07/29/2006: I must admit, I don’t know that much about Rev. Gregory Boyd, pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN. However, I must commend him for keeping political campaigning out of the pulpit.
Unlike Boyd, I’ll provide a disclosure of my views: my politics are very far-right. I’m pro-life on abortion: the issue should be resolved democratically at the state level via legislation and/or referenda. I oppose the large federal government; charity is a personal–not a federal–responsibility. I also support our military campaigns (but oppose the general Bush-Rice-Rumsfeld vision of exporting democracy to every living creature). On economic issues, I’m a free-market libertarian. On immigration: I oppose amnesty while–like Vox Day–I oppose building a wall (as that can one day be used to keep Americans from emigrating). I also support the right to die for every Islammunist who wishes to war against civilization. I oppose gay marriage while opposing the government licensure of marriages altogether.
Now, with all that out of the way, I absolutely agree with Boyd: as much as I love fighter planes and all things aerospace, none of that has any place in the pulpit. While I admire the sacrifices and service of our men and women in the military–if not for my chronic disc problems, I’d be in the Army right now–there is no good reason to use the pulpit to promote the nationalist jingoism that I otherwise support.
Last year, my church–Highview Baptist in Louisville–hosted Justice Sunday, which was effectively an infomercial designed to promote the cause against the judicial filibusters in which the Senate Democrats engaged. On this blog–and in the Louisville Courier-Journal–I supported that cause at that time. In all fairness, the pastor–Dr. Kevin Ezell (to his credit) keeps politics out of the pulpit, and so I figured he had some good reasons for allowing Highview to be a party to Justice Sunday.
I must confess, however, to having second thoughts on that one. Here are the bases for those second thoughts:
(1) With the exception of Al Mohler’s presentation–which, for all my disagreements with him, was quite good–every presentation was political hype. Very little attention was made to educating viewers regarding filibusters and their proper use. It was all promotion of the standard traditional values ticket.
(2) Evangelical leaders–Falwell, Robertson, most of the SBC leadership–have prostituted themselves with a GOP that could give nary a damn about anything Christian. To the GOP, family values is nothing more than a marketing scam to get votes. Their election-year pandering on flag-burning, gay marriage, and immigration reform is a “Hail Mary, give me more votes” play.
At the end of the day, both major parties are colluding to foist a neo-communist agenda on America, and evangelical leaders are following them like dumb sheep. More on that point some other time.
For the record: Dubya ain’t the Good Shepherd.
(3) I’ve long made the observation that the difference between a conservative and a liberal isn’t necessarily what they preach, but rather what they don’t preach. Ergo, many preachers who are “conservative” by SBC standards are really liberal because they don’t preach the Gospel. (Hint: if they spend all this time preaching about American heritage, the glories of free enterprise, and the great liberties we enjoy as Americans, those are all good things, but it ain’t the Gospel.)
Keep in mind that this abandonment of the Gospel is not exclusive to evangelical circles; this is in fact quite rampant in mainline Protestant circles and other circles that embrace Liberation Theology. But the latter is not the issue here.
It is as wrong for conservatives, for example, to demand all allegiance to Israel (no questions asked) as it is for the Presbyterian Church (USA) to invest in Hamas and Hezbollah-related causes. Anyone who thinks Israel is pristine white has never read the Old Testament.
It is as wrong for conservatives to demand unconditional support of every American military effort as it is for a liberal church to make care packages for Vietcong rebels. (I know firsthand that this was practiced.)
The Church can–and should–have frank discussions on these matters; however, as for the pulpit, it needs to be Gospel, Gospel, and Gospel.
Did I say Gospel?
Vox Day Provides a Gem
07/31/2006: I don’t always agree with Vox Day. Unlike Vox, I consider myself very supportive of our current military efforts while objecting to the larger Bush-Condi-Rummy-Wolfie vision of exporting democracy to every living creature.
However, I’d say Vox nailed this one.
While I disagree with Vox over our military efforts, the fight against Islammunism is more than a military one–it is cultural and ideological and we cannot win while assuming a secularist framework.
After all, a purely secular framework is devoid of the moral clarity necessary to win this fight.
Vox, however, provides a set of truths that are inescapable, and must be understood in this fight:
If you have a Jihadist/Islammunist populace controlled by a dictator, and you allow them democracy, you will be left with a freely-elected Islammunist regime. Carter proved this when he undermined the Shah and serenaded the Ayatollah Khomeini–who was VERY popular at the time–into Iran. Khomeini, in turn, gave us Hezbollah.
All 19 September 11 hijackers had such exposure; that didn’t stop them. Similarly, every flower child of the 1960s–all of whom grew up in postwar, Capitalist America–revolted against Western civilization. Almost every American university is a rat’s nest of anti-West radicalism.
I’d go one step further: no “victory” (short of the Second Coming) is permanent. That is why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We beat the Brits in 1783, but now face a more insidious enemy 230 years later: a behemoth federal government bolstered by neo-communists on both the left and right.
We must face reality: sovereign nations will pursue high-tech weapons. The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle for over 60 years. Anyone who thinks it is realistic policy to decide which nations can pursue these weapons is not being rational. As long as we communicate the responsibility and gravity of being in the nuclear club, we can ensure that sovereign nations will pursue the weaponry without threatening America–or her allies–with such weapons.
That is how we beat back the Brits; that is how Nicaragua beat back the Sandinistas; that is how Communism crumbled in Poland and the East.
In this fight against Islammunism, I am less concerned with our military capacity–it is impressive and capable of delivering military victory–but more concerned with our spiritual/ideological underpinning.
When our society lacks the capacity to call evil what it is–and secularism, the de facto framework our society has embraced, lacks that capacity–we are not in a position to truly stem the spread of Islammunism.
Reagan earned nothing but derision from our intelligentsia when he called the Soviet Union “the evil empire”, but we won that war because Americans had the moral/ideological/spiritual clarity to see that truth. However, I remain unconvinced that Americans–even Christians–understand the gravity of the struggle we are facing today.
We’re winning on the military end; however, military victories are fleeting. The real fight is right here on our soil–and not necessarily military in nature–and whether we are prepared to fight it remains to be seen.