Category: Poltics

Posted on

I Prayed for Ukraine

I prayed for Ukraine
When the Soviet Union fell, folded, divided, and dissolved,
Giving the people more power and resolve;|
ndependence and freedom were ushered into the toast of a champaign.

I prayed for Ukraine
When the spiritually dry, barren, and parched Soviet lands
Received fresh water from the Savior with pierced hands;
Missionaries persuaded the locals to come to the Jesus who reigns.

I prayed for Ukraine
The day my brother and his wife traveled to an orphanage in Aackabo to adopt their son,
And when they saw that the boy was wearing a Snoopy t-shirt, they knew he was the one;
My nephew was chosen as if the moment was somehow pre-ordained.

I prayed for Ukraine
When an untested President was accused of corruption – a victim of being coerced –
And was threatened: “Play our game or the allocated monies for defense won’t be dispersed.”  
As his reputation was tarnished and maligned, he was recipient of the world’s disdain.

I prayed for Ukraine
When Russia began its invasion on the pretext of lies;
With buildings being bombed and cities facing undeniable demise;
Refugees fleeing their home, maybe forever, while saying their goodbyes
To the fighting men – their sons, their husbands, and their fathers – amid their tears and cries;
Their food, water, and clothing all in short supplies.
Death hovers like a vulture circling the brave soldiers and innocent civilians caught in the cross-fires,
While on the fringes – at the borders to avoid escalation – are waiting and watching the allies; 
The world saw an untested President refusing to flee, heroically calling his nation to rise,

Hoping that someone in power can put an end to this refrain,

I prayed for Ukraine’s enemies,
The Russian soldiers were told they were liberating the people
Because Putin’s invasion is far from legal,
Where the Imago Dei, instead of gathering in a warzone, should be gathered under a steeple;
For Jesus calls us to be fully stretched and pray for all, including those who are as trustworthy as a weasel;
Calling us through prayer that peace may come from the greatest of the Supremacies.

I prayed for Ukraine.

Solo Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Countering the Cancel Culture

Someone said it was a good year for cancelling. They may be right in that the number of moments in the Cancel Culture war seemed to have escalated in 2020; it feels like everyone jumped on the bandwagon. No doubt the movement has been fueled by three unique factors merging into a perfect storm. First, the toxic behavior of social media where people feel free to post their unhinged thoughts without fear of backlash. Secondly, cultural norms have and are shifting faster than our comfort zones can process. And thirdly, a pandemic that has forever changed our world. Whether you believe the pandemic is a real threat or hyped up fake news, the result is the same: we are in a very different place coming out of pandemic than we were two years ago going into the pandemic.

Cancel Culture is a form of group shaming, usually issued to a public person or company for decisions or actions that are deemed offensive (yea, I Googled it). One might say that the shaming is an attempt to reform behavior through pressure, while others admit it’s simply a political power-grab. While the term, “cancel culture,” has only recently been coined, the idea has been around for many years and both sides of the spectrum has participated in its game.

The summer I graduated from college, a movie about the life of Christ was generating a lot of buzz. Long before social media, televangelists and local preachers were urging viewers and churches to boycott The Last Temptation of Christ. I was trying to complete course work to graduate and get married so I wasn’t tuned into the debate. Later in the summer a preacher I knew was given an opportunity for a private screening with other community leaders to view the movie for themselves. Yes, the movie was controversial and undermined the gospel account of Jesus. However, he added his perspective, while the movie wasn’t good, its bad publicity will draw people out to see it for curiosity’s sake. Had Christians not drummed up such noise, it would have gone under the radar and bombed in the theater.

About a year later the Exxon oil tanker, Valdez, struck the Prince William Sound Bligh Reef, spilling ten million gallons of crude oil. The spill was the worst on record, ever. While multiple factors were in play to cause to spill, the captain and Exxon Company were deemed guilty of negligence. Cile and I decided to forgo purchasing gas from Exxon to protest the spill. Our weekly tank of gas did nothing to curtail the some 400 billion dollar enterprise.

When Disney decided to offer health insurance to LBGTQ partners, as if they were recognizing a benefit only for married couples and families, the Southern Baptist Convention pushed to boycott the company. That was in 1997 and today, after buying the rights to Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars, the threatened boycott was like flies being swatted by an elephant.

Yes, these are my experiences, but I’ve found both sides of the ideological isle use “cancel culture” in their arsenal. When deployed the tactic doesn’t work and often backfires in the process. On one side, those cancelled are viewed with sympathy or curiosity which draws more attention to them or their cause, while on the other side their personal lives are ruined: the punishment of public shaming is far greater than the original offence that ignited the shaming.

While the catchphrase, “cancel culture,” is not in the Bible, the theme is a reoccurring motif. And it doesn’t always unfold like we think it should. Cain kills his brother, but God chooses not to cancel him (Gen. 4:11-12). In fact, he protects him from being canceled (Gen. 4:13-16). Saul sins and God cancels his dynasty, handing the kingdom over to David (1 Sam. 16:1). Then David sins – arguably sinning greater than Saul – and God forgives David (2 Sam. 12:13). Paul tells the Corinthian church to expel than man sleeping with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:9-13). But when Paul wants to cancel John Mark, Barnabas will have nothing to do with it (Act. 15:36-40). It seems the Bible sends some mixed messages regarding Christians living with a “cancel culture.”

From a wider lens, the biblical narrative not only draws us away from the “cancel culture,” but gives us the means to counter it. First, embrace the imagery of pilgrims (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:1) by avoiding political baggage. Not only do we not belong or feel at home in this world, but every cultural battle has a political bent to it. Instead of the Gospel bending culture, the political culture bends the gospel to something palatable for us to taste. We can feel more comfortable with our surroundings. Secondly, make room for righteous reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:16-21). Because, at its core, the “cancel culture” polarizes people, pitting us against them or you against me. Thus, the Gospel becomes ineffective at either bringing righteousness or reconciliation.

Someone said it’s a good year for cancelling. I’m pretty sure sarcasm was dripping from their pen while they wrote it. In truth it’s never a good year for cancelling. But it is a good year when pilgrims promote righteous reconciliation.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Politics, Religion and the Great Pumpkin

Some people have a vision for leadership. Some people seem to be born for politics. Other people are thrust into the spot-light because their sister drives the political machine. Linus Van Pelt entered the political arena because his sister talked him into running for school president. 

After Linus made Charlie Brown his running mate, he began campaigning. He promised that under his administration he would do away with Kindergarten “Cap & Gown” graduations and sixth grade parties. He vowed wage increases for custodians, teachers, and administrators. Most importantly, he guaranteed that any dog wandering onto the playground would be welcomed with open arms; yea, he solidified Snoopy’s vote with that one. 

Leading up to the final speech, Linus was climbing in the polls, even if Lucy was strong-arming the voters; victory was all but assured. Nothing was going to stop him from claiming the race, that is, until he felt compelled to witness to the crowd about the Great Pumpkin. Suddenly, like a train derailment, the momentum came to a screeching halt. Snoopy’s commentary was on target, “If you’re going to hope to get elected, don’t mention the ‘Great Pumpkin.’” 

The mixture of religion and politics is always combustible, if not toxic. When the church looks to flawed men and government to move its agenda forward, truth is the first casualty. Right behind truth is integrity, which its corporate identity is sacrificed for the political cause. It seems that the agenda must be defended by the Christian community at all costs; the “at all cost” part is particularly disturbing. For what end will the church go to protect and to project its own agenda? Who will the church be willing to endorse as a candidate in the pursuit of its own cause? 

The Scriptures of the first century were far from neutral on the relationship between God’s Kingdom and Man’s Kingdom. First, we never find Jesus, nor the Apostles, campaigning for a civic leader or a government official. The Jewish and Roman government became the means by which Jesus, Peter, and Paul were executed. Jesus taught that the government deserves its fair share of taxes (Mk. 12:13-17), and both Paul and Peter called us to “submit” to rulers and the government (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17), as opposed to “support” a candidate. Nowhere does Scripture teach Christians to embrace national loyalty. In fact our primary loyalty to the Kingdom of God must take precedent over any loyalties to earthly kingdoms (Phil. 4:20-21). 

Secondly, by the time John writes Revelation, the situation with the Roman government had changed. The dominate image running through its pages is a slaughtered lamb (Rev. 5:6), which seems appropriate. The church was facing persecution (Rev. 2:3, 10, 13), some of which arose from the Jewish sector, but most originated from Rome. Since Jesus was crucified by the Roman Empire, he, through John’s revelation, appears to call Rome to accountability by way of a lamb (Rev. 18). As my friend, Greg Stevenson, said, “Revelation was written, in part, to those who felt a little too comfortable with the Roman government” (see his book, A Slaughtered Lamb). If he’s right, those advocating a national Christian faith may need to take another look at John’s Apocalypse.    

Politics does nothing to unite brothers and sisters, but continues to provide another wedge, or a means to sow seeds of distrust among the saints. Denominational loyalties have been successful at creating division instead of unity, as when Charlie Brown and Linus argued over Santa Claus verses the Great Pumpkin. Charlie Brown summed it up best, “We’re obviously separated over denominational loyalties.” All the arguing over candidates creates more division in an already divided nation. And if the nation is divided, can the church rooted in the nation ever find unity? Can we unite in spite of the politics forcing us to divide? It’s why David Lipscomb emerged as a pacifist; he wept over good Christian men killing each other in the name of God during the Civil War. I’m witnessing the same thing today, only instead of guns it’s with words and the battlefield is social media. 

I grew up with a high appreciation for our nation, and my parents taught me to respect the Flag and the President. I admire the Founding Fathers and their courage to sign the Declaration of Independence. I love the 4th of July with the fireworks, patriotic music and cookouts. As a senior in high school, I represented the United States in a cross country meet in Taiwan, and wearing the red singlet with white lettering that said “U.S.A.” on it was the closest I ever came to my dream of running for the United States in the Olympics. As a BSA Scout leader at various levels, I could not be more proud that my two sons are Eagle Scouts. I’ve stood for the National Anthem and knelt at the cross. But if I have to choose between either standing before the flag or kneeling before the cross, the choice is clear. I choose the cross. 

I fear that the Church has blurred the lines between two kingdoms: Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Men (i.e. any government or government organization). We’ve trusted the State to make laws based on our faith, and to have the integrity to live by those laws. We’ve believed the government to speak for and on behalf of the Church, and to protect the rights of Christians everywhere. We’ve assumed that a faith-based government will produce and support a faith-based society. We’ve denied or minimized times when America has acted in ways that have shamed Christians and the Christian faith, while the ungodliness of elected officials continues without being held into account. More so, we’ve failed to comprehend how a philosophical shift has taken place in our society that longer asks what it means for the Bible to guide our paths. 

In the TV special, “You’re Not Elected, Charlie Brown,” based on the 1964 comic strip, Linus wins the election because his opponent cast the last and deciding vote. He does so for Linus. In his opinion Linus was the better man. If only, given our current political environment, we could see those who disagreed with us as the better men/women.                      

bonum dolar!
(i.e., Good Grief!)

Posted on

A Voice in the Wilderness: When John the Baptist Preached

John the Baptist played a central role in preparing Israel for the coming Messiah. His ministry was linked to Isaiah’s prophecy (Is. 40:3; Mt. 3:3; 11:10; Mk. 1:2-3; Lk. 3:4) as he laid the groundwork for Jesus’ ministry. He was not the Messiah (Lk. 3:15-16; Jn. 1:6-8), but he was the final prophetic voice before the Christ stepped onto the world’s stage (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7-9; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:8,15). Dressed in camel’s hair, wearing a belt with a diet of locust and wild honey (Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6), he appeared like Elijah redivivus (i.e., revisited). Jesus rightly confirmed people’s suspicion (Mt. 11:14; 17:10-13; Mk. 9:11-12).

Instead of darkening the doors of the Synagogue or standing on the steps of the temple, John’s sanctuary was the wilderness. People came to him and listened to him preach. Unshackled by local ministries, John lived in isolation and freedom as he preached and called his listeners to repentance (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:1). Amazingly, they journeyed into the desert, where many repented and were baptized. For he was a lone voice crying, pleading and entreating in the wilderness.

While John’s ministry was short lived, he pulled no punches. Through the Gospel accounts, we know he spoke to at least three groups of people where his call for repentance rang loud and clear.

He confronted the religious leaders (Mt. 3:7-10). He called them a “brood of vipers” as if they were children of snakes. More to the point, he called them children of The Snake. While they were pretending to repent, he questioned their motives and confronted trusting their religious heritage. In essence, God didn’t need them, they needed God. And while being a descendant of Abraham was important to them, it wasn’t valued by God. In fact, God was ready to prune anyone refusing to repent. Thus, producing fruit in accordance with repentance is what God was seeking (Mt. 3:8).

He confronted the general population echoing his message from the religious leaders (Lk. 3:7-9). When they asked him what they needed to do, assuming they were in the process of being baptized, John drew from the Eighth Century prophets (Amos, Micah, Hosea and Isaiah) in tone and substance. To those listening, he told them that if they have enough food and clothing, then share with those who don’t (Lk. 3:11). To the tax collectors he warned them to stop padding their own pockets and collect only what is fair (Lk. 3:13). To the soldiers he told them to stop falsely accusing people, which of course is a violation of the ninth commandment. He also told them to stop extorting monies and to be content with their pay (Lk. 3:14). Such actions display the heart of repentance and how social justice underpinned his sermons.

He confronted the governor for not only stealing his brother’s wife (Mt. 14:4; Mk. 6:18), but for a host of evil things Herod had done (Lk. 3:19). Never playing party politics or glossing over the corruption of the person, John shot his arrow straight and with laser accuracy to the heart. He didn’t bend his message either to appease the ruler or to save his own skin. John wasn’t interested in pleasing anyone. With his preaching falling on deaf ears and a hard heart, John was arrested by Herod and eventually executed by beheading (Mt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-29).

The forerunner for Christ played a significant role in preparing the hearts of people for Jesus. His rugged appearance and rough exterior attracted onlookers and seekers. His preaching penetrated people’s hearts, and they began changing their lives. They repented. They were baptized. Neither the temple nor the synagogue could hold him, and it’s clear that the religious system couldn’t hold him as well (Mt. 21:25-27; Mk. 11:29-33; Lk. 20:4-7). But God held him and the Jews needed his preaching. But those in control and in charge of the system couldn’t stomach John’s preaching. What I fear most about American churches today is that we couldn’t stomach his preaching either.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Remembering Who the Real Enemy Is

Before Katniss Everdeen stepped back into the arena for the 75th Hunger Games, Haymitch Abernathy offered her one final word of advice. While in the arena, the games forced its “contestants” (called “tributes” in the book) to battle each other to the death – for the entertainment of the Capital along with a means to control its citizens in the districts. In order to survive, tributes build temporary alliances. Katniss needed an alliance because she had a target on her back. As the popular tribute, too many in the arena saw her as the threat. As the face of a movement to challenge the capital’s reign of terror, President Snow saw her as a threat. So before stepping into the arena, Haymitch reminded her, “Remember who the real enemy is.”

In the arena disorienting the tributes is part of the Games itself. The game-makers ensure unexpected dangers keep the competition interesting. While only one will survive the games, formed alliances are not just essential for survival but clearly brings trust issues with it. Then there is the danger of simply surviving the elements; they are called The Hunger Games for a reason. All of that begs for her to remember who the real enemy is.

We’re living in our own arena. No, it’s not a battle to the death for the last man standing. But it is a battle. Sometimes we are the players and other times we’re being played. So we always need reminded as to be who the enemy really is.

In Paul’s famous military metaphor (Eph. 6:10-18) he takes his readers through the Armor of God images. Belt of truth, breastplate of righteousness, feet fitted with peace, shield of faith, helmet of salvation and sword/Sprit of the word of God. While we’re less aware, the original audience were well aware of the imagery Paul uses. The focus is not on modeling the belt, breastplate, fitted feet, shield, helmet and sword, as we have often done. The focus is on the character of the “soldier” who models truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and Spirit/word of God. Too often we have allowed the soldier image to drive the message instead of the character qualities that define the soldier, which ends us distorting who the real enemy is.  

The posture of the soldier is never in the offensive position, but the defensive position. The soldier does not look for a fight, any more than a shepherd looks to fight the wolf or the bear. But if the battle comes to him, he is more than able to defend himself by standing his ground (mentioned three times). Note that the shield’s role is to extinguish the flaming arrows, to protect oneself from attack, and that Paul never authorizes “weaponizing” the sword. In fact, the only offensive posture mentioned in the passage is to pray, and Paul tells us to pray five times in verses 18-20. Because understanding the position helps clarify who the enemy is.

You are not my enemy, and I am not yours. As Paul clearly states, the struggle is not in the physical sense, though it may take form in the physical sense. The struggle is real and its source is the devil (v. 11; 1 Pet. 5:8). He implements his schemes through rulers, people in power, and evil spiritual forces that are at work (v. 12). Structures and systems assembled by the society, including the State, with the purpose to dominate, destroy and dehumanize people is the means for the devil to achieve his evil schemes. That’s why we are called to peacefully stand against evil systematically woven throughout our society. Since we’re not enemies, but allies, and as we are called to take our stand, we remember who the real enemy is.

During the games, Katniss became disoriented. Other tributes carried out an attack on her and her alliances. While under attack, her own allies looked to be turning on each other. Chaos was controlling the moment. In the confusion, Katniss drew her bow. Ready to defend herself, Finnick Odair entered her sights. He raised his hands, pleading, to stop her from killing him. She paused, trying to assess the situation properly. He called out using Haymitch’s own words, “Katniss! Remember who the real enemy is!” Sometimes, when we’re ready to turn on each other, we need that same reminder.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

CHURCH: At Odds with the State

The relationship between the State and the Church is tenuous at best. While North Americans are used to a seemingly compatible partnership between the two, history and much of the other world’s kingdoms say otherwise. When Jesus was born, Herod the Great tried to kill him under the guise of wanting to worship him (Mt. 2:8,13). Herod’s son, Antipas, executed John the Baptist (Mt. 14:3-12) for a number of reasons including challenging the king’s immoral marriage. The Jewish religious government with a conspiring Roman government falsely accused Jesus and had him executed. Thus the Christian movement was born with clear battle lines drawn: the Christ was rejected by the State, so that the Church is at odds with the State.

North America has enjoyed a truce with the State, but that doesn’t mean either side really trust the other. Over the years I’ve heard the fears of Christian believers and their rights being taken away by the State. Usually, I hear those fears expressed along party lines: the Democratic Christians distrusts the Republican President while the Republican Christian distrusts the Democratic President.

So just to be clear, I do not believe Christians in the United States are under attack. Maybe our values are being challenged. Maybe our neighbors have tired of our judgmental and condemning attitudes. Certainly people are concerned about how much the Church extends its power into civil and governmental places, while the Church is concerned about its voice being silenced.

As history has shown and the Biblical narrative has proven, God’s Kingdom cannot be overcome, no matter how hard the forces against God’s Kingdom try (Mt. 16:18). The reason is that God’s Kingdom is spiritual and is in no need of the physical for it to grow.

The State only sees the “here and now,” but the Church believes in the “there and then” (Jn. 14:2-3). The State may strip away your rights, but the Church has already given up its rights (1 Cor. 9). The State may outlaw prayer, but cannot stop the Church from praying (Dan. 6). The State may close church doors, but they cannot stop the Church from assembling (Acts 4). The State may carry-out some unforgivable actions, but it only empowers the Church to forgive (Lk. 23:34). The State may rape your spiritual heart-land, but the Church’s soil to grow the Fruit of the Spirit remains rich (Gal. 5:22-23). The State may use its power to make you suffer, but the Church only rejoices at the thought of being worthy to suffer for Jesus (Act. 5:41). The State may threaten you with death, but the Church will only embrace life (1 Thess. 4:13-18). The State may scorn you with hatred, but the Church only responds with love (Mt. 5:44). The State will make us feel destitute, but the Church knows the world is not worthy of us (Heb. 11:38). The State may try to squash our hope, but the Church knows that hope will not disappoint (Rom. 5:5). The State addresses us with cursing, but our comeback is always with blessing (Rom. 12:14). The State will try to persecute to weaken our faith, but the Church finds that persecution only strengthens faith (1 Pet. 1:6-8). The State may claim to rule the land, but the Church knows who sits on the throne (Rev. 4-5). The State may intimidate by fear tactics, but the Church only responds with faith tactics (Heb. 11:11).

No, I don’t believe Christians are being persecuted in North America, and the Church is not directly at odds with the State right now. I also believe that the Constitution is the bumper to protect the Church from the State. That said, it’s always nice to know we have a fallback plan. And honestly, the fallback plan is actually who we are. We just need to keep acting like the Church God intended.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Lining Up with Jesus Or Jesus Lining Up with Us?

By the time Jesus arrived in the world, the Jewish nation was hardly a unified people. Their land was divided into three sections: the Samaritans occupied the land between the Galilean Jews and the Judean Jews. Both the Galilean and Judean Jews saw themselves as part of the same people.  The Samaritans were loosely connected to the ancient Northern Kingdom of Israel and were deemed apostates by the Jews.

While the Jews might say they were one people, their fragmented social structure said otherwise. At least five sectarian groups splintered off to themselves. The two main groups were the Sadducees and Pharisees. The Sadducees came from the wealthy, aristocratic Jewish families and were responsible for maintaining the temple duties. Being friendly with Rome, they were to appoint the high priest, but that priest had to be preapproved by the State. The Books of Moses were the only basis for Scripture and they denied the resurrection. The Pharisees were keepers of the traditions. They not only accepted the written prophetic books as Scripture but also treated the oral traditions as authoritative. The Scribes and Teachers of the Law were typically from the Pharisees, and were known as “people of the book.” The Sanhedrin comprised of Pharisees and Sadducees and were the final ruling court for Jerusalem.  

The Essenes viewed Jerusalem and its religion as corrupt (which it was). Many of them occupied property at the base of the Dead Sea and dwelled in its caves. They spent their days copying Scripture and a variety of other scrolls while developing their own piety of poverty, daily washings and asceticism. They had time on their hands as they waited for Jerusalem’s destruction. When Rome did destroy Jerusalem, their moral victory was short-lived. The soldiers turned to the caves around the Dead Sea to destroy any remnant of the Jews.

The Zealots were strongly anti-Rome. It wasn’t uncommon to threaten officials or anyone favorable toward Rome as they hated the Gentile’s occupation of their lands. Jesus recruited a Zealot as one of his disciples, making one wonder what the conversations were like between Simon and Matthew who collected taxes in support of the Gentiles occupying the land?

The Herodians supported the Herod family. Very little is known about this group as extra-biblical accounts are scant on details.

So when Jesus came onto the scene, who did he align with? It’s not always an easy question to answer. For instance, on the divorce question he seems to hold the more conservative or rigid position (see Mk. 10:1-12) that some Pharisees would agree with. However, at the same time he challenged the conservative interpretation of Scripture (Mt. 5:21-47). When Jesus leveled the seven woes against the Pharisees, he agreed that their teaching compatible with Scripture, but their behavior was not (Mt. 23:3).

Jesus was at odds with the religious leaders. Where they were about power and control, Jesus was about self-sacrifice. Where they were about prideful position, Jesus was about humble positions. Where they wanted to be served, Jesus was willing to serve. Where they talked about the good of the people, Jesus acted on behalf of the people’s good. Where they were focused on keeping their rules, Jesus was focused on turning hearts toward God. Where they were about manipulating the people, Jesus was about ministering to the people. Where they were never going to give up anything, Jesus was willing to let go of everything. Where they never trusted, Jesus had faith. They believed that if and when the Messiah arrived, he would naturally line up with them. Jesus arrived and was immediately at odds with the Jewish leaders.

So with all these fragmented splinters of Judaism, who did Jesus line up with? Or maybe a better question might be that if Jesus didn’t line up with his own religious and political structures, why are you so convinced he’ll line up with yours?

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Reflections on a Politician without being Political

With the passing of John McCain we’ve seen the closing of an era if not an icon. My senior year in college saw McCain enter the US Senate, representing the State of Arizona to which he held that position until his death last week. He was a decorated Vietnam POW war hero. He championed conservative policies. And he was the Republican pick for the presidency in 2008.

As I reflect on his passing, I can’t help but draw on some of his strengths worth highlighting. He was by no means a perfect man, as noted below, but there were still good qualities about this man who served his country.

● He Readily Admitted His Failures . . . somewhat surprising, his wife of forty years, Cindy, was not his first wife. In 1965 he married Carol Shepp. But seven years after returning from Vietnam they divorced so that he could marry Cindy Hensley. One could easily make a number of excuses as to why his marriage to Carol failed. He was tortured as a POW and surely suffered from what we know today as PTSD. Upon his return to the states he started “acting out” by having one “fling” after another. Yet he readily owned up to his mistakes by admitting that divorcing Carol was his “. . . greatest moral failure.” In a society that downplays such failures, glosses over them, and even defends or denies them, it’s refreshing to hear painful regret coming from the highest levels of our nation.

● He Was Guided By Principles, Not By Party . . . while McCain was a Republican, he often broke with his party for what he believed to be “a greater good.” It earned him the nickname, “Maverick.” He pushed to cut spending, he pressed for campaign finance reform, and he voiced his displeasure for the strategic approach to the Iraq War. All of which came in opposition to his own party, alienating himself from his own fellow Republican Senators. In a time when party loyalty trumps the American people, McCain put the American people’s needs above party loyalty.

● He Reached Across the Aisle . . . two ways exist to get things accomplished in D.C. The first is to hold a majority where you never need bi-partisan support. Since that rarely happens, the second way is to implement a more honorable approach: work with both parties for a solution. McCain was often conciliatory with the Democrats including reconciling with John Kerry over the Vietnam War and readily praising his opponent in the 2008 election as being an honorable man whom he disagreed with on policy. In an era of villainizing opponents, it’s been refreshing to see someone intentionally work with liberals and conservatives alike.

● He Suffered Worse than Any of Us . . . he spent five years as a POW with two of those years in solitary confinement. He suffered a broken leg and both arms when his plane was shot down, and after being “rescued” by the enemy, they crushed his shoulders. While in prison, the Vietnamese refused to offer any hospital care for him. And when they discovered that he was the son of an Admiral, they were willing to release him. McCain refused preferential treatment but insisted those imprisoned the longest get released first. Next time you’re having a bad day, just remind yourself that “John McCain had it worst.”

McCain was far from perfect but he modeled virtues embraced by the Christian faith. We confess our sins (James 5:16; 1 John 1:8-9). We uphold principles over party loyalty (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; Philippians 3:4b-11). We seek unity (1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Galatians 5:13-15; Ephesians 4:11-13; Philippians 2:1-4). And finally, the One we follow calls us to suffer for his Name’s sake (Luke 9:23; Acts 5:41; 9:16).

Soli Deo Gloria! |
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

FNN: Fake News Network

Separating the truth from the lie has always been a difficult process. Parents, school officials, law enforcement, and church leaders, who try to navigate the conflict waters, often struggle to move beyond a “he said – she said” scenario. Sure, the truth is out there, but the truth is often elusive to find. And since we struggle to find the truth, the lies feed our frenzy.

The biblical narrative speaks about the need for truth. The ninth commandment prohibits false testimony in a legal proceeding (Ex. 20:16), so King Ahab is called out by Elijah for breaking this very commandment when he had Naboth falsely accused (1 King. 17:11-19). When Paul describes the immature Christian, he talks about someone lacking the ability to discern truth from deceitful lies, particularly when it comes to doctrine (Eph. 4:14-15). Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus claims to not only speak truth, but to be truth (e.g. Jn. 14:6).

The culture we live in is struggling to decipher the truth from the lie. Our Christian faith swims in a culture of perpetuating lies, and it’s not too hard for us to struggle to distinguish between what is fact from what is fiction. The problem is multifaceted, and the solution is far from simple. Some of our struggle with the lies stem from the very sources that are supposed to provide truth, the news media itself. The result is the amount of unrest we experience from within and from without.

● The twenty-four hour news cycle naturally carries with it sensationalism. Whether we’re watching CNN or FOX News, by being on air all day long means they must have news in order to justify their presence. When something appears newsworthy, every program in the news media must report and hash out every detail all day long. Never mind that the particular news organization we watch has its own agenda to shape the news we watch. Since its cycling every twenty-four hours, we no longer have the down to time to reflect or digest the information being given us.

● Since the 2016 election, the mainstream news media has lost its credibility. During the election, the media miscalculated the presidential winner. The debates were viewed as fraudulent and bent. The tipping scale, beyond the presidential election, was the outlets trying to keep up with “Breaking News,” by reporting misinformed and inaccurate information. Instead of getting the facts straight first, go on air, then mop up the misinformation later.

● With the tarnished news media and the ease of access of the internet, we have run straight into the rise of true fake media outlets. According to multiple sources, Russia (and probably others) have been tampering with the news, not to promote a certain candidate but to sow seeds of discord. One of the means was to post “fake” stories on social media that appealed to the user’s political position. The stories were often irrational and stoked the fires of mistrust in order for people to turn on each other. The result is the rise of civil unrest in our society.

● Calling something “Fake News” does not mean it’s actually fake news, any more than calling something “true” makes it true. The biggest problem I see in the “Fake News” environment is people only reading or believing news that fits their political agenda, thus setting up the made up news stories on social media (Paul talks about being toned deaf to truth in 2 Timothy 4:4 with his image of “itching ears”). Instead of engaging with the news-story, and even rationally debating or discussing the issue at hand, the story is often devalued as nothing more than “fake news.”

While the whirlwind and onslaught of news media continues to swirl, a place of peace, reflection and truth does exist. That place is God. When we pull ourselves away from the distractions of the news media, and spend more time with God in a reflective mode, then and only then can we experience the calming truth of Psalm 46:10, “Be still and know that I am God.”  

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Reclaiming the Voice in the Wilderness

John’s ministry was located in the wilderness of Judea, near the Jordan River. His message called people to repentance, and no matter who stood before him, his message never wavered. To those who believed their religious/political heritage was going to save them, he called for them to produce good works of generosity (Lk. 3:9). To the tax collectors, he told them to curb their greed (Lk. 3:13). To the soldiers, he told them not to falsely accuse people, and to be content with their pay (Lk. 3:14).

But some believed John overstepped his boundaries; he switched from “preaching” to “meddling.” In his passion for righteousness, he rebuked Herod for the evil he had done, including, but not limited to, stealing his brother’s wife, Herodias (Lk. 3:19). Such an indictment stirred the waters of political unrest, giving Herod’s enemies a means to stand against the king (according to Mark 3:6 he had his supporters). At best, a seed of discontent was planted, fueling responses to the “Complaint Department.” At worst, John was stirring political unrest which could fuel civil unrest, riots and embolden a foreign power into an aggressive position.  Beyond right or wrong, John’s voice needed to be silenced. For that, he found himself locked up in Herod’s prison (Lk. 3:20).

We applaud John because he was willing to stand against the tide of political pressure for what was right. And while he was removed from his wilderness “pulpit,” and eventually executed by Herod, he never lost his Wilderness Voice. Other prophets failed where John succeeded. 

In 2002 Billy Graham’s voice was heard on a 1972 recorded tape in tandem with President Richard Nixon as the President made disparaging remarks concerning the Jewish people of America. How could a man of God, who preached repentance to thousands of people all over the world, who also embraced desegregation and refused to hold segregated revivals during the 1950’s, be complicit to such racist comments? I’m not sure of the answer, except that when God’s man gets joined to the hip of political aspirations, the result is often a selling out of integrity (followed by a diluted prophetic message). The arena Billy Graham operated in is power addictive, so that the position he holds becomes more important than the message he preaches.  Where Billy Graham should have questioned the President, he found himself complicit in racism. 

When the church snuggles too closely up to the political world, we risk losing our Wilderness Voice. I’m very comfortable linking arms with George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, as they seemed like godly men whose spiritual conscience helped guide their presidency. But what does the church do when the presidents (or any of our government officials) get their hands dirty? What does the church do when we’ve rallied people for a candidate who eventually acts on immoral or unethical principles? The same can be asked when the party we support acts unchristianly or supports an action which stands in violation with God’s Word.

During the 1930’s too many of Germany’s churches lost their Wilderness Voice by endorsing the Nazi movement. Sympathizing with their government, Adolf Hitler had their support, as he led the nation out of the brink of economic devastation to prosperity. National pride replaced shame. Hope emerged once again. And the church, caught up in the national movement, turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the travesty of racial hatred at the core of the very nation they loved and supported (in part because the preachers and Christians who Reclaimed the Wilderness Voice were quickly silenced). In the end, to say the least, the churches in Germany were complicit in the deaths of six million Jews.

When the church endorses the political movement or climate, they risk losing their Wilderness Voice. When the relationship between the church and the government is too friendly, a conflict of interest arises for who then will stand for God’s Message? For them the political clout is more important than the Word, and the Wilderness Voice is finally silenced. 

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)