Every Christian is either a missionary or an imposter.
I have seen a lot of discussion about Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 (we’ll save the debate over the appropriateness of such an event at the Lincoln Memorial on such a significant date for another time).
One of my good friends mentioned how moving it was to see thousands of people singing Amazing Grace. I could tell she was shocked when I responded with caution and skepticism rather than whole-hearted affirmation.
The more I have examined this event the more I am convinced that it is nothing more than an ecumenical, atheological, universalitic form of the often seen idolatry of patriotism. While some well-intentioned evangelicals may have been involved in this event, Beck presented nothing more than a moralistic, patriotic call to everything but the Biblical gospel. I heard no mention of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus or the call of Christians to love their enemies and sacrifice their preferences for the sake of the 
gospel. It is no surprise that Beck, a self-identified Mormon, would miss the mark on the gospel.
For many undiscerning evangelicals Beck’s morality, Biblical references, and theistic language is enough to convince them He is on God’s team. Unfortunately, as his Mormon theology and alliance with clerics of various faiths demonstrates Beck is not a believer in the Trinitarian articulation of the Christian God. One can support Beck’s politics but be very wary when he begins using theistic language about “returning America to God.” Whose God?
The best and most well-reasoned response I have read is by Dr. Russell Moore. Everyone should read his measured response (some lengthy excerpts are included below):
Rather than cultivating a Christian vision of justice and the common good (which would have, by necessity, been nuanced enough to put us sometimes at odds with our political allies), we’ve relied on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads. We’ve tolerated heresy and buffoonery in our leadership as long as with it there is sufficient political “conservatism” and a sufficient commercial venue to sell our books and products.
Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah…
Mormonism and Mammonism are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. They offer another Lord Jesus than the One offered in the Scriptures and Christian tradition, and another way to approach him. An embrace of these tragic new vehicles for the old Gnostic heresy is unloving to our Mormon friends and secularist neighbors, and to the rest of the watching world. Any “revival” that is possible without the Lord Jesus Christ is a “revival” of a different kind of spirit than the Spirit of Christ (1 John 4:1-3)…
It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.
And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.
I recently heard an analogy that caused me to seriously question (not deny but critically evaluate) if I am able to “support the troops but not the war.” As you may, or may not know, I am not in support of the military actions of America in Iraq or Afghanistan. Despite that fact, I have always considered myself a strong supporter of the military and the troops that are obeying orders and dutifully serving.
My ethical quandry is related to the morality of these particular conflicts and those “dutifully” serving. I heard it put this way:
Saying you support the troops but not the war is like saying, during the Civil Rights movement, you support the police who are using the German Shepherds and fire hoses to attack African-Americans but not the policies of discrimination.
What do you think? Is this consistent logic. Should I rethink my classic bifurcation of policy and persons? Is it possible to support the persons carrying out a policy and be morally opposed to the policy itself?
*Note: If I have not been clear, I am seriously trying to evaluate the critique that was leveled against my position. I am very supportive and thankful of those who serve in the armed forces but am trying to honestly, critically, and realistically evaluate my positions. No one should read into this post anything other than what is here. I am not critiquing the military or the troops but merely asking a simple question in regard to my logic.
A recent Time magazine article profiled Jonathan Franzen and his new novel, Freedom.
“It seemed to me,” Franzen says, “that if we were going to be elevating freedom to the defining principle of what we’re about as a culture and a nation, we ought to take a careful look at what freedom in practice brings.” The weird thing about the freedom of Freedom is that what it doesn’t bring is
happiness. For Franzen’s characters, too much freedom is an empty, dangerously entropic thing… No one is freer than a person with no moral beliefs. “One of the ways of surrendering freedom is to actually have convictions,” Franzen says. “And a way of further surrendering freedom is to spend quite a bit of time acting on those convictions.”
These are provocative and jarring statements for those of who are rapidly devoted to our independence. As a nation we often centralize the virtue of freedom. After all, it is our freedom that is central to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I can anticipate the objection from my Christian friends: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1). No matter that such a verse is often taken out of context. Remember that Paul urges everyone to use their Christian freedom as a means to sacrificial service (Galatians 5:13).
Freedom for most Americans means freedom from — from responsibility (e.g., marriage, family, employer, rules, etc.), from tyranny, from authority. As American Christians most of us have uncritically imbibed this idea that freedom in the Christian life is freedom from sin, freedom guilt, and freedom for fear. All of these things are true. As Christians we are free from many things. However, to define freedom as merely from is incomplete. We are free for.
You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness… But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life (Romans 6: 18, 22).
How can freedom lead to slavery? Freedom from sin leads to willing submission to God. “I have been bought with a price” and, therefore, am willing to serve God. I am free to serve God and to serve others. Jesus willingly sacrificed his heavenly status and comfortable position for my redemption (Philippians 2). Am I willing to sacrifice my freedom for him? Am I willing to sacrifice my freedom for others?
Self-sacrificial love that values the gospel above all personal fulfillment and comfort is the greatest testimony of the self-sacrificial love of Jesus.
At the gas station near my house is this sign… My wife and I call it the “hell station.”
I have a lot to read for my classes this semester. Most of it is very important and informative and some of it is very interesting.
I also try to mix in some books of interest amid my required reading. I just got two books that look very intriguing.
I have heard a lot about Same Kind of Different as Me. Not o
nly does it come highly recommended, the description is riveting.
Switching back and forth in short segments, two narrators portray authors Hall and Moore in memoirs that begin in distant walks of life and intersect in a homeless shelter. In the charming accent of an unschooled black man with a deep, scratchy voice, narrator Barry Scott recounts Denver Moore’s life of hardship and misfortune, starting on a Louisiana plantation. In contrast, the subtle Southern accent of Dan Butler speaks for co-author Ron Hall, an educated white gentleman of comfortable means. The narrators play their parts of the drama so well that listeners will believe they are hearing the men who lived the story. In the end, the two individuals form an unlikely friendship resulting from charity and challenged by tragedy.
I loved readin
g Tim Chester’s Total Church and I highly anticipate his newest work, You Can Change. Chester has a readable and interesting style. He is able to communicate in a straightforward and clever fashion. Because of his single-minded focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ, Chester is able to tackle many topics with the big picture in mind. I am looking forward to reading a book about sanctification and victory over sin that focuses on Christ rather than faddish avoidance strategies.
This is more bizarre than TLC’s obsession with little people. I wonder what the pitch was for a show entitled “Ferrets: The Pursuit of Excellence.” Is it too harsh to tell these people to get a real life?
The Issue
Months ago I was asked to blog about a proposed mosque (actually it is an Islamic Community Center) being built at “Ground Zero” (more precisely it is being built two blocks from “Ground Zero”). At the time I felt it was a lose-lose proposition and my feelings haven’t changed. I do, however, feel obligated to clear up some common logical missteps that are being circulated around the “interweb.” This story combines many emotive factors: race, religion, and war. There is an explosive mix of misinformation, anger, xenophobia, nationalism, and religious fervor. The scars of 9/11 run deep in the lives of many Americans. However, the recent “War on Terror” has, among other things, produced a caricature of Muslims in the mind of the everyday American. I am very sensitive to the feelings of those effected by 9/11. Nevertheless, “feelings” are not a proper form of argument in a discussion on religious liberty. Many Americans have unfairly designated Muslims as terrorists in post-9/11 America. As a Christian it is important to be calm and fair while discussing the building of a “mosque” at “Ground Zero.” There is no room in Christianity for “Islamophobia” or dishonest caricature. A Christian response to Islam should be centered on the gospel (e.g., graceful and honest) while generously embracing religious liberty.
Improper Categorization
It is dangerous to categorize religious groups as homogeneous entities. In many ways there is no one form of “Hinduism” or “Buddhism” or “Islam.” While various sects share overlapping beliefs they often exhibit more diversity than unity. Even in Christianity it is difficult to categorize modern day Christians as a unified group. While I think the standard of Christianity is the Bible, the diversity of self-proclaimed Christians stretches the meaning of the word infinitely thin. I bristle at the thought of being identified with the likes of Ted Haggard, Benny Hinn, Fred Phelps, or any number of infamous “Christian” personalities (in my opinion these self-identified “Christians” are some of the least likely persons I know to actually be followers of Christ). These are only the famous examples; countless people claim to be “Christian” but deny the basic teachings of Jesus in their lifestyle.
Treat Others as You Want to Be Treated
If I am unwilling to allow unbelievers (i.e., non-Christians) to define me by the actions of other Christians, then I must be willing to allow Muslims a voice in their self-identity. Surely some Muslims have used Islam as a 
means to justify war against others. Does the Quran encourage violence? That is a debate outside of our purview and I would caution my Christian friends to remember the often violent stories in the Hebrew Bible before hastily condemning the Quran. Many Muslims (if not most Muslims) insist that Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic terrorists do not represent the whole of Islam. If my “Christianity” is different than that of Fred Phelps then I must allow Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the project’s lead architect) to distance his faith from that of Osama Bin Laden. The August 16, 2010 issue of Time Magazine did a good job explaining the irony of a moderate Muslim (i.e., Rauf) being categorized with Islamic Terrorists:
The project’s critics range from those who believe Islam was the malevolent force that brought down the towers to opportunistic politicians. Ironically, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, the project’s main movers, are precisely the kind of Muslim leaders conservative commentators should welcome: modernists who condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda. Rauf is a Sufi, Islam’s most mystical and accomodating branch, yet he finds himself accused of extremist leanings. This browbeating of a moderate Muslim empowers the al-Qaeda narrative that the West loathes everything about Islam. As New York Mayor Mike Bloombergs said, caving to Park 51′s critics “would be to hand a victory to the terrorists.” Rauf and Khan hope their project will promote greater interfaith dialogue. The furor underlines how much it is needed.
Newt Gingrich and several other public figures have tried to compare America with Saudi Arabia. “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia” said Gingrich. The silliness of this statement is astounding. First, Saudi Arabia is governed by Sharia law which is based, ostensibly, on the Quran and the teachings of Islam. It would make sense that a country like this would be exclusive in their allowance or disallowance of other religions. However, Saudi Arabia (though central to Islam because of the holy city of Mecca and other such religious sites) is not the sole representative of the international Muslim community. In any case, America is founded on religious freedom. I expect America to have a higher standard than most countries in regard to issues of religious freedom (for a humorous look at this issue you can turn to the always hilarious Daily Show).
America and the False Pretense of Freedom
Some of the most fervently patriotic people I know are opposed to a Mosque being built at “Ground Zero.” Apparently, all of the talk about America as the “land of freedom” is a lie. For those who are interested, freedom means that people can do things that upset you as long as it does not break any laws or endanger the lives of others. As long as a group can finance a building and it fits into the zoning restrictions of a particular locale then they are permitted to build. If we do not allow Muslims to build religious buildings where they desire then the American ideal of freedom is a charade. You cannot say we live in a free country and then deny a significant group of people the right to build a religious building. If a Muslim group wants to build a community center in New York City, they can! I do not want any group of people telling me where I can or cannot build a Christian community center, therefore I cannot oppose Muslims building a mosque. Just as free speech applies to idiots who say things that I do not like, freedom allows a Muslim group to build a community center near “Ground Zero” (despite the perceived insensitivity of those in charge of this project).
A Note to My Christian Readers
It is easy for Christians to be so consumed with special interest causes that they miss the plot of the gospel. Christianity is not at war with Islam (despite the way some Muslims may feel toward Christians and vice versa). There is no room in Christianity for hatred toward another religion, race, or people group. Further, Christians cannot use dishonest representation to make a point. Christians should be the first to embrace Muslims around the nation, showing them hospitality, love, and genuine care. In the process there might be an opportunity to model the gospel that was demonstrated by the scandalous (e.g., Luke 7:36-50) love of Jesus that breaks through social barriers (John 4:1-42; Galatians 3:28). Jesus died for me, a sinful, rebellious, angry person; I was spiritually opposed to God (Romans 8:5-8). I was, in some sense, spiritually at war with God. Yet Christ found me in a dead and decaying state and graciously gave me new life (Ephesians 2:1-10). I didn’t deserve the love of God. Therefore, I do not love Muslims because they “deserve” it or because they have been particularly kind to me. I love them because Christ first loved me (1 John 4:19; 2 Corinthians 5:14). I love them because of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As a Christian I am glad that the myth of Christian America is quickly crumbling. People are no longer able to substitute heritage and tradition for genuine faith. In the process of spreading the gospel to the nations, the nations have started to come to America. I no longer have to travel to the Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or any of the myriad of Muslim majority nations to share the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ with a follower of Islam. Instead, Muslims are in my community. Rather than opposing their traditions and customs I embrace their culture and seek to honestly and lovingly expose them with the beauty of the true and living God.
As a Christian I am confident that the only hope for everyone is the gospel of Jesus. The solution is not legislation, picketing, name-calling, or fighting but the power of the gospel demonstrated through the honest, sacrificial love of Christians to all people. A love that is willing to endure insult, abuse, injury, and death for the sake of the gospel.
I was intrigued by this statement a few weeks ago: “you’ll never know God is all you need until He is all you have.”
Am I the only person that thinks this is false? For many people the reality of God’s sufficiency will become clear in a moment of crisis. However, it is possible to know that God is sufficient by simple faith.
At the moment of salvation you have completely trusted that God is all you need. If you still need another moment of crisis to prove His sufficiency, then I wonder about your initial conversion.
