Thinking-Christianly

Hardly a month goes by without some revelation of questionable moral behavior on the part of high elected officials. This is reflective of a situation C. S. Lewis described as “men without chests.” As acceptance of relativism has grown, it has become easier for leaders who affirm religious values to justify behavior that violates the norms of biblical teaching. Virtue yields to pragmatism.

How do constituents respond to the immoral behavior of American political leaders? Responses seem to vary according to the priorities of the constituency.

Some choose to support any candidate who shows promise in promoting their preferred political agenda. As long as the political leader advocates and pushes for the social or political values the constituent favors, all other behavior is irrelevant. This can happen for voters who classify themselves as conservative or liberal. The place on the political spectrum does not matter. The politician may delay paying taxes, treat staff with disdain, engage in shady business deals, accept bribes, or commit adultery. As long as he or she maintains loyalty to the political and social values of the constituent, nothing else matters. It would take a tremendous number of onerous incidents to disaffect voters who hold to this value. While they might prefer someone who was more moral, the voter who values loyalty above all else is likely to continue to reward philosophical loyalty on the part of an elected official with support.

Christ followers face a more difficult challenge. They value truth and obedience to God. Any leader who claims to be a faithful Christian will be expected to conform to key Christian moral absolutes. The leader in question may be a friend, church leader, pastor, or political office holder. When a leader fails morally, there is a call to accountability. There is also the offer of forgiveness where repentance is demonstrated.

Today’s press has many details about South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s adultery. The governor has accepted responsibility and admitted his failure. The public discovery of his actions gave him no other choice. He claims to be a man of faith and to believe in absolutes. The bottom line is that the governor did not live up to the personal spiritual values he claims to espouse.

Governor Sanford’s behavior raises the question about standards Christians should hold for elected leaders. What kind of standards should Christ followers hold to? If a restaurant manager claims to be a Christian and commits adultery, we do not generally expect him to forfeit his job. He is in a position of leadership, but it is not considered a public trust. If a governor (or congressman) does the same, what is expected of him as someone who is “employed” by the citizens? If he is effective in his role as governor, does that effectiveness grant him some level of job security despite his personal moral failures? What should a Christ follower expect or demand of elected officials who purport to be followers of Jesus?

I’d like to ask those who regularly participate in this blog to respond to this moral question. The Bible should frame our view of this dilemma. What expectations do you think are most consistent with a Christian world view?

Life would be much more pleasant if we all learned lessons from the wise counsel and failure of others. Unfortunately, our pride leads us to place too much confidence in our own understanding, and we sometimes suffer for it. Those of us who have raised or trained children, teens, and young adults know the frustration in seeing realities others miss. We know that certain decisions will not produce good results. But despite our counsel, people we care about repeat the same mistakes we have seen or suffered from personally.

God does not become frustrated in such circumstances. Though his care dwarfs ours, he retains his composure as he watches those he loves make stupid choices. In Jeremiah chapter 2 God is reminding the nation of Judah how they have forsaken him for other things that promise security and satisfaction. He knows where such choices inevitably lead. And in his warning he addresses the learning power of consequences. Jeremiah 2:19 states, “Your wickedness will punish you; your backsliding will rebuke you.”

When we listen to nothing else, God is not incapable of driving a lesson home in our lives. The agency he uses is called consequences. Negative consequences have a wonderful way of getting our attention. Sometimes the consequences are much more intense than we think. Hosea 8:7 figuratively speaks of sowing wind, but reaping a whirlwind. In Galatians 6:7 the Bible reminds us that we reap what we sow.

All of us can think of incidents where individuals are apparently impervious to this principle. They seem to get away with doing evil, living selfishly, and taking advantage of people. But we can’t see all the consequences of their actions, both at the moment and for eternity. The broader picture is of one where God allows consequences for the purpose of teaching us the wisdom of following him and the folly of living by our own rules.

When words fail, when pleading and manipulation seem to produce nothing—there are always God-permitted consequences that are the tutors for us and others in those times when we are too smart for our own good. It’s encouraging to know that God is always in the business of orchestrating these natural consequences of selfish choices to open our eyes to himself and his truth.

Some voices within classical universalism insist that there is no eternal punishment for those who reject God. Hell is a myth, and God in his infinite love welcomes all who endure the afflictions and brokenness of this life into paradise afterwards. Those who die all clearly see the dimensions of the love of God and become caught up in his love and goodness. His love is so great and so compelling that animists, pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, and skeptics all find common ground in the acceptance and mercy God extends to them through the power of Christ’s death. There is no creed to confess—simply a divine love to welcome.

This form of universalism grates against many who take the New Testament texts seriously. Acts 4:12 insists, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Jesus maintained that God will take lawless men “and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (See Matthew 13:42.) Christ also declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (See John 14:6.)

Some proponents of universalism take a less confrontational approach. They agree with the idea that there may be punishment after this life, but they argue that the infinite love of God will eventually persuade those who resist him in this life (and perhaps somewhat in the next) will ultimately prevail. Some have dubbed this position a ‘purgatory defense,’ but it does not argue for a redemptive punishment. It contends that
God’s grace and love are massive. It declares that God does not abandon anyone—even in the afterlife. It reasons that the ground of this restoration is Christ only. Given enough time, all will be persuaded to accept the reconciliation God effected through Jesus.

This position tries to give credence to the biblical text, while offering compassionate hope to all who die apart from Christ. In brief, it argues that individuals have all of eternity to respond to God’s offer, and at the end all will.

As attractive as this position is, even to some evangelicals, it suffers from two fatal flaws. First, it ignores key texts of scripture. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus states, “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Jesus depicts the duration of time in either condition as permanent, not temporary. He also maintained that a minority find eternal life. (See Matthew 7:14.) Either Jesus was mistaken, or the notion that all will eventually be reunited in joy with God is suspect. Universalism also suffers from a philosophical flaw. It forces all human beings to be reunited with God. In doing so, it destroys free will. People may exercise a choice contrary to God’s design while on earth, or even for a prolonged period after death, but in the end their resistance is futile. They will capitulate. The only question is one of time. Universalists may speak glowingly of God’s wonderful, compelling love, but that does not change the fact that only one choice will prevail. In Star Trek terminology, the Borg wins.

The popularity of universalism in our pluralistic age cannot compensate for its flaws, both in logic, and in fidelity to the text of scripture.

I once had a conversation with a relative who had little use for biblical Christianity. One of the reasons for this conclusion was that she believed the Bible taught that mankind was to despoil the earth. Being sensitive about environmental issues long before they were fashionable, she felt that the teachings of the Bible were unfriendly to the planet.

When I opened the biblical text, she was surprised that God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:15 to be an accountable caretaker of the garden. It was not Adam’s property to do with as he pleased. He was God’s steward. God gave him the responsibility to manage what God had made. The Bible presents an amazing balance. The earth and its components are not divine, as some ancients believed, and as some moderns sometimes imply. On the other hand, the earth is not to be polluted and ravaged. God gave us the resources of the planet to use judiciously.

The History Channel has begun a series entitled Life After People. This series speculates on how the planet will change if humans go extinct. What plant and animal species will thrive? How will the terrain change after humans are no more? Though entertaining, such projections forget that God did not create the planet for itself, but for a greater purpose. For example, Isaiah 45:18 begins by stating, “For this is what the Lord says—he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited…”

For the secular materialist, the earth is a speck in the cosmos that will one day be destroyed or transformed into a lifeless rock. In the Bible God reveals that he designed the earth as the home for a being he would create in his image. It has true significance and value because it is a key component in the intelligent plan of a creator God. He designed its tilt, its gravity, its physical properties with intentionality. It has value, but not autonomous value. The worth of our planet is not intrinsic. It is derived from the role it plays in the creator’s plan.

Genesis 3:17 tells us that some of the harsh and destructive physical realities we take for granted were not characteristic of the earth at one time. They became part of the new reality after the rebellion of man. Romans 8:21-22 personifies the earth as groaning until the redemption of mankind ushers in a new age.

What are the implications? The earth’s impermanence does not exempt us from our role as caretakers. We are not to abuse the earth any more than we are to abuse our bodies, which are also temporal. Nor are we to worship it. It is not divine. It is a broken resource that God still uses to sustain mankind as he writes the pages of history. We are to use its resources to build and maintain lives and cultures that honor God. The culture that declares its autonomy from God that threatens the planet most—for when we detach from our creator, our relationship with the environment he created will be governed by subjective choices rather than by divine absolutes and obedient hearts.

A friend of mine emailed me about an invitation that came from his place of business. He works for a major corporation. The invitation sought to enlist volunteers to represent the company at a local “Gay Pride Day.” Apparently, the initial response was not sufficient, so subsequent invitations were offered.

There seemed to be some significant expectations implied in the request, and my friend faced a difficult choice. How do you decline something like this in a gracious way? Will choosing not to volunteer impact your relationship with your superiors?

Many American businesses push the value of diversity on their employees. The classical concept of diversity is defined as accepting all people as valued as humans despite different ethnic backgrounds, languages, religions, or socio-economic environments. In our politically correct atmosphere this has changed. The expectation is that we must pledge to be value free in responding to the choices people make—not simply the value of the people themselves.

In modern thought, we are wrong to question some personal choices of others. Our culture would persuade us not to object if a co-worker commits adultery. Maybe that works for her. Cohabitation is just a temporary marriage without a piece of paper. Homosexual behavior is a matter of personal choice. Illegal drugs are ok if they help you cope with life. Many argue that to measure any of these choices against an absolute standard is not to embrace true diversity.

But this argument falls apart. True diversity does not dictate where and when objections can be made to human choices. Most individuals who celebrate diversity of choice do not rejoice when someone chooses to steal their identity or expose themselves to kindergarten students. Some choices are clearly wrong. The modern spirit claims the ability to put some choices on the ‘do not critique’ list and others on the ‘we can object list.’ But in doing so, the proponents assume that they possess the divine right to determine which choices are beyond question and which ones are not. They become the self-appointed value police. If there are no absolute standards, how can they justify creating selective arbitrary standards?

True diversity cannot outlaw the individual who dares to challenge the moral choices of others. If it is real diversity, it must accept the person who embraces absolutes. To do otherwise is to manipulate for conformity, not promote diversity.

New Testament Christianity, rightly practiced, is embraces authentic diversity. Unlike relativism, it does not pretend that diverse and conflicting ideas are true. It dares to set forth the truth of God’s revelation in the marketplace of ideas. As it calls others to consider both the truth and their real accountability before the God who exists, it does not coerce belief through threat of death or other means. It holds to absolutes and calls people to submission to a holy God and to virtue by pointing them to God’s standards rather than some man-made cultural norm.

Diversity tends to flourish in cultures where Christianity has made a significant impact. As the Christian world view weakens, political correctness and arbitrary cultural values tend to rule using more coercive methods. That is why those who follow Christ must advocate for political liberty and demonstrate authentic submission to the teaching of Christ. Moral submission and political autonomy work well together. Moral autonomy and political submission do not. That combination leads to repression because the moral autonomy produces social chaos that invites authoritarian solutions to keep it in check.

According to web news reports, the board of PBS decided to enforce regulations that prohibit the broadcasting of religious programs on affiliate stations. The decision does not simply acknowledge that we are a pluralistic nation. It does not seek to offer access from various viewpoints on religious issues. Instead it arbitrarily takes all religious truth claims and bans them from the PBS airwaves. Independent broadcasts of ideas of a religious nature are no longer welcome. Religious ideas may be discussed, but the perspective will be only that which the programmers and directors of PBS deem worthy or suitable.

Humanists and secularists may applaud this decision as one which cleanses the PBS airwaves of unwanted religious content. But the restrictions are purely subjective and arbitrary. The religious dimension of human life, which has played a significant role in the history of mankind, is no longer part of the story of man that PBS is willing to tolerate. This prohibition that stops religious institutions from presenting their point of view within their system is not neutrality. It is a value judgment that this kind of content is defective, unworthy of serious consideration.

Instead of creating a free-flowing venue that includes diverse philosophical and theological values, this decision abandons true diversity and establishes secular materialism as the only legitimate world view. What do those who would ‘protect’ others from the influence of independent religious claims fear? Any philosophical position that needs to stack the deck against competing philosophies is neither secure nor democratic. (We see this weakness reflected in North Korean Communism, parts of Medieval Catholicism, and on university campuses where tenure is denied for those who will not comply with the predominate perspective on origins.)

Restricting ideas by force or by statute do not make them go away. The actions of the board of PBS reflect an attitude that undermines the building of an open marketplace for ideas that compete for the attention of thinking individuals. That is the sad loss in this decision.

Our ‘wired’ world offers an amazing number of outlets for those who wish to be informed. The number of resources available through radio, cable and satellite outlets, and print media, and the Internet is amazing. It’s hard to imagine living in a time when the news largely consisted of the information shared between neighbors, augmented by an occasional glimpse at a ‘big city’ newspaper.

Ironically, as the number of news sources has grown, the scope of the news has narrowed. The major news sources highlight a handful of issues regarded as ‘news’ using similar criteria. The result is a few stories repeated ad nauseum across the media. Newsworthy stories focus on several themes. Importance is attached to government leaders and policy, business and financial decisions, and industries that offer some form of diversion in life—from sports to Hollywood to the offbeat behavior of individuals regarded as ‘personalities.’

For all its breadth, modern news is remarkably lacking in substance. Secularization does that to communication in a culture. It replaces thoughtful reflection with a focus on the fragments of the moment. What is the President thinking? How many points will the stock market move today? What movie is hot? Which NFL team will enter the pre-season the strongest? What new threats should we worry about most today? Religious issues are generally off the map, with the exception of the bizarre or reports of militants using religion as an excuse for atrocities.

What this secularization leaves us with is a pile of disconnected data that we are persuaded is important. We are not given a way to process it, except perhaps the grid of the self. Our tendency is to measure the significance of this information according to how it enhances or threatens our personal peace and our affluence.

The secularization carefully avoids asking substantive philosophical questions for fear that it might open the door to reflecting about ultimate reality, and perhaps about God. It echoes the attitude of many in Isaiah’s day when the prophet wrote, “They say to the seers, ‘See no more visions!’ and to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!’” (See Isaiah 30:10-11.)

When God is deemed irrelevant and omitted from consideration, modern man is left at the mercy of powerful leaders and impersonal forces that will shape his world. He has no vantage point bigger than himself. He has no calling greater than his own pursuit of wealth and pleasure. He has no tools with which to find ultimate meaning in any of this. All he is left with is making the most of the moment on the way to his own oblivion.

When you or I watch a movie or a screenplay in which an evil character inflicts harm on people who are essentially good, we look for resolution in the plot. We want to see bad guy not only stopped, but punished for the harm he or she has caused. This reflects a moral sense of justice that the historic fall has not obliterated in the hearts of mankind. We generally hunger for some kind of resolution that included payment for wrongdoing.

When a society starts to crumble, and injustice and immorality lose their power to shape the culture, our sense of morality looks for judgment. We don’t desire it, but we start to anticipate it. And we might actually be disappointed in God if it looks as though he is indifferent to evil trends in our culture.

Some well-meaning Christians interpret every news story as one more way of explaining how God is responding to the decay of the American culture. Their sense of justice casts a “gloom and doom” cloud across their eyes. They think only in terms of Armageddon and the return of Christ. When bad things happen some reflect an almost a gleeful sense of vindication.

The problem with reading God’s hand into every circumstance is that our perspective is not big enough and our attitude is discolored by our prejudices. Christ may return in conquest and judgment any moment. But the readiness he calls us to is not an “I-told-you-so” pride. He summons us to be faithfully doing his work until he comes back. (See Matthew 24:45-46.)

In different ways, the Bible asks the question, “How does God respond to moral decay in a culture?”Psalm 73:3-5 honestly states, “For I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from the burdens common to man; they are not plagued by human ills.” Habakkuk and Ecclesiastes wrestle with similar questions.

I would suggest that there are two general ways in which God responds to a culture that turns its back on him.

Sometimes God chooses to act decisively. When most people think of the judgment of God, they picture this kind of dramatic intervention. We could include the case in Sodom and Gomorrah, where the residents of those towns forfeited their lives. Or we could examine the 250 community leaders who opposed God’s leadership model through Moses and Aaron and subsequently died. (See Numbers 16.) This kind of response also crops up in Isaiah chapter 9, where God outlines his plan to bring massive destruction by empowering the kingdom of Assyria to overwhelm his rebellious people.

Sometimes God’s response is more subtle. In the covenant stipulations of Leviticus, for example, God outlines the reward for obedience and the consequences of disobedience. Disobedience may bring about a spirit of fear and vulnerability. Note Leviticus 26:17: “I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.” In this short sentence God asserts his ability to use geo-political circumstances as a means responding to the nation’s defiance of him. In Isaiah 10:4, he speaks of the nation of Assyria as “the rod of my anger.” The verse also describes a cowardice and anxiety that begin to permeate the conscience of a nation that has no use for God.

The natural consequence of sin is moral corrosion. This is true both on a personal and on a national level. Sin eats away at hope, sacrifice, courage, honor, integrity, boldness, true compassion, and perseverance. God’s response is not always swift and dramatic. Sometimes he simply takes his hand of protection and grace away and allows the natural consequences of sin to multiply exponentially in a culture.

In our desire to see God respond to evil, we must be careful not to dictate what that response should look like. His playbook is more diverse and wiser than our own. So we must trust him. And we must carry out the kingdom work he has entrusted to us. That involves fighting the evil in our own lives first, and seeking to bear eternal fruit through his Spirit.

The book of Job features a dialogue between a man who is suffering and the response of several of his friends. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar agree to leave their families and spend a week consoling Job. They meet a man whose wealth was stolen, whose children perished in a building collapse, and whose health deteriorated. They begin the process of caring for Job wisely. Job 2:12 tells us that they expressed their grief in visible oriental fashion. They wept, tore their robes, and sprinkled dust on their heads. Then they sat in silence with Job for seven days.

Unfortunately, as they listen to Job’s lament of his situation, the three conclude that Job’s affliction is the result of his own selfish and sinful behavior, and they proceed to accuse him of wrongdoing without evidence and demand he repent of presumed sin. In the last chapters of Job, God reproves Job—not for his sinful past—but for his arrogance in demanding that God justify why his providence allowed such things. God upbraids Job’s friends and vindicates Job, making the last part of his life more fruitful than the first.

As I’ve read this account over the years, I’ve assumed that Job essentially suffered alone—that nobody cared for him and that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar represented the attitude of everyone to Job. I forgot that this conversation that comprises the bulk of the book was maybe hours or days in length, and that it’s part of a much bigger story.

The truth is that many people cared for Job and they helped him emotionally and financially. God used the compassion and love of a community as his means of restoring Job. Surprised? Consider Job 42:11: “All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.”

In modern terms, it looks like Job’s friends and relatives had a huge pot-luck at his home. They loved Job and had been touched by his character and friendship over the years. They partnered with him in his grief. It would be great to know what their conversation with him sounded like. It was probably much more thoughtful, tender, and affirming than some of the things Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar said. And then God prompted them to be generous. Each gave a little to help Job out. He did not have to go to some capital investment firm. In a small way each helped him get back on his feet. His affliction did not strip him of his abilities, his networks, or his honest business ethics. And he went on to prosper over the next 140 years.

In looking into the book of Job about big theological themes—such as the sovereignty of God and the tendency we have to misunderstand the problem of suffering—let us not forget the power of friendship and simple acts of kindness. These were present in the narrative as well, and they are a sample of the kind of caring God has always called his people to—especially in times when we may not have answers for all the “why” questions of life.

Thoughtful dialogue between people who respect one another is a marvelous thing. It’s very rewarding to watch others discuss, and even debate, competing approaches to an issue in an atmosphere of respect.

In order for this to happen, there must be a mutual understanding that truth exists. This does not have to be tacit. It can be no more than a common assumption. But it brings to the dialogue the notion that there is a reality bigger than the parties involved that both recognize and are striving for.

When this is absent, the process deteriorates. It becomes an issue of winning and losing, or of preserving one’s pride or asserting one’s ego. The conversation takes on the tone of two 8-year-old boys arguing at a playground about which one is more intelligent. The barrage of passionate words increases hostility and entrenches prejudices. It produces a mutual deafness and a resolve to rearm verbally for the next conflict.

One of the forgotten casualties of relativism is the decay of healthy dialogue when perspectives collide. Without this common ground of truth, and this willingness to understand a lasting reality outside the self, such conversations decay into a dialogue of the deaf.

The tactics of some of the more prominent modern atheists demonstrate how this plays out. Instead of arguments based on careful research into manuscript evidence, archaeology, or historical data, critics resort to name calling, character assassination, and ridicule.

Richard Dawkins, for example, demonstrates incredible fluency with the English language. His creative style is engaging. But as Jim Holt notes in his New York Times review of Dawkins’ God Delusion, Dawkins ridicule sometimes misses the point. Holt notes that Dawkins dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic.

Such attitudes are not new. Job saw them in his day. He wrote, “Yet they say to God, ‘Leave us alone! We have no desire to know your ways. Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him? What would we gain by praying to him?” (See Job 21:14-15.)

The impact of relativism on conversation goes far beyond recognized authors. Mockery abounds. This same kind of pejorative language infects the television news. Listen to an interview or the commentary from a broadcaster and you will often hear the language of personal denigration. It flows from the speech of politicians and political pundits. Mockery is the staple of what passes for comedy these days. Worse, it’s what starts coming from us when we carefully listen to how we discuss issues and values about which we are passionate.

This decomposition of civility in debate is inevitable when truth becomes relative. The common ground is gone. It’s not about truth. It’s about me. All that is left is manipulation and power. The battle is no longer about arriving at truth, but a contest to see who can win the most votes by destroying the reputation of others. The ideas do not have to triumph—only the rhetoric.

Unlike a culture that displays growing expertise in the art of mocking, thinking Christians must frame our language and our appeal around the pursuit of truth. Without that, our defense and affirmation of the teachings of Christ become only an echo of the world’s folly.