Good News / Bad News

Just the other day I was talking with some new friends. They mentioned that they no longer read the news because it is all bad news. Their perspective is hardly solitary. I typically eschew local news because only two things really happen in municipalities: car wrecks and people accomplishing their tasks. Quite frankly, none of us have a particular appetite to monitor either one of those things.

Yet, the steady drip ... drip ... drip of bad news eventually gets to us all. It is the hum of the appliance that is not quite working right or the pesky mess at the corner of the office that we will get to one of these days. We imagine that it doesn't bother us and that we are "above" caring about it; but it is constantly on and it is constantly draining our energy.

One thing to remember about bad news is that it is conditioned to be accepted quicker than good news. This makes sense. If a wild cat appears in front of me, I want to be thinking about whether to fight or flee not how this fits into the great cosmological narrative. The amygdala kicks in, presses the emergency button in my brain; and tells the prefrontal cortex to sit back. When the danger passes, my brain gets back to proper analysis. But what happens when we are never allowed to let the danger pass? We need a bigger and bigger hit. So instead of a car accident, we need a pile up. Instead of a murder, we need a shooting spree. The dual priority of jobs, money and the work itself, are to be found in the news as well. In yesteryear, the government mandated standards, now it is left up the market alone; but that is a different story for another day.

The second thing is how good things happen and how bad things happen. Bad things are jarring moments: the needle on the record skipping, the moment we realize we have a paper cut, the one word we probably shouldn't have said. Good things are constant: a happy marriage, a fulfilling job, a healthy body. It is harder to report on good things and it is easier to take them for granted; but when we record the sudden things and merely pass over the constant things, our records become skewed. Then, when we sit down and take account of things, we seem to only be able to tally up the bad things.

Is it any wonder that so many people are so down in the dumps? There are many cures for the bad news. Some people look for "others" to blame. Our political and cultural dialogue seems replete with this perspective. Yet, as anyone with eyes can see, it is hard to see that this has made "good news" more readily available. Maybe we have all just sort of given up and are doubling down with the depression? Another option is to try and flood the field with good news, but apart from the rescue dog and the scientific break through (which may or may not pan out by the way); good news just doesn't work the same way as bad news.

Instead, we must stop looking at the inputs and focus on our processing. We need to understand that everyone tells a narrative with bias. We need to remember that even their biases are not our own (or even factually correct), the stories come from that perspective. For instance when I read a "Conservative" paper and a "Liberal" paper, I accept the writer's bias (intentional or otherwise). When I read a book by a Catholic theologian or a Calvinist theologian, I can accept our commonalities and differences. This doesn't excuse people for being lazy in their writing; but it does help us break down the news so that it is less dispiriting than if we heard it as "unvarnished" facts.

Ultimately, the good news is that there is a constant story which will not be interrupted by the daily reports. When we zoom out, the universe is either uncaring and ambivalent to our existence or there is something that is working to keep the chaos at bay. This doesn't mean the bad things won't happen or that we can become apathetic in this life; but it does mean that the bad things aren't the end of the story and that we can be participants alongside that which is bringing about a happy ending.

Standing with Haitians

My wife and I have gone to Haiti many times. No one can deny that that country’s government has problems. Most historians though clearly point that the denizens’ race has nothing to do with their plight. The nation was birthed in the great upheavals of the early Enlightenment period. It is the only successful slave rebellion in history. As such, the leaders had to face building a nation without the benefits that event their South American neighbors had. They also dealt with European racism that would warily trade with Anglos and Latinos, but only grudgingly acquiesced to acknowledging the fledgling Caribbean nation. And while Americans had debts from their Revolution, the Haitians were told to pay not just their debts but for their manumission as well! If such were the situation of their Anglo compatriots, we would have kept fighting. But the system was rigged. This led Haitians to overwork the soil so as to pay off their debts to their former masters. The once idyllic nation was turned into a national fire sale. Everything had to go.

Then, during World War I, the United States threw its weight around the country. It removed $500,000 from Haiti and transferred it to the U.S. for “safe-keeping.” There is no information that states it was ever given back. That amount would be worth about $11 million in today’s money. However since it was bank money moved from one bank to another, the interest rate ends up making it at least worth $73.3 million … if you didn’t invest anymore … and if you only invested in low-yielding bonds. 

Though this was the least of the travails visited upon Haiti. The United States effectively occupied the country from 1915 - 1934. While the U.S. did introduce improved infrastructure, thousands were left dead as a result of the incursion. When the U.S. did finally leave, it still demanded its “debts” be paid off by Haitians.

That is just one of many stories. Most of the debt that was accrued by Haiti did not emerge from poor management though. The Duvalier dynasty emerged. Though Kennedy initially removed aid from Haiti because of the regime, America tolerated them because of their proximity to Cuba. This, despite the fact that the Haitian secret police, The Tonton Macoute, killed some 30,000 opponents. 

It is hard to say what would have happened to Haiti had they simply carried out a successful revolution and been treated like their North American counterparts. Yet, from the start Haiti has had to work exponentially harder just to exist at all. The country has been so destabilized from the inception onwards that it is a miracle it still exists at all. Haiti would consider itself lucky to have been ahead at any point. It has never been given the chance.

Still, there is a glimmer of hope. The Haitian people are resilient. They have fought for their existence so far and have never given up on it. Unlike many Americans who have inherited their wealth and prestige, parading around like self-made men, the Haitians have consistently adapted to new obstacles that the world has consistently thrown against them.

In our own small part (and this is mostly because of my wife), we support a school there. We also made sure that we support a child. Each one of those children wants to make their country a better place, but if they don’t accomplish that they want to make the world a better place at least. As I consider what real leadership is, I believe in the strength of the citizens of a country that despite the shocks and vicissitudes of a hostile world is still there. Mwen sipòte Ayiti!

A Loss of Representative Democracy

There is nothing in this world that Americans are more proud of than representative democracy. It is, to be sure, something for which we are to be justly proud. True enough, it has not been perfect. At times some country here and there has moved ahead of us in some innovation; but on the whole America has believed that if it sticks by representative democracy, benefits will come. America has not looked for benefits to be given by some far off potentate or political strongman. Instead Americans have looked to ourselves and our neighbors to protect our life, our liberty, and our property. Americans are curious people because we will take the long road ’round to get what is desired rather than take a short cut through authoritarianism. We make sure as many people are on board and we do it. It is just what you would expect from a country of merchants and machinists, farmers and factory workers. The beating heart of America’s political machine is worker and producer and not the aristocrat or technocrat.

Yet, there has been a worrying trend lately that has preyed on America’s fears rather than her strengths or loves or even history. On one hand there are status quo technocrats who wish to make America look like a European country. While I do admit to loving Europe, the first thing I did when I got home from a visit there was to kiss the ground. I think most Americans are like me. I don’t have much fear about a globalist agenda taking place. Yet, the worst kind of disease is the one that finds a small fear, blows it out of proportion, and then imports its far more insidious infection through the back door. I fear, there are some who are attempting just that. I will stick with just one example, because it is an example that is played out in other areas in our government.

Ajit Pai is a lawyer and a lobbyist. He attempts to wrap himself in the mantel of a tech guy and a Republican, but he is no more either one of those things than I am. While I can only be said to have hurt a few computers and broken things I don’t understand, Pai appears to be doing this on a grander scale with the entire internet. And while my political persuasion is that of a staunch moderate and independent who votes for common sense laws that don’t morally compromise my country, Pai appears to vote for the corporations who will promise him the most comfort.

Comfort is a dangerous siren’s song. People have tried to sing the song to Americans before. People tried to sing it to us in the Revolution when we wanted representative democracy. People tried to sing it to us for the institution of slavery. People tried to sing it to us that we should only import goods and not attempt industry or manufacturing ourselves. People have tried to sing it to us to not meddle with Nazi affairs in Europe. The history of evil is written to the tune of comfort. The same is true of people and corporations as it is of nations and people. The unthinking easy way is better than the disciplined hard way, these people say. Do not look at the failed history of this tune, pay no attention to the wreckage, just trust us and everything will be okay.

Ajit Pai has been sung this song. Maybe he believes it or maybe he doesn’t. The easy thing is just to allow a centralized authority, the telecommunication monopolies, control the American internet, and therefore the world’s internet. The American people, through Republicans and Democrats, have stood up for the need to have an industry that serves their needs. Imperfectly, we have made a place for businesses to come in and lay down cables. While other countries have blazed ahead in internet speeds, Americans have felt comfortable to allow companies to shoulder this responsibility because of our unique vision for the free market. Sadly, somewhere along the line our bequeathment of the right to construct a free-market internet was used against us. The servants and beneficiaries of America’s benevolence have become overlords and masters who, because their usurped authority has not been challenged, have turned against the people who gave them what they have. The even fashion themselves innovators and benign providers of a common good, but wish to undemocratically wrest the control of that good from the American people and other corporations.

In the face of this threat, the American people have written and begged Ajit Pai and others to please not do this thing. We have asked and demanded that the government cease dolling out “most-favored business” rulings to corporations. The telecommunications companies have no more right to the internet than anyone else in this country. They had a government contract to lay down the cable, like a road crew. In fact they were given more leeway than a road crew and more input too, often times blatantly failing to adhere to their contracts and bypassing “unprofitable” Americans. They also could control speeds. It is hard to justify giving more control to an industry that has shown itself to be mostly above board, it is unconscionable to do so with an industry that has willfully and blatantly ignored its contracts. Giving power to any entity and away from the people, then lying about doing so, is un-American.

The current FCC is being governed by such an un-American ethos. The director and those like him have sought not to be public servants but to be lawyers who seek to find an excuse to allow their client (in this case the telecommunications companies) to extract more from Americans. The American people have written to the FCC and are left unheard. Legal briefs have actually been filed, but justice appears to not be on the agenda. When the people and justice are ignored, Americans should be concerned.

Secretly, without our noticing what happened, America shifted from a country that was concerned about doing its best to a country that looked to be part of a club. The current administration, which elevated Pai to his current position, has done this systematically. While pursuing actions which hurt average Americans and to which average Americans have naturally pushed back, it wraps itself in a mantle of defending against the insidious threat of globalism. Yet, it only succeeds by warning Americans who question its authority, that they will be out of their club. This is the perfect example of using fear to take away the, dare I say, rights of Americans. Refusing to listen or acknowledge that this a wildly unpopular move, an appointed official is pushing through a law that does not have the support of the people. When confronted, the administration uses the playbook of authoritarians and dictators, they denounce those speaking for the people as un-American and unpatriotic. If the people are no longer able to hold those who transgress laws accountable, do we still have justice? If the people are no longer allowed to have a say on our laws, do we still have a representative democracy?

There will always be cranks who will never give a person an honest shake. But the average American used to be able to admit that they could tell the difference. Dictators take control when they notice that people in their country are more concerned with belonging to an in-crowd than standing by justice and having a say in how their lives are run. Too often of late, we have elected a civil servant with the understanding that our group will put the screws on that other group. We become so loyal to our group that we excuse them from being public servants and looking out for our well being. Those in power see this, they see where they can make a future for themselves, and the give appointments to people who will further their career more than perform their duty.

 We must be honest with ourselves about what is happening. Ajit Pai is a non-elected official who wields power over the greatest invention of the past few years. He, and his associates, wish to turn it into their own fiefdom. It will throttle innovation, skim money from people, and further limit freedom in America. This is not a win for the free market, but rather a loss for it. And more than that, it shows that Americans are willing to put up with a loss of representative democracy so long as their clan is in power. The message it sends is chilling for all of us in this country who were brought up to love liberty.

Left Behind in the Debate of the Mass Shootings

It seems odd that anyone would have to actually write something about mass shootings. Why is this even a discussion? It should go without saying: “Don’t kill a couple dozen or more fellow human beings with military grade weaponry.” or “Please refrain creating a micro-genocide because you’re feeling undervalued as a person.” For some the answer is to arm everyone and turn America back into a wild west, while a growing number of others seem to want current gun laws enforced and new gun laws enacted. 

Now, I do genuinely believe in greater gun control. Some may chalk this up to the fact that I don’t much care for firearms myself. “If I only loved it like the members of the NRA love it,” the argument goes, “I’d never utter such a stupid response.” I love a great many things and appreciate their restrictions. I’d love being able to drive my car well over 100 mph, but I also realize that study after study shows that higher fatalities occur after a certain point on certain roads. I am willing to get a photo ID to demonstrate that I can operate a vehicle in the United States and am willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with that.

It is true that the information we have about gun violence is not perfect, but anyone objective observer will tell you that this is because those who actually monitor gun violence are not permitted to really compile the main data. The NRA clearly doesn’t want this data to be parsed out as they are the “K Street” arm of the gun manufacturers. Many people are leaving the NRA for the same reason they are leaving a great many other organizations that represent the industry at the expense of the members.

Still, many non-Republican news outlets concede that though gun restrictions do help a bit and clearly common sense laws should be enforced; they are not a panacea. This is not an either/or issue. There is a gradient and America has told itself a story so much that it is now far out of line with common sense.

Indeed we should be honest, gun restrictions will only take a person so far. The most recent shooting shows that while the person did pass a background check to buy a firearm; though any sensible person would see it was a bad bet to sell to a person who had shown a history of domestic violence, cruelty to animals, and a “discharge for bad behavior” by a branch of the armed services a gun.

But I want to talk about the deeper issue. The Republican talking point has been that it is a mental health issue. Clearly this is just a talking point, because they have stonewalled against actually doing anything that would address that issue. So let’s just say this is where we stand after this mass shooting. The Democrats are not beholden to the NRA and so are willing to listen to their base about firearm restrictions. It is a noble goal, but won’t fix the whole issue. The Republicans owe too many people too many things and so are afraid to actually even review gun fatalities or propose any legislation that would address mental health concerns. A bit may change, but giving an inch today is seen as being weak; so in the meantime, this is what we have.

Yet, behind all of this is a bigger issue that never makes the rounds: this is a moral issue. Christians believe that while you cannot legislate morality, the law can curb bad behavior. We have spoken to the curbing bad behavior and making sure people who egregiously violate the bad behavior are held accountable; but this is just plugging the dam.

Right now there is a constant stream of discussion on just who this shooter is. He is a villain. Yet, celebrity is often times just being honored in a society which has no clear definition morality. I often wonder just what would happen if police departments kept all this information to themselves? What would happen if we didn’t gawk and stare at the warped individual who decided to “go out in a blaze of glory”? What if our opprobrium were truly genuine and we denounced these people in no uncertain terms? This is not hushing things up or sweeping things under the table. Go through your television shows and see how many “reality television shows” are just scripted “people behaving like animals.” Think of the excuses we make for that singer or political commentator or thespian we happen to enjoy. Until violence ceases to be glorified in our culture, we are going to continue to have mass shootings. We can limit them by better mental health or better documentation about firearms purchases; but only when these people have some sort of non-celebrity-oriented moral code will we see any real change as a society.

To date, the institutions in our society aren’t really doing much to address this issue. Violence sells, morality is difficult, telling people they have issues is uncomfortable. Yet, until our society does the hard thing of embracing a morality that does not honor death and ignoring “fame for fame’s sake,” it is obvious that these things will happen over and again. Shame the violent and shun those who practice wholesale evil. Finally, realize that the same evil they have done could be done by you. We have all missed the mark; and there is always the danger we could look to emulate those who have given into the darkness.

Just who are the Lutherans?

For many of us, it has been the best of times and the worst of times to be a Lutheran. In the fall of this year, we will be celebrating the 500th anniversary of Reformation Day. This is the day, when Luther supposedly nailed the 95 theses to the doors of the Wittenberg Church, thus precipitating a chain reaction that would inevitably lead to the Protestant movement. Lutherans usually don’t get any attention, and for the most part we like it like that. We aren’t like our swashbuckling friends: the Calvinists, or our “center of the universe” buddies: the Roman Catholics, or even our “can’t we all just get along” colleagues in the Methodist Church. Lutherans like to just get the job done. Most of them have a good grasp on handiwork (my dad and I are exceptions that rule), prefer to show compassion not in sermons or bombastic good works but in casseroles, and don’t mind being the largest Protestant Denomination you’ve probably never met anyone attending.
Yet, this has a limit. For one thing, when Lutherans do enter a fray; they usually dominate it. Lutherans started everything from pietism and the Welhausen Hypothesis. It isn’t just Christianity where we shine, Lutherans have been at the cutting edge of philosophy, public policy, and even rocket science. The simple fact is that the grunt work of advancing humanity has been done, in large part, by Lutherans doing there thing. Of course there is a difference between acknowledging that a group of people just likes getting the work done and not getting the limelight for it, and misrepresenting that group and why they do what they do. Yet, that is exactly what we are seeing this year. When this happens, well, one should expect that Lutherans are going to have to do what we do best: explain reality.
You see most people don’t know what Lutherans actually believe and so rather than ask a Lutheran, they just sort of project onto them their own theologies and beliefs. At the Wesleyan seminary I attended, my Lutheranism was compartmentalized as being either Wesleyan or Calvinist. Trying to explain to people that we had been at the theology game longer (and better) than these two only registered blank stares and further pigeonholing into the Calvinist/Wesleyan dichotomy.
Yet, as bad as Wesleyans can be, no one misses the point more than Evangelicals … I mean what we think of as American Evangelicals. The original Evangelical name was, you guessed it, Lutheran. Whether it is Eric Metaxas’ substandard biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or an animated video of “Protestants” starting with Luther, but not containing any other Lutherans besides him; the so-called Calvinists in America seem to believe that after Luther, the Calvinists came along as if Luther were some half-formed proto-Calvinist and the current Calvinists are the next step in the Evangelical Evolution. (There’s something you won’t read everyday.)
This was especially galling when reading Christianity Today. Now, I have to be honest, I really like most of what Christianity Today does. I subscribe and share and generally get a lot of out it. I know they were trying to be nice and show, in their own way, how much they appreciate Luther. But subconsciously they really miss the mark. In fact, I think subconsciously, they are kind of afraid of Lutherans. Just think if Lutherans ever rose up and got it in their head to take back the name we had taken on back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the Evangelicals in America would have to find another name (Fundamentalists anyone?). So there is a, subconscious, mind you, desire to pretend that nothing ever happened in Lutheranism after Martin Luther. This is done in three ways. Either the person is ignored (see Philip Jacob Spener, Martin Chemnitz, Gerhard Forde, or just about any other Lutheran) or that person’s character is destroyed (see Philip Melancthon) or the person is coopted (Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the perfect example of this). This is a very simplistic (and dare I say, Calvinistic) way of doing theology because it allows one to streamline their beliefs and not deal with the nuances.
But nuances are where Lutherans excel. While at seminary, I was struggling with the notion of “free will.” It was a Calvinist who got me to cross certain hurtles and see what the Lutheran position was. Another time I had a Baptist preacher introduce me to the books of a Presbyterian minister who was fond of citing Lutheran thinkers. Lutherans are not the dominant members of this culture and thus are forced to take nuanced positions on every issue or risk selling out to some other belief system.
This is made far more difficult when one takes into account just how hard it is to find things of a Lutheran viewpoint. Catholics and Methodists and Calvinists churn out so many works by authors in their point of view, that it can be difficult to find a Lutheran book. Last night, I was reading an article in Christianity Today where a Bible Scholar from TEDS (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) was listing his favorite books from the past year. He listed a book on Luther that had recently been released by R.C. Sproul and Stephen Nichols. The book features many authors explaining Luther’s life and contributions. Yet only one of those authors was Lutheran. Now we can argue back and forth about the audience and intended theology of the book, but my problem is this. The book is published by a group called “Reformation Trust” and yet seems to box out an entire group of reformers. It is as if someone stole my identity and told me I should be grateful for the publicity they were giving me.
Yet this is not just limited to Calvinists and Catholics, but extends into the secular culture. The magazine “The Economist” is usually pretty good at its news, until it starts talking about religious news. At which point it exhibits the worst characteristics of its Englishness. In an article they attempt to psychoanalyze all of their disdain for Germany by tracing it back to Luther. Any Lutheran with a passing knowledge of the Reformation and Lutheran theology could pick it apart in no time. From their insistence that Luther believed we should have sort of Wesleyan notion of sanctification and how this led to austerity in German churches (it didn’t) and central European outlook (that was John Calvin’s influence through the Kingdom of Prussia) to the notion that Luther’s views led to servility to the state to stating that his racism led to naziism* (anti-semitism was round long before Luther). Missing from the piece were civic documents given by Luther, the kernel of the separation church and state found in his works on the two kingdoms, and references to the Book of Concord. I suppose we can just chalk this up to typical English xenophobia though.
So what is a Lutheran supposed to do? Well, I hope to kick off series of pieces about what Lutherans believe (or at least what this Lutheran believes). I welcome my Lutheran friends to contact me if they have any ideas. I will try and keep these things short and sweet. But I believe there is no better time for Lutherans to declare their Lutheran difference. America has become polarized and most people have moved decisively into certain camps, but perhaps this is the invitation that Lutherans need. There is a job that needs to get done, and after looking around, I guess we are the ones who are going to have to get it done. Again.

*A standard story repeated enough to be considered true. Luther’s anti-semitism could be found all over Europe so the question is whether it is a chicken or the egg? Did Luther’s anti-semitism infect Germany or did German anti-semitism infect Luther. While the answer is far more complex than that, it is obvious that Luther’s citations were used by Nazis. All Lutherans, regardless about how you feel about Luther, should apologize and work (as German leaders have since) in manifesting contrition through right action towards all Jewish people.

A response after reading Nona Dolce examine John MacArthur. I do not know Ms. Doce, but was told about this article through a mutual acquaintance. My response is not to her, but rather giving my interpretation on this subject. I think her response is very, very good and I do not wish to detract from it; but my main point is to point out some dangerous teachings in the church that her article alerted me to. I thank her for her Christian witness on this point.

http://christandpopculture.com/racial-issues-really-disappear-gospel-response-john-macarthur/

It is very nice of her to laud John MacArthur. He is a very eloquent preacher to people who are drawn to that particular style. However, as an orthodox Christian I can say that MacArthur is more like a modern day Origen without the theological or exegetical talents. His errors are numerous, but he appeals to a segment of America that wishes to have its modernist opinions validated at the expense of Biblical Discipleship.
I do believe that pastors have handled the racial issue very ham-fistedly. Many pastors are preaching about issues that are as remote to them and their congregation as wage reform in Africa or government crackdowns in Russia or China. To attack a problem that most people don’t see as a problem is to demand people repent when they don’t feel they have emotional buy-in.
Let me be clear, I am not saying that race isn’t a problem. It is such a big problem that we don’t see it when we are white and middle class. I was such a person who didn’t believe race was as big an issue. But this past year something changed. It all started when I watched a video from Praeger (hardly a liberal bastion) about the causes of the Civil War. I thought it would be typical Right-Wing declarations about the importance of states’ rights. Instead a military historian from West Point laid the blame directly at the feet of slavery and the addiction to it. I was stunned and I wanted to learn more about this evil that only got a passing nod in my history classes. I began to read articles and books. What I discovered was not some embarrassing incident or historical anomaly (like a faux pas during Thanksgiving Dinner or an uncle we would best not know); but a systematic evil that was the living death for millions of Americans.
The fact that the African community has enjoys even a modicum of life is testament to their tenacious adherence to the promises of faith unseen. Indeed, no people that I know of in America reflect God’s Gospel more than the African Americans. In that, I believe MacArthur is half-right. The faith of the African Americans allowed them to persevere in the face of a cruel world. The African American church has routinely embarrassed the church of other Americans by being the place where the Gospel and the Holy Spirit were found to be moving in dynamic and creative ways. This is where MacArthur goes horribly wrong.
You see MacArthur doesn’t really believe in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot believe in the transformative power of the Gospel. His Holy Spirit theology is heretical and therefore the rest of his beliefs collapse like a house of cards. (Do we dare say that John MacArthur has blasphemed in the Holy Spirit? Do we notice that in the book of Acts the most pious people were also the most against the movement of the early church? Would not the Sanhedrin have appeared to be the truest and best representation of the “faith of the fathers”?) Mind you I do not condemn John MacArthur and his faith, but I merely point out that it condemns himself. All of us can look forward to welcoming him back into the fold of true belief, but we cannot force him to believe rightly. If my sojourn from the mainline to the Evangelical movement has taught me anything it is that heresy knows no political affinity.
But MacArthur is not our issue. Our issue is that of race and MacArthur merely shows where such statements go horribly wrong. MacArthur does not believe that the Gospel transforms people or society in tangible ways. As a Lutheran I do believe in imputed righteousness. Like MacArthur, Lutherans do not believe we can achieve theosis or divinization in this life. That is to say, we too believe that our perfection comes at the eschaton (the end of all things). We do not believe that every day and in every way we are getting better and better. Rather we believe that we live in daily repentance and renewal.
For the Lutheran what matters is relying on God so much that we choose to become Little Christs. Paul mentions kenosis, which is the emptying of Himself into us in Philippians 2. (Receive the Holy Spirit? John 20:22 and Acts 2:4, 38) Billy Graham speaks of the need for “[a]ll Christians are committed to be filled with the Spirit. Anything short of a Spirit-filled life is less than God’s plan for each believer.” Augustine states, “What the soul is in our body, the Holy Spirit is in the body of Christ, which is the church.” Luther puts it best by declaring simply that:

“I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith. Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins - mine and those of all believers. On the Last Day the Holy Spirit will raise me and all the dead and will give to me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.”

Most of the church in America is afraid of the Holy Spirit and we are more afraid of what the Holy Spirit will ask us to do. The Holy Spirit will ask us to give up our creature comforts in service to the Gospel. Karl Barth, who pioneered the dissolving of the modernist/liberal paradigm in the early twentieth century would have equally chastised those who sought to sideline the Holy Spirit. He states:

“When we are at our wits' end for an answer, then the Holy Spirit can give us an answer. But how can He give us an answer when we are still well supplied with all sorts of answers of our own?”

Most of the American church is filled with very talented people who are happy to do there best for Jesus. “Jesus gets us in the door,” said one pastor derisively of American Christianity, “but its up to me to make it to heaven.” In this way we forget what we are called to do and what we are here for. Most American churches forget that the power of the Holy Spirit, the power which is promised in sacred Scripture is for the transformation of this world into the Kingdom of God (Revelation 11:15).* Most of us have forgotten that justice is close to God’s heart and He desires us who are filled with the Spirit to do justice.
The church in America that has not forgotten this is the African American church. The fiery and subversive preaching of slaves and second-class citizens became the bedrock from which all the blessings of being made in the image of God was to be made manifest in our society. The Holy Spirit caused the church to defeat injustice with righteous obedience to the promises of God.
So when people like John MacArthur claim that the church should not be in the business of fixing past injustices is to be more addicted to the comfort of one’s position than the calling of God. To declare that the Gospel simply makes things better is to to profess a fairy tale and not an autobiography. The early saints did not look at the poor, the destitute, and marginalized and say “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” unless they wanted to end up on the wrong end of an Epistle from James. (2:16) Yet this is what MacArthur is saying. He is also declaring that any church that performs justice has less faith in the transformative power of the Gospel. It is as if he is declaring that in order to be truly blessed, you must accept all of the declarations about looking good before your neighbor and be comfortable with that; and to want to believe that righteousness is bigger than your relationship with God is to be a left-wing socialist.
Yet there are many who go the opposite extreme. MacArthur’s theological and biblical problems go deeper than a mere reaction to these hot heads. I have many of my news feed. Some of them are living out there callings to minister to the downtrodden and others are merely enjoying basking in lending there support to the outrage de jour. The worst is when pastors, motivated by high ideals, seek to preach truth without love. They look at their congregation and preach the Law without the hope of the Gospel.
Three things should be noted. We must understand where our congregation is at. Most of our congregations have not been fed good Biblical Theology. Like parishes visited by Luther and his associates, many pastors do not nourish their parishioners intellectual and theological needs. In fact whether because of fearing people will walk away from a church that preaches deep concepts or because of a sense of inadequacy, the theological viewpoints are usually pawned off on whatever political party the pastor happens to favor.
Recently, a friend of mine spoke with some people about a baptism. When he explained our theology, they were dumbstruck. No one had explained it to them before. For people who believe in infant baptism, this is a call for us to take seriously the burden that we have to catechize our younger parishioners and continue to feed our older ones. For those who believe in adult baptism, I suggest that you take seriously the early church’s practice of instructing them in the faith before baptizing them.
MacArthur is right that the Gospel does change everything, but it never just happens. Education can change a lot for a person. Democracy can change a lot for a person. However they must be apprehended and not merely acknowledged. That is the work of faith.
Secondly, we must make sure that we create opportunities for people to experience the lives of other Christians. I have a friend who recently took up teaching English as a second language. He was of a particular political persuasion that used to fear and be wary of them. However, the Gospel has moved in his life and has caused the crisis moment of having to choose the Gospel.
Our churches should be places where we go and perform the Gospel of our Lord not to be seen, but because that is what the Kingdom of God looks like. Making sure your congregation can participate in the community is the best way to lay the foundations for discussing racism.
Finally, we must listen to the places that our congregations are at. I do not know how many parishioners have told me of some pastor dictating what people should believe. The sermon is the place where the justice of God’s Kingdom confronts the injustice of a fallen world. You must listen to the words your congregation says and how they talk about things. Then you must learn to speak in a way that will make the Gospel something that they wish to pursue, not just something they feel compelled to obey. There is a point where obedience chafes a bit, but Paul states that a heart transformed by the Gospel message and the outpouring the Holy Spirit relishes following the Law (Romans 7:22). Furthermore, Christ delights in obedience to God’s command as well (John 4:34).
Yet such obedience realizes that the Kingdom is apprehended differently by different people. A middle-class fisherman (John 1) will understand differently than a scholar of the Law (John 3). Servants at a marriage feast (John 2) will understand differently than a woman who has been less than chaste (John 4). Christ’s Gospel is the same while his message changes depending on the hearer.
This brings us to “black lives matter.” I cannot speak about the group; but as to the ideology, I can speak. We must back the belief that people of every race and creed matter. Yet, we must acknowledge that certain peoples suffer differently than others. If my parishioner is grieving the loss of a parent, I do not comfort them as if they have lost a job. If my friend is suffering the end of a marriage, I do not pull out treat them as one who has just lost a promotion at work. Our Lord understood context better than anyone, after all he knows the hair on the heads of all (Luke 12:7).
Similarly, I cannot go up to my black friend or my police officer friend and start saying that “everyone matters and … oh, I am sorry about the loss of your friend.” I listen to them and see which way I can be a little Christ for them and a messenger of the Kingdom. I also cannot go up to my white friends and tell them that they must believe everything I believe exactly as I believe it. I must see what role they play in the Gospel and then I must walk beside them. When Christ met his friends going to Emmaus, he didn’t reveal the Gospel as he had seen it. (Who could bear that glory?) Rather he unfolded the Gospel to them so that their hearts burned within them. (Luke 24:13-32) Think of that, God met them where they were and brought them the Gospel so that their lives were changed.
This transformation comes when the Holy Spirit takes our wayward heart and fills it with God’s love. Ephesians 3 declares:

14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Yes, the Gospel is big and rich and full, but if we don’t live it out people will see it is just another fairy tale or some wishful thinking. John MacArthur, and people like him, attempt to turn the Gospel into just a good story that happened long ago and far away. This way of thinking downplays the sacrifice of Christ and his martyrs and wishes to affix “Once upon a time …” to the Gospels. The Kingdom of God, what the Gospel really says, plants itself firmly in a hurting world and declares that the unjust world of the fall has come to an end. The King has returned and His emissaries are making known that the great usurpation of sin and death are at an end. The way we are to do this is to teach, interact, and listen to a world in need of a Gospel only we can proclaim.



*This is a big difference between MacArthur’s interpretation of Revelation and that of historical Christianity. For MacArthur we must wait to make Christ’s kingdom manifest, while historical orthodox Christianity declares that the Holy Spirit has made it manifest now through Christ’s church.

It seems like Donald Trump is offering no end to discussions. Recently, he invited several evangelicals to meet with him. What struck me was that he also invited NPR. Now it doesn't seem to me like they would be a very good group to invite if you're just trying to hash things out among supporters. Donald Trump has made it quite far in the primaries by appearing to be just a simpleton. This played right into the liberal media's narrative of him and, to a lesser extent, the conservative media as well. To borrow a line from George W. Bush, we "misunderestimated" him. Donald Trump may not be a very good business person, or perhaps it is just that he lets other things get in the way of being a good business person. He may be a narcissist. He may be a person who will promise you the Sun and the Moon if you will just like him. He may be a person who is bought and celebrity culture more than anyone else in this country. He is not the idiot that the Liberals hope he is.

I want to focus on the fact that invited NPR to a group of Evangelical leaders. This is the same person who refuses press to come to his events if they disagree with him. I want that to linger in your brain. He wanted that information of meeting with Evangelical leaders to get out. Why? The simple answer is the fact that he knew that the lockstep liberals who are more affiliated with a tribe then they are with liberal policies would grapple on to this and use it as an attack against evangelicals. Then the evangelicals would feel a binary choice between Donald Trump and people who were mocking them. It is already been reported, erroneously, that the evangelicals were huge supporters of Donald Trump. In fact, the evangelicals have been the weakest link. If the liberals with in the media wish to weaken Donald Trump, the best idea would be for them to reach out to evangelicals. Trump knows this, and is trying to beat the media to the punch. He knows he faces stiff opposition from Conservative Catholics to the Southern Baptist convention.

Laying that aside, I want to focus on the things reported in the NPR article. I want to focus on three things in particular. I want to focus on tax status. I want to focus on Hillary Clinton. And, I want to focus on freedom of speech.

I'm a graduate of a conservative and traditional seminary. We discussed tax exempt status. Right now, very few people are actually concerned about the tax exemption for religious institutions. Most people still believe that religious institutions are good and charitable organizations. And, the religious left also would be advocating for tax exemption for their institutions. In fact, they would be arguing even more vociferously because of the loss of membership and the location of their churches. It seems to me that no one on the left really wants to do that and in addition it would cause problems not just within the Christian Community but within Jewish and Muslim communities as well. In addition to this , even if people wanted to remove the tax-exempt status of many religious institutions, that tax-exempt status is located in areas that make it difficult to remove. Tax exemption would effect chaplains in the military and other things as well. Churches are not facing any immediate threat to removal of tax exemption.

Let me be blunt. If I were politically motivated Christian, I believe Trump would be the safer choice. The questions that we are dealing with in a pluralist society will only become more difficult if Clinton is the president. However, I am not politically motivated Christian. I'm a gospel motivated Christian. My goal is not to make my life easier or safer for myself. My goal is to make the gospel available to all. If Trump were elected, I would probably be more comfortable. However, the gospel would not be shared as easily or as readily. My power would be an artificial one handed down from Caesar. People would look at me as someone who was being allowed to push my views on others because I was in the dominant clique. The cost is merely too high for our proclamation. In the years shortly after Christianity entered the scene, Romans were aghast as Christians routinely rushed into plague ravaged cities in order to care for people. Because of such self-sacrifice, Christianity gained respect. Christianity in this culture has lost a great deal of that. The Evangelical representatives gathered around Trump today demonstrate this to a tee. I suspect that in addition to the prosperity gospel preachers (the early 21st century's moral majority Evangelical second-stringers), there were many Evangelical leaders who have deluded themselves into believing that Trump can be won over (or at least tamed). The problem with this way of thinking is not its naïveté per se, but the loss of focus on the true calling of Christians. We are not supposed to guard the halls of the powerful. We are supposed to walk the earth with our savior. To declare against Trump is to say that we are Christ's and not the world's.

Finally, Trump has shown a blatant disregard to freedom of speech at his rallies. More than that though is muzzling the Gospel with a golden bit. When our speech is viewed as being only the speech of the powerful, then we have no freedom of speech. What happens to Christians who disagree with Trump? I am not talking about the mainline denominations, but people like Russell Moore who have been denigrated by people like Trump and even preachers of large churches. What happens to the Evangelical message when it is considered to be the message of Trump? We are already finding out this answer. The Evangelicals have been split to put it charitably, but the world is already lumping them together with Trump. Imagine what will happen if even a small contingent of Evangelicals back Trump. As a pastor who professes the truth which was handed down to me, I want to remind all of you that we must keep to the only freedom of speech we have, that is the Gospel.

Whatever the world will say about us, whether it be from our so-called representatives or the media elites (right or left), we have been entrusted with a sacred message. We are to be little Christs. We must be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We must love our opponents and pray for those who deride our message. We must not use the world's methods of intimidation to broadcast this message that was given to us. Above all we must not look to life or angels or rulers or high things or low things to fight evil. We must look to the only one who has promised to save us and whose promises are sure. This is most certainly true.