln replied, "I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."
The enemy isn't, at the moment, persecuting the American Church. His tactics are more subtle, and more successful. He instead co-opts the Church to the operative idea that America's national purposes are God's purposes. Most American Christians in our time are doubly co-opted, operating also by the unexamined idea that one political faction's purposes are America's hope, and thereby God's purposes.
When the Church' operative thinking is co-opted by the enemy, the result is co-operation in his opposition to God's Kingdom. Satan is no fool: he realizes that persecution, at best, produces only reluctant compliance, and will ultimately strengthen the Kingdom he seeks to overthrow. But a Church which will think as he wishes, and acts according to its co-opted mind, will do as he wishes, of their own will.
May God open the eyes of the American Church and send His Spirit of repentance on us !!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Beautiful in its time
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 !!"
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 !!"
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)