When Politics Enters in the Church

You know, there’s a lot of talk in our age about the constitutional separation of Church and State. Most of the time, what’s talked about really doesn’t have anything to do with what was written in the constitution; and in fact the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the constitution; it came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.

But, that’s not what I want to spout off about right now. Christians can and should be involved in our political system; if in no other way, than at least as informed voters. We owe that to our country.

But, what about the politics that exists in the church itself? I’m not talking about informing church members of the issues, nor am I talking about animating people to vote. Maybe a better way of expressing it would be to say the “office politics” in the church. You know, the maneuverings and games people play to gain a position, or even more importantly gain a title to impress their friends and family.

The Bible doesn’t talk about democracy in the church; it presents the church as a theocracy. Yet, in many denominations, there is voting for department heads, deacons, and even for whether or not the church keeps the same pastor.

I have to say, none of this is biblical. The biblical example is to seek out the people who God has chosen and prepared to fulfill whatever position, or complete such-and-such a task. The closest we come to seeing a vote in the early church was when they chose Mathias to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the original 12 apostles. Even then, they didn’t vote, but sought out the two best candidates and asked God to show them which one of the two was the correct one (through casting lots).

When politics enters into the church, spirituality, the Bible and God’s will tend to get kicked out. Oh, people might talk about them, twisting them to their own purpose, but that isn’t the same as allowing God to be sovereign in the church.

Yes, we live in a democratic country, and I realize that most Americans would say that democracy is a godly system; but I have to disagree. While I am perfectly willing to agree that democracy is the best political system for running our country, that doesn’t make it the best for our church.

The moment we start voting for people, we invite the process of the political campaign; along with all its lies, manipulation, and posturing. Now, I realize that most churches don’t have any sort of overt political campaign for deacons, there is still a hidden campaign going on in the background. How is that? Because we are unknowingly inviting that person who wants to be a deacon to put on a mask and pretend he is something other than what he is, so that he can be voted in as a deacon.

It becomes even worse than that when we take this same problem out of the local church and put it into the context of a Christian organization. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about a denomination, a para-church organization, or a ministerial alliance. There are always factions, differences of opinion, and differences of agenda to deal with. By voting in leaders, we set the stage for all the political manipulations and posturing that one could imagine.

Oh, I know, everyone says that they are voting to seek God’s will, and it would be great if that was the truth. But, let’s be hones with ourselves. How many times do we say we are seeking God’s will, but really seeking our own? Or, how many times do we say that something is God’s will, because it is our own; convincing ourselves that our will is also God’s will?

If godly men and women get together and seek God’s will, then use a system of voting to poll the opinion of what is God’s will, that can be helpful. Even then, we must take into account that God only has one will; if John and Susan think that two opposing opinions are both God’s will, one of them isn’t hearing God too good. The only way this kind of vote can work is that everyone continues praying and seeking God, until all come into agreement that so-and-so is God’s choice, or that such-and-such is God’s plan. Then, and only then, does a vote truly mean something in the church.

Our Ability to Deceive Ourselves

Of all the human perversities, the ability to deceive ourselves is possibly the most perverse and definitively the most interesting to observe (albeit in a perverse way). We can convince ourselves of almost anything; taking a lie, and repeating it to ourselves enough times that we are convinced it is true. More than any other place, this ability shines when it comes to justifying our own actions.

All too often, we see clearly the slightest error of another, while being blind to our own. Not only blind to our errors; but, quite often we are unable to even accept the idea that we could possibly be wrong.

This clarity of vision, into the error of another, is probably the most clear when we see in that other person an action or attitude that we don’t like in ourselves. We may become infuriated with them for their obviously wrong behavior; meanwhile declaring in a loud voice how we are innocent of that same action. It would almost be comical if it were not so sad.

Jesus said:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ⁴ Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? ⁵ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Matthew 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-42

Being a Christian doesn’t automatically relieve us of this ability at self-deception; in fact, I’ve seen many a Christian who could teach unbelievers how to practice the fine art. We can even take it a step farther than them, by convincing ourselves that things which God has written in the Bible apply to others, but don’t apply to us.

One of the ways we do this is by saying that we live in a different culture, or a different time frame; so, the commandments of the Bible don’t apply to us. Another is to say that “grace” means that we don’t have to obey God (or at least his commandments), because they are in the Old Testament, and we are believers of the New Testament. Funny, I always that that both parts were considered part of our Bible.

When the world sees us acting this way, they call it hypocrisy. You know something? They are right. It is always hypocritical to try and hold others to a different standard than what we are willing to live ourselves.

Actually, the scariest aspect of this ability to deceive ourselves is when we convince ourselves that what we want is what God wants. We don’t really say it that way, of course; it’s usually phrased as, “God told me…” which gives it as much power as if it had come down with Moses from Mount Sinai. When God has told us to do something, we can break every commandment that exists to do it; after all, God said so.

That’s a very Jesuitical argument; that the ends (what we claim God told us to do) justifies the means (what we want to do). Nowhere in scripture do we see an example of this; however we see lots of them in the church. God never violates His Word or His commandments to have His will done.

So, how do we avoid deceiving ourselves? By submitting to God, to His Word, and to godly people who can tell us when we are wrong. It doesn’t do any good to only submit ourselves to godly friends, because all too often they will put friendship above godly correction. No, we need people who will tell us the truth, especially when that truth is that we are not doing as God would have us do. Then, when we receive that advice, we need to accept and submit to it.

Then, and only then, can we avoid deceiving ourselves.

What Type of College Education is This?

Recently, I’ve been doing some freelance writing for some online companies. This has grown out of the need for us to re-evaluate the way we are earning money, since my wife’s teaching contract didn’t get renewed.

So far, the freelancing I’ve been doing has been writing informative copy for business web sites. I work, as one of many writers, through an online company which seeks out and receives orders from clients, then posts them for the writers to complete. Writers who work with the company have the option of selecting and writing on any of the posted jobs that they are qualified for. All in all, it’s a pretty good system, and the little bit of writing that I have done for them has been very profitable.

I say “little bit of writing” because there hasn’t been enough work to really make much of a difference in our overall income. So, I got hunting around on the Internet for other similar companies to write for. All of them have an application process, and expect the writer to write something for evaluation.

Just the other day, I completed this process for a company that I had never heard of before. Their online application process was a little more complicated than others I had tried, but as they said that it was “educational writing” I wasn’t overly surprised.

Well, lo and behold they approved me as one of their writers. At first, I thought it would be much more interesting writing than the things that I had written for companies web sites. But once I looked at it, I ran head on into a real ethical dilemma (at least for a whole 30 seconds).

Every writing job I was able to find on this web site was posted by a student trying to get someone to write their homework assignments, term papers, essays, and even theses for them. That wasn’t exactly what I had expected to find; I had been expecting to see jobs posted by the professors and institutions, needing work written for them.

How can these people think that they are doing the right thing, to have someone else do their homework, so that they can get their degree? What kind of disasters are they going to be in the workplace?

Could you imagine going to a doctor who had paid others to write his term papers in college? He might not know the difference between a kidney and a liver. Or, how about hiring a lawyer to represent you who had depended upon the writing ability of others to get him through school? If he wrote a letter to a company, complaining about their treatment of their client (you) he’d probably get laughed at, instead of making the company feel threatened enough to take action on your behalf.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that someone who pays another to do their studying, research and writing deserves to receive a college degree. As a college professor, I would be insulted to have one of my students turn something like that in. If I could prove they did it, I’d have them booted out of school. If they don’t want to think, they shouldn’t be in college anyway.

There’s something deeper there than just academic education, it’s called integrity. Anyone who is that dishonest in their schooling is likely to be just as dishonest in the workplace. They’ll be the one who clocks out early, or steals something from the office, or charges the company for extra expenses on a trip. They’re also the ones who will refuse to accept the responsibility that is part and parcel of their job.

As a former employer (that’s read “boss” for those who aren’t sure), I see much of the hiring process as looking for the person who has the right character to be a responsible worker. Yes, technical ability is important, but it’s really not as important as character. There are a lot of people out there who have technical ability in whatever field. But, there are only a few who will go that extra mile for their employer.

When it comes down to it, the only thing a company has, that can make it stand out, is its employees. Excellent employees make for excellent companies; while mediocre employees can only produce a mediocre company. Anyone who expects others to do their work for them isn’t an asset to the company, but a liability. Good managers get rid of them quickly.

So, are these students helping themselves out, or are they setting themselves up for failure? To me, I’d have to say the latter; they might succeed for the moment, but in the larger picture, they will never make the grade.

What the 2010 Elections Really Mean

Whether you are conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, or just and independent thinker, the 2010 “mid-term” federal elections have been a show that almost everybody has been watching. Every special interest group in the country has had their say about these elections, and every shading of political leaning has made their stand known.

For those who have a liberal political outlook, these elections have been a disaster; while for the conservatives amongst us, it has been seen as a great victory. However, it seems that everyone, right, left, and middle have been ignoring the true constitutional issue of these elections.

We live in a country that is made up of divergent viewpoints, numerous ethnic groups, and many special interests. The right to hold and express one’s personal opinion in religion, politics, your neighbor’s crabgrass and the price of eggs is guaranteed by the first Amendment to the Constitution. Somehow, in all this diversity, our government has to find a way to serve the needs of every citizen.

A key term in defining the political system that was created by the founders of this country is “checks and balances.” The three branches of government were created with this concept in mind. The congress (our parliament) writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch judges the laws and those who break them.

The reason that these checks and balances exist is to ensure fairness and justice for the greatest possible number of people. If one group, political party, or ideology takes control, they tilt everything in their direction. However, by allowing a variety of political viewpoints to participate together in the process of governing our nation, we force the extremists to work for moderation, compromise and a system that equally represents the viewpoints of all the people.

For the last two years, ever since the 2008 presidential elections, the Democrats, and most especially the more liberal democrats have held tight control of two branches of our government, those of the congress and the executive branch. President Obama has stated he “desired to work together with Republicans.” In practice, his way of working together with people has been to publicly ridicule anyone who held or expressed a viewpoint different than his own.

Nobody can say that President Obama has been idle in his time in office. During his two years, he has probably initiated more social changes, with farther reaching impact than any other president since Lincoln. Yes, he has been busy. But, one might ask, how is it that he has been able to accomplish so much in those two years? Simple; it is because he has been backed by a congress controlled by democrats.

What these elections have done is to restore checks and balances to our government. Will President Obama be able to accomplish as much in the next two years as he has in the last? That depends upon whether he changes his strategy, or just blames the Republicans for his failures. He will now have to learn how to work with people, how to make compromises, and how to take into account the needs and desires of people who don’t share his political beliefs.

If he doesn’t learn to do this, the federal government will be at a standstill for the next two years. The good news is that Mr. Liberal himself won’t be able to continue to remake the United States of America into his image. The bad news is that the needs of the country will not be addressed.

Mr. President, as always, we are watching to see your reaction.

The Day of the Reformation

There is an old holiday in the church, which is no longer celebrated; that is the Day of the Reform. This is the anniversary of the day in which Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, nailed his 95 thesis to the door of the All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517, beginning the Protestant Reformation.

All of us who claim Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior owe much to Martin Luther. Although he wasn’t the only one to take a stand for salvation by faith and that alone, he was the one who made the strongest and most effective stand. It is through his writing and teaching that the concept of freedom of religion first gained a foothold in the world. It was also through is work that the Roman Catholic Church began to lose its political stranglehold on Europe.

Sadly, few Christians today know any more about Martin Luther than his name, and that he started the Protestant Reformation. Even more sadly, the Day of the Reform, which was October 31^st, has been lost as a celebration; covered up by the celebration of Halloween.

Personally, I don’t agree with the celebration of Halloween. Although most people see it as nothing more than a fun time for kids, the roots of this day are buried in the Druids of Western Europe. Many of the customs of Halloween, specifically the jack-o-lantern and giving of food (candy) to people who knock on the door in costumes, came from their desire to ward off attacks by demons.

It is significant to note that both Satanists and witches consider this night their highest holy day. Why would the average person want to celebrate a day that is a celebration of witches and Satanists? I cannot guess.

However, because of this “worldly” celebration of Halloween, the church has been suckered in. Many churches have “Halleluiah Night” parties for the children, in order to keep them away from Halloween celebrations. In these parties, the children dress up in costumes, play games, and get candy, much like what everyone else is doing, just under a different name. I don’t know about you, but to me, if it looks like a duck, and smells like it duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

It is time for a new reformation in the church; one in which we quit following worldly traditions; quit trying to make our messages “seeker friendly” (the Bible calls that “tickling the ears”); and quit trying to use God to get what we want. This reformation would have to be a reformation of personal holiness.

One of the things that Martin Luther said was that we needed to get back to the Bible. I think those words are as applicable today as they were almost 500 years ago. Let us, the church of today, get back to the Bible, and see what God has to say to us. 

What Do You Hear?

In his book, “The Cry of Compassion,” John O. Anderson writes a wonderful parable:

An American Indian was walking with a friend in a large city. The Indian stopped suddenly and looked around. “I hear a cricket,” he said. His friends said, “That’s impossible with all the noise around here.” “No, I hear a cricket,” the Indian said and looked around until he found the cricket. “That’s amazing,” his friend said, “but I sure don’t see how you managed to hear a cricket in all this city noise.” The Indian smiled and took a handful of coins out of his pocket and tossed them along the sidewalk ahead of them. People for half a block ahead stopped and started looking for the money. The Indian turned to his friend and said, “People hear what they are listening for.”

It is just as amazing that those people could hear the sound of coins hitting the sidewalk, as the Indian could hear the sound of that cricket. Obviously, the Indian had his ears tuned to listen to nature, and the other people on the street had their focus on money; else they could not have heard it. I wonder how many of them would have scrambled to pick up those coins if they saw them.

Likewise, I wonder about us, as believers in Christ. What is it that we are listening for? If we were on that busy street, would we hear the cricket, the coins, or something else? Many say that they struggle to hear God’s voice, yet many also hear Him. What is the difference? Could it be that some are listening more than others.

All too often, God has to wait for some quiet moment to catch our attention, and say something to us. Is that because He wants to wait for that moment? Or, could it be that we don’t give Him our attention, because it is distracted by other things?

Could it be possible that we could learn how to hear God’s voice, even in the midst of the hustle and bustle of life? I would have to say, “Yes, we can.” It may not be easy, but it is possible. Many of the prophets in the Bible learned to do just that. If they could learn it, we can too. All it takes is learning how to listen to His voice.

Or, what about hearing the people’s hearts; their pain, their loneliness, their suffering? Can we learn to hear those things as well? Through learning how to hear those things, can we possibly be used by God to minister His love to those people?

What we are listening to is based upon our priorities; when we get our lives in line with God’s will, then our listening changes. Instead of listening for the ring of coins on the ground, we will lift up our countenance and listen for God’s voice, for hurting hearts, and for how we can make a difference. 

The Danger of Living on the Border

I’m sure you’ve heard about the literally thousands of killings that have been going on in northern Mexico. It seems that every day the news is carrying a story about someone else who was killed by the drug cartels, or by their wanabees. Due to this, I am constantly asked if we are in danger living on the border, or if it is dangerous for us to go into Mexico.

The violence that is happening in northern Mexico is caused by the war that Mexican President Calderon declared against the drug cartels. Our government, under President Bush, committed support to this war; not only politically, but financially as well; giving them millions of dollars in equipment, training, and operating funds for use by the army. Since then, the drug cartels have both been fighting back against the police and army in Mexico, but fighting amongst themselves as well.

Unfortunately, not all of the killings have been limited to the cartels. As in any war, there is “collateral damage” a euphemism for innocent bystanders who are inadvertently killed by the warring factions.

In addition to this, one of the major combatants really isn’t a drug cartel, but is more of a wanabee group. The cartels are in the business of moving drugs to the United States, because that’s what makes them money. Anything else is a waste of time for them. Before the current war, the members of this wanabee group were used by the drug cartel as contract help; mostly for violent acts. Now, they think they are a cartel as well.

It is this group that has initiated most of the acts of violence, kidnappings and extortion against the general population of Mexico. The Mexican people are afraid, because nobody seems to know who these people are, where they are, or when they will next attack. Unfortunately, even with the monumental successes that the army has had against the drug cartels, they haven’t had as much success against these people.

For us, living on the U.S. side of the border, the violence is something we mostly catch on the news. There is a blog I check daily for the latest news on border violence. If you want to check it out, it’s at: www.borderlandbeat.com.

We haven’t stopped going into Mexico because of the violence; although I must say, due to other ministry reasons, we haven’t gone in as much as we used to. Although there is some risk, the work of God compels us to go. Every time we cross that border, we pray. But, then again, we did that before the current problems came along.

We expect God to protect us from the violence that is happening in Northern Mexico. I really don’t expect to have any problems. However, should they come my way, I am ready to preach to as many of them as can hear my voice.

In the famous words of Daniel’s three friends, “Our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us…But if not…” (Dan 3:17-18). I love those last three words, “but if not.” It may happen some day doing the work of the Lord will require me to die; but, should that be so, at least I will know that I die doing what my God wants me to do.

QuiBids.com

I would like to congratulate quibids.com on one of the most incredible, and probably one of the most profitable marketing strategies in history. For those of you who don't know them, QuiBids is an online auction; but much different than e-Bay.

Essentially, you bid on an item that you want, and that they are selling. As I am writing this, I've been watching an Apple iPad 16 GB Wi-Fi up for auction. Each "bid" automatically increments the price one cent. If there are less than 10 seconds left on the clock, another 10 seconds are added. The clock on this item has been at less than 20 seconds for over two hours that I know of. When I first saw it, the “sell price” was less than $10.00. Eventually, someone is going to win a iPad at an incredible price; because it's only at $45.51 at the time of this writing.

What's the trick? Easy, you have to buy a "packet" of bids, which cost about 60 cents each. Every time you bid, it reduces your number of available bids by one; or, in other words, it costs you 60 cents to bid. So, QuiBids has already received over $2,700.00 for that $699.00 (retail) iPad I'm watching. That’s almost four times the retail price! Don't know what it'll finally sell for, but they're raking in a bundle on it already.

Just to make sure this wasn’t all a fluke, I looked at a few other items, here’s how they sold:

                                                               Retail             Sold for         Bid Income

Passport 230 GB external hard drive       $69.00           $12.67           $396.00

Toshiba 40” 1080p LCD HDTV             $599.90         $73.90           $2217.00

Xbox 360 250 GB Elite Controller          $326.99         $43.18           $1294.50

Home Depot Gift Card                            $100.00         $10.14           $304.20

250 bids voucher on their system             $150.00         $14.35           $861.00

Selling products for an average of over 500% over retail, and getting away with it. Like I said; pure genius.

The amazing thing is… I think this is legal.

What Has Happened to Religious Freedom?

One of the unique things about the United States of America, and specifically about the constitution of same has been the freedoms guaranteed to the citizens by the first 10 amendments to the constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Of all of these, the most well known, and the most controversial of all these rights is the first amendment; which guarantees the freedom of religion, expression, the press, and the right for peaceful assembly.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since our country is made up of people of diverse backgrounds, ethnic roots, ideologies, and religions, the balance between the rights of one group, and the rights of another group sometimes collide. Anyone who states a strongly held opinion, fact, or “truth” from one ideological camp is sure to offend people of the opposing camp. According to the first amendment, this is our most closely held civil right.

In a perfect world, everyone would understand that these differences are part of what makes us a strong nation. Nobody becomes strong without struggle. An athlete, who wishes to win, must suffer and sweat in order to win the prize. Likewise, an intellectual who wishes to win the debate on whatever opinion or ideology that they hold must suffer and sweat. Without suffering to refine and solidify their arguments, they will never win anyone to their side.

In the field of politics, we have somehow managed to replace intellectual suffering with ridicule. Those who wish to make their case stronger do so by making the other side look inept, unreasonable, old-fashioned, negative or even destructive to society.

Even the terminology that the press has assigned to various political factions or viewpoints reflects this idea of ridicule. Those with a right-wing political stance are called “radical conservatives;” while those on the left are “progressive liberals.” While the term “progressive liberals” at least makes sense; “radical conservative” is a true oxymoron. Conservatism by its very nature is the antithesis of radical. The danger in this manner of expression is that as people encounter these two terms in the press one comes across as positive, while the other carries a clear negative connotation.

Unfortunately, these terms stick in people’s heads, and affect the way that they interpret the viewpoints expressed by the opposing factions. In such cases, the “politically correct” viewpoint comes out on top.

At the time that our constitution was drafted, the “politically correct” viewpoint was the Judeo-Christian ethic found in the Holy Bible. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, only 2 were not practicing Christians. Somehow, in the liberal desire to separate church and state, that historical fact has been brushed under the carpet.

However, in more recent times, the Judeo-Christian ethic has been replaced by the liberal ethic. Liberalism seeks freedom from tradition and authority; defining “truth,” “ethics” and “morality” as every-changing terms, adapted to suit the times. What is true today may not be true tomorrow; depending on what “science” decides is truth. Morality and ethics are constantly adapted to suit prevailing ideas and ideologies.

One of the ways that liberalism is seeking to assert its control over our society is by gradually chipping away at the rights of conservatives to express their opinions. To the liberals it may not seem that way; they are only working to make things “fair.” But to those whose rights are being restricted, in favor of other’s rights, each tiny change is a major blow against our freedom.

I recently encountered a posting on facebook by a liberal which stated, “Preachers should not be allowed to use their position to state their political beliefs.” This was stated as a reaction to a preacher who had spoken out against a prevailing liberal point of view.

First of all, let me state that if it wasn’t for preachers, this person would not have had the right to make that statement. In the England of yesteryear, a statement like that could very easily see one imprisoned; because the England which the United States of America broke away from in the Revolutionary War did not allow freedom of expression. The revolution which gave them the freedom to express themselves was fueled by preachers who used their pulpits to speak on the necessity of freedom for all.

Why should we single out preachers as a group that should not be allowed to express their opinion? Isn’t that the same as taking away their first amendment rights? Even more, isn’t that taking away their livelihood? If we are going to take those rights away from preachers, then we should take them away from news reporters, actors, politicians, artists and actors as well. Each of these professions is an expression of the individual’s interpretation of the world around them.

There is no moment in time where a preacher stops being a preacher. When an accountant leaves his office, he is known by his name, not as an accountant; likewise for a truck driver, factory worker, engineer, or many other fields. However, a preacher is a preacher 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He doesn’t have the option of “laying down” his position for a “private” life.

Fine art is an interpretation by the artist of the world around them. The most progressive practitioners of this expression are often making a political or social comment in their artwork. If we take away their right to make those statements, we remove the essence of what motivates them to create. Art is then reduced to expression without meaning, or meaning so simple that it might as well be created by a child coloring with a box of crayons.

Much of the conservative commentary propagated in our society is that which is expressed by Christian preachers. Restricting their first amendment rights is the same as eliminating conservative expression in public forums. Isn’t that the same as eliminating all competition against liberalism? Maybe that’s what these people are really after.

The freedom of speech that these liberal politicians are attacking was given to them by people who believed the Bible, and believed that the God of the Bible had given them the right to express their opinion. In other words, if it wasn’t for God, they would have a right to attack those who speak of Him.