My Problem With "conservative Christianity"

My problem with so-called “conservative Christianity” is its hypocrisy: its attempt to pass off its political agenda as “Christian,” to achieve its political ends.   That hypocritical political purpose has been evident from the beginning, when it delivered 80% of “evangelical” votes to the 1980 “conservative” Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, giving him victory over his Christian opponent.

(But then Reagan was also hypocritical in claiming to be "conservative."

The touchstone of that doctrine was always that government has no business “interfering” with citizens’ personal "rights."  As Governor of California, Reagan enacted that conservative principle in state law when he “de-criminalized” California’s abortion laws so women could make that choice themselves, without government "interference."

But Presidential-candidate Reagan's “conservative” initiative to Christian voters was that he opposed abortion.  It worked so well for him that it remains…at least during every election season…the lip-service "principle" of every “conservative” politician today.)

Christians have been deeply foolish to be deceived by political hypocrites; especially when the deceivers were so blatant as to give their counterfeit a political label.  But my greater grief is Christians’ failure to live up to scripture’s teachings.

The Church has long allowed itself to be rent by division, contrary scripture’s numerous teachings about our unity in the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13 and Ephesians 4:4-5 for example): and most grievous of all, contrary Jesus’ prayer that our unity be like His with the Father, witnessing His glory to the world (John 17:20-22).

We’ve accepted the divisions we’ve created as manifestations of our obedience to God, by our theological purity.  Or is that not why the Orthodox and Protestant churches separated from the Catholic church, Calvinists from Reformed, Puritans from Church of England, Fundamentalists and Charismatics and Evangelicals from all those other kinds of Christians ?

While they may have some descriptive usefulness, every modifier we’ve attached to “Christian” is a way we divide ourselves from “those other Christians” (or “them” from “us:” either way, the work of the flesh that Galatians 5:20 calls “factions”).

Born of our, not God’s, spirit, those “religious” divisions also embody more than a little human pride.  Thinking we obey God by our superior theological purity, how can we not be rather pleased with ourselves…and think ourselves better (more “Orthodox,” for example) than those other Christians ?  To my experience, the “Fundamentalist,” or “Evangelical,” or “conservative” Christians I know are, get down to it, rather prideful in their chosen denominator.

Which is my problem with “conservative Christians.”  The denominator they choose to identify with is a human political one: so Its pretense of “obedience to God” and “theological purity” is transparently false.  It is, worse, hypocrisy so absolute that its adherents are political followers (as was their manipulators' purpose) of a man of lies and violence: the kind Jesus called a “child of the devil” (John 8:44).

But God is merciful.  It may yet be that He will awaken a few “conservative Christians,” so that they repent and return to follow Him.

---

 [SH1]

Receiving the Holy Spirit

 

A former pastor said once that it was possible to receive the Holy Spirit the way we might answer a friend's knock at the door.

"Hey, I'm upstairs, in the middle of something.  Come on in and have a seat."

My teacher Derek Prince used to say the Spirit is a gentleman, and won't force Himself on us.  So I can imagine Him taking a chair in the front-room, and waiting for us to join Him, and talk.

It could be that many have received the Holy Spirit that way, and that He's still waiting for them.  It may be that our "receiving the Holy Spirit" is actually a matter of His receiving our time, our attendance, our attention...ourselves.

The Great Commission: Making Disciples

 

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

 

My wife has Parkinson's, and we're moving to a smaller, one-level "retirement apartment" in a town north of us: a living-space she can navigate better, nearer to her doctors and medical facilities.

Our church is in the country, about 10 miles south of us.  Our apartment will be about that much farther from church.  It's not a great distance; but enough that we're having to consider whether we should go to a church in town.

The certainty we have is that God puts His people where He wishes: He is the Head of the Church: it is solely His prerogative. Discerning where God wants us to be is how we've changed churches the 2 or 3 times we've done so in our lives.  It's how we'll make this decision, if He indicates we should move.

It's an opportunity for self-deception, of course: and we're as prone as any human beings to convincing ourselves "God" is telling us to do what it is we want to do.  That's the usual way people put a "religious" veneer on doing what they want to do.  (But God's rule is so total that I've even seen Him put people where He wants them that way...whether or not they act with reference to His will.)

But we've had some experience of God defeating that kind of self-deception.

When we moved to this town 45 years ago, we started going to a church where we heard the congregation were "good people," and the pastor "taught the Bible."  Both were true. 

But the church quickly impressed me like those world-record pumpkins people grow: impressive eye-candy, but flavorless.  It was a church that never felt like a body, in any but name.  For eight years I asked God to let us go to a different church.  For eight years He said He wanted us to stay where we were.  We stayed until He gave us permission to go elsewhere.

This current occasion, it seems God may be stretching us a bit.  Always before, I've looked for His direct word to "go" or "stay."  This time, I sense He may be telling us to use our discernment whether to go or stay; and then check ourselves to see if it conforms to His.  It could be that this time He wants us to test ourselves, to see if we are able to be "guided by His eye" (Psalms 32:8).

So I've been forced to think about God's criteria for a church.  And I'm thinking that a church which follows Jesus will "make disciples," as He commanded in the "Great Commission."

We almost always hear that scripture taught as a command to evangelize: but I think it involves a great deal more.  Obviously a church which obeys Jesus in "making disciples" will produce believers who operate in His disciplines.

So I'm asking about Jesus' words what a graphic our pastor used this week (not coincidentally, I think)  asked: "What did he mean by that ?"

I'm pondering Jesus' metric, to get it in my own thinking so I can hear Him right.  I've also asked some of the "iron" people God's put in our lives (Proverbs 27:17) to pray we'll hear Him right. 

It will probably be a while before we're able to make this decision; but I think we've found where we should start.

"The World"

 

I'm reading Franciscan Richard Rohr's short book about evil, The World, The Flesh, and The Devil (2021), and benefitting from many of its insights.

(Starting this blog, I wanted to cite the verse where those "enemies of our souls" are enumerated...and was quite surprised to find there is none.  That specific formulation seems to have originated with the writings of Peter Abelard (d. 1142) and Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), and was established in English-language usage by its appearance in in the first Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1549).

    Some point to Jesus' temptations in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 as the basis of our familiar formulation, though the order of temptations in those passages differ from it.).

I'm less conversant than Rohr with much current theology, and recent psychological and social research, and sometimes can't follow his meditations on evil's manifestations.  But many of his comments, regards our life-experience in Christ, seem spot-on.

    Rohr emphasizes the role "the world" plays as a vector of sin in our lives (after carefully disclaiming any attempt to de-emphasize the role of our human failings, "the flesh").  Coming from a tradition that treated sin almost-exclusively in terms of personal wrong-doing (and primarily as literal "fleshly" sins: our drunkenness, sexual immorality, and the like), I was struck by his comment that

"...this much deeper meaning of sin is found in the largely social judgements of YHWH against the whole society, in the oracles of the prophets that were almost always aimed at Israel's corporate evil.  How did we not see this ?"  (p.14)

Of this "social matrix" which encourages and enables sin, he also reflects that

"Conformity with the loudest group's mood is--for many people, maybe even most people--equated with being moral...the public mood is another way to describe 'the world,' evil's first hiding place..."  (p. 23)

It occurs that "the loudest group" closely equates to "majority rule:" society's largest group will always be the loudest.  Similarly, Rohr's "the public mood" is probably very much what we mean when we invoke "public opinion," or "the will of the people."

God asserts that He, ALONE, sovereignly rules all things...the "Kingdom of God," which Jesus says is first priority.  So it's hard not to view our much-vaunted belief in "democracy" (demos +kratia, "the people rule") as directly contradicting...and affronting...God.

And per Rohr's insights, the operative mechanisms of democracy seem to be those which most encourage and enable societal sin, "the world"...and which we thoughtlessly "equate with being moral."

It goes a long way toward explaining why human beings believe passionate absurdities ("the war to end all wars," for example), that we think problems can be solved by means which are the problem.

 

Wisdom

 

The idea I've long held of what scripture says about wisdom...and it says a lot...is that wisdom is essentially a moral quantity.  I consider that "wisdom," in scripture essentially means knowing, and doing, "the right thing."

But scripture also recognizes what it usually terms "worldly wisdom.;" and which is never about doing "the right thing."  I was thinking about that fact this morning: how can both (even with one's contrasting modifier) be rightly termed "wisdom" ?

My teacher Derek Prince once preached on wisdom from Ecclesiastes 10:10:: "If the axe is dull and he does not sharpen its edge, then he must exert more strength.  Wisdom has the advantage of bringing success."  And I think that may be the key.

Wisdom makes our efforts successful...in whatever purpose we expend our efforts.  If our purpose is worldly...to enrich ourselves, glorify ourselves, make our lives comfortable...there is an app for that, a worldly "wisdom" that enables us to succeed: even if our endeavors totally lack any intent to do the right thing.

That may be what's going on in Jesus' surprising commendation of the unrighteous steward in Luke 16:1-9: that even though his purpose was entirely to feather his own nest, he evidenced an understanding of how God's creation "wisdom" works, and trusted it to succeed, even among the "sons of this age."

As God's creation, we know wisdom is a good thing: and man possesses no good thing except by God's gift.  Wisdom is one such gift: and I think Romans 11:29 may apply here, that God's gifts are "irrevocable" in doing the work for which He created them.

I AM

 

There can be no end to the depth of wisdom contained in His Name, when God commanded Moses to tell the Israelites that "I AM" had sent him.

But the first, hidden-in-plain-sight, meaning must be God's absolute IMMEDIACY.  That in all we time-bound creatures perceive as "now," or "the past," or "future," God IS.

God therefore deserves our absolute immediacy.  As Jesus put it, that "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37).

God is absolutely Immediate to us, for us: we're called to correspondingly be to him.

The Problem of Salvationism

 

The problem of salvationism, the "evangelical" emphasis on being saved, is that it answers the question "Where does God fit into my life ?"

It's a legitimate question that everyone should ask himself.

But it's not the ultimate question: and indeed comes at that question from the wrong end, our limited and purely personal end.  "Life" is, after all. God's essence...and ours only by His gift..

The ultimate question must be where I fit into God's Life.

To my understanding, Jesus called that all-encompassing Life of  I AM "The Kingdom of God."  How could the Fact He IS be anything less than His absolute Rule of all that originates in Him ?

The ultimate question for each of us, where we fit into the LIFE of God, comes down to Jesus' command that we "seek first" not our own salvation, but the Kingdom of God.

Change

 

“Look among the nations ! Watch !
 Be horrified! Be frightened speechless !
 For I am accomplishing a work in your days—
You would not believe it even if you were told !"

A few weeks ago, God had me meditating on "new things."  The scripture that had leaped out to me was this one, in Habakkuk 1:5, that God is indeed does new things...which we wouldn't be able to believe, even if He told us.

It's a statement that raises profound theological questions.

We know that God is the same yesterday, today, and always.  We know that God's BE-ing--"I AM THAT I AM"--His Character, could we speak as if His Absolute One-ness comprises separate elements...is integrally manifest in His every act.

How then could God do or say something "new," something He'd never said or done before, except He act contrary to His unchanging Character...by lying, for example, or doing unrighteousness...and negate His Being ?

And that, of course, He has never done, and never will.  His promise to do a "new" thing can only be His accomodation, in human language, to our experience of God's Immediacy: His promise is that He will do things which we have never experienced before...or could even imagine.

Which is exactly God's Character, and exactly His unchanging way with us, always.  His perceptive worshippers learn to expect His "inscrutability," His unexpectedness.

Habbakuk's words have seemed especially relevant because a few months ago our church left the denomination it had been affiliated with.  And because of that change, the congregation had to choose its own pastor, which we'd never done before.  I think we all have a sense of excitement that God is right now doing a "new thing" among us.

But as God says to Habakkuk, "new" things...especially unimaginable new things...also elicit fear.  Even while we expect to be astounded by God, we are always most comfortable in life when "things" remain the same.  When our world...which we cannot help seeing as our personal circumstances...changes, so must our "world-view," if it's to be based in reality: and God is always The Reality.

Because of Who God IS, our "tried and true" (and therefore comfortable) thoughts and reactions must change to accommodate His "new things:" and frankly, we fear change.  And we deeply hate anything that requires we change.

I know I do.

It's undoubtedly God's intent in doing "new things," that we don't get comfortable except in His Reality.  And in His greatest "new" work, Christ's death and resurrection, He promises we can change.  For none but the changed can see His unimaginable works,  and welcome and rejoice in the astonishing continual "newness" of our unchanging "I AM."

General Milley

 

There are reports a soon-to-be-published book will claim that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat down with the leaders of America's "war room" after the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and asked each to personally swear he would immediately notify Milley if ordered by the then-president to launch military action or nuclear missles.

When he received a call from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, questioning the security of America's nuclear arsenal in the then-president's control, Milley reassured her.  He then called the head of the National Security Agency to tell them "...keep watching, scan:" and called the head of the CIA to request her organization to "Aggressively watch everything 360."

General Milley then called his counterparts in other nations, friendly and unfriendly, who had put their militaries on high alert because of the chaos in Washington, to reassure them that America would NOT "lash  out" militarily in the last days of the then-president's administration.

If these reports are subsequently verified (and it's always unwise to take first "reports" at face-value), General Milley did the right thing in what he was said to have called "the absolute darkest moment of theoretical possibility."  His attempt to keep Americans...indeed, all the world's people...safe from nuclear immolation by an unhinged president is a higher law than any Constitutional provision could ever be.

I have to wonder if the situation General Milley had to deal with was, as we've heard about virtually every act of that president, "unprecedented" ?  Or did the nation's military leaders during Nixon's last-days mental and emotional melt-down also feel they had to act to keep America's nuclear arsenal secure from him ?

I wonder too why I wasn't on General Milley's call-list ?  LOL.  It would have saved me a lot of worry and stress...and I doubt I'm the only one...to have had top-level reassurance that our crazed president would not be able to destroy the world, to keep his hold on power.

What Year Is This ?

 

I'm not enough of Roman historian to know: but have to imagine that when Roman Christians began using the "Anno Domini," it was intended to differentiate them from their fellow Romans use of the Empire's AUC (anno urbis conditae, "year since the city's founding") dating-system.

A good intent, no doubt, to set themselves apart from "the world" and its ways.  But, at least in its English version, "the year of our Lord" has always sounded to me a bit arch, or even combative: "the year of OUR Lord (not yours)."

So I still remember how it forcibly struck me, reading "Pogo" some 60 years ago, when one of cartoonist Walt Kelly's characters referred to "the year of everybody's Lord."

The truth of those words hit me immediately, their spiritually-profound truth...in a newspaper-cartoon !!

Their truth still resonates with me.