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 U.S. peace-keepers were sent to Lebanon, and withdrawn after 231 were killed by a truck-bomber.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 !!

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 !!

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 !!"

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.

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.

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 Deception of Political Christianity

God never said mankind's problem is evil politics, bad government, or false philosophies. Those works of man are evil because they grow from man's corrupt heart.

God never said the solution to man's problem is improved human politics, human government, or human philosophies. The remedies themselves are from man's corrupt heart, poisoned, and only speed death.

May all who think man's works are the problem, and those who think man's works are the solution, REPENT !!

False Equivalence

It's increasingly clear the cornerstone of today's false Christianity is false equivalence. I'm amazed at how many honest and good believers have never thought to examine, or will not examine, the idea that "conservatism" (itself falsely so-called) is somehow equivalent to Christianity.

One friend, perhaps more thoughtful than others, tells me that he is "conservative" because Christianity is about righteousness. He disavows any blanket endorsement of "conservatism" per se, but perceives "conservatism" as the faction promoting righteousness in its stance against abortion, against feeding those who won't work, against homosexuality, etc.

Given the deeds which "conservatism" increasingly includes: fellowship with (even leadership by) manifest enemies of Truth (Mormons, for example), blatant nationalism (under the guise of "patriotism"), and the continual untruthfulness of "conservative" politicians (like all politicians): my friend is wise to leave himself an "out" from identifying with that faction. Beyond that, I don't buy it.

A faction is a faction, however rationalized; and scripture teaches factions are "a work of the flesh" which excludes people from the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21).

Nor is identifying righteousness with "conservatism" different in kind from equating the Church with "conservatives." God's Character no more has a political equivalence than does Christ's Body. I solemnly testify here against the idea that there is any human equivalent (least of all a political equivalent) to the Kingdom of God.

May God heal His American Church of spiritual blindness ! May God lead His American Church to repent !!

Variance and Unity

It's always disappointing to be reminded how much I'm at variance with other Christians. It's humbling, and forces me to go back over why I believe what I believe. I'm sure both are part of God's working His purpose.

It feels awful. You like to think you're at one with the other Christians you love and worship with. The Psalmist puts it well:

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
It is like the precious oil upon the head... (Psalm 133:1, 2a)

Enjoying unity is God's anointing, a blessing. And it wasn't even an operational desire in my life before Jesus. In fact, disagreement had something of pride in it. Disagreeing with a friend, my carnal man could simply say, "Screw you, I'll go my own way." Knowing who Jesus is and what it means to be His Body doesn't allow me that attitude.

Disagreement now is part of keeping my spirit humble. If I'm at variance with other believers, there's always the possibility they may be right. That keeps me checking my leading: this week's disagreement with a church committee made me again re-check operative ideas I've always found rock-solid. Tested again, they still are. I'll continue to operate on them.

When it happens, being in agreement with other believers is a blessing from God. But ultimately, settled peace doesn't come from that: like unity, peace is God's gift, and He gives it to those who do His will. My first rock-solid belief is it's God will our every attitude, idea, thought, word and action be grounded on what He says, in the Bible and in the Spirit.

None of my friends, or any other believing Christian, would say otherwise. Yet millions in the American Church, including most of my friends, have bought the idea that being a Christian means being "conservative." None of those friends, challenged to show a scriptural basis for their belief, have been able to do so. Nor can I. I'm satisfied it's an unscriptural, indeed unChristian, idea.

The supposed equivalence "conservative" is, moreover, a formulation of a temporal human kingdom and society. No wonder that the deeds which grow from that unscriptural operative idea are "deeds of the flesh:" "...enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions..." (Galatians 5:20). Jesus proclaimed and lived the Kingdom of God. So should Christians.

I can't help longing for unity, and feeling frustrated when it tarries. There's always the temptation to grasp at it by agreeing with other believers, or simply keeping my disagreements to myself. But unity doesn't come by believers' agreement with each other: we are one in the Spirit, agreed together in hearing and doing God's will, or not at all.

I'm told my attitude is arrogant. I think rather that arrogance would deny unity altogether and say, "Screw you, I'll go my own way." Arrogance would feel no need to re-check its thinking, and certainly not against anything greater than its own opinions. Is it arrogant to hear God speak, when He commands we do so and promises He will ?

I'm sure my friends, and all the millions of American evangelicals who've bought the false idea that Christianity is "conservative," would agree that our faith must be grounded on what God says. My hope is that they will act on their belief and examine that idea against scripture. My perfect hope is that the Church in America will cast off its filthy political rags and do the work of Him Who sent us to this feeble, poor, lost and diseased country.

God forgive us !!

Think It Possible You May Be Mistaken

The title is in reference to the warning Oliver Cromwell wrote to his Christian opponents.

"...bring not therefore upon yourselves the blood of innocent men, -- deceived with pretences of King and Covenant; from whose eyes you hide a better knowledge! I am persuaded that divers of you, who lead the People, have laboured to build yourselves in these things; wherein you have censured others, and established yourselves 'upon the Word of God.' Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Precept may be upon precept, line may be upon line, and yet the Word of the Lord may be to some a Word of Judgment; that they may fall backward, and be broken and be snared and be taken!...There may be, as well, a carnal confidence upon misunderstood and misapplied precepts, which may be called spiritual drunkenness. There may be a Covenant made with Death and Hell! I will not say yours was so. But judge if such things have a politic aim: To avoid the overflowing scourge; or, To accomplish worldly interests? And if therein we have confederated with wicked and carnal men, and have respect for them, or otherwise have drawn them in to associate with us, Whether this be a Covenant of God, and spiritual? Bethink yourselves; we hope we do."

-- To the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, 3 August 1650


I'd remind my "Christian conservative" friends of these words, and ask them to apply Cromwell's warning to their faction's ideas and operations. Most of all, I'd beseech anyone in that faction, in Christ's mercy, to think it possible you may be mistaken, and confederated with wicked men to accomplish worldly interests.

Church, REPENT !!