Wednesday, April 23, 2014

In the Year That King Uzziah Died




I still haven’t got over attending a certain prayer meeting nearly a decade ago. President G. W. Bush had just got re-elected (2005) and the whole of the church was rejoicing. The majority of the prayer meeting was spent thanking God for the election of G. W. Bush. I, on the other hand, could not help but think of poor old King Uzziah and Isaiah 6, “In the year that King Uzziah died….” I was shaken within that a thoroughly conservative-evangelical church had spent nigh an hour focused on a man! Some say that King Uzziah’s kingdom was wealthier than Solomon’s. King Uzziah was a godly man. But he was just that- a man. His pride got in the way, and he entered the temple and tried to burn incense, which only priests could do. For his sin, God struck King Uzziah with leprosy. The poor man died alone and could not even rest right beside his royal ancestors (2 Chronicles 26). Before his first election, I’d seen an interview of G. W.. He was asked if he was against gays. He said that all gays have a part in the democratic process. This was a truism, but it highlighted to me the chronic limitations and weaknesses of any potential political savior. As the crescendo of praise grew in the prayer meeting for President Bush, I fell further and further into despair, with the voice inside the entire time saying, “In the year that King Uzziah died”. The irony was, the church had just lost a pastor a week prior, but managed but a few prayers for him.

Nor will I forget the disgust, repulsion, and dread I felt at reading a Billy Graham Crusade poster, “Billy Graham. The man who will save you.” We are obsessed with men-saviors in the Christian community. We don’t literally call them “saviors,” but we treat them as such. Famous and powerful Christians are vaunted as demi-gods. The tweets of Tebow get more traction than the New Testament. The Jonas Brothers are followed with more devotion than Christ himself. “You shall not bow down to idols”. Like the ill lying on the streets of Jerusalem awaiting the shadow of Peter to touch and heal them, so these Christians await a divine moment with exalted popular Christians.

But what happens when a popular Christian is unveiled as weak or ineffective? What did G.W. do for the Gospel? Nada! But then again, he wasn’t there as president to preach the Gospel. Why was it, then, that so many Christians were so relieved to see him in power? Why are we so disposed, in this country, to place our hope in Christian politicians? They are mere politicians, after all. Why do some in the younger generation lay such importance upon popular Christians, who are but mere men and women? A faith that looks for its inspiration to men, will last as long as the men themselves.

Isaiah understood all this, for he saw the LORD, and yelled out, “Woe am I!” (Isaiah 6:5). Isaiah, the great prophet, was only a mere man, and as such he was as sinful and weak as anyone else. The solution was not an earthly man, but the heavenly King, high and lifted up, surrounded by the heralding seraphim (vv1-4). He had to see God (Oh!) before he saw himself (woe!). From there, his sins were forgiven (lo, v7). Then he was ready to preach (go) (vv8-9). What did Isaiah preach? He preached “no”: most of Israel would not receive the blessing of God (vv9-12). For how long? Until there was left a few faithful ones. This is the “yo!” of the Gospel!

So, there you have it: Christians must not look to men, for they fail; they must look to the King of men, the Lord of the Church, the giver of salvation. The year that king Uzziah died was a dreadful year, but it was the beginning, too, of the salvation of Israel. Let us not panic that Christians are exposed as weak; let us rather look to the risen king, Jesus, and his Gospel message. 


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Evangelical Times




The aim of this blog is to encourage evangelical times here on earth- evangelical blessing, evangelical teaching, evangelical worship, evangelical thinking, and the spread of the evangelical message. My opening post asks if evangelical times are possible in America.

At first sight, it seems not. America is not a Christian country. Obama got that right! [1] To your neighbor, “Christ” is a cuss word, and to “thank God” is nothing more than an expression of relief. Some of my fellow Americans are holding on to the delusion that we are Christian people in America. After all, the founding fathers were Christian, it is exclaimed. Well, look here, brother and sister, history is not taught in our schools. And when you do get a slither of history, Pocahontas is depicted with her woven basket of food as representing the spirit of Thanksgiving- thanksgiving to ourselves, of course, for being modern Americans. Nobody gives a rat’s behind about the real meaning of Thanksgiving! The avowedly secular, anti-God school system has purged Christian religion, God, and the Bible from its bowels. And how many kids attend these schools? You still want to say America is “Christian”? President Eisenhower saw the drift away from God and added “under God” to the Pledge. But who’s Eisenhower again??

In this new “cosmopolitan” America, variety is good. It’s a bit like going to your local Chinese buffet: you can pick and choose, mix, and eat all you want. Christianity, Buddhism, self-help, Oprah, all on the same plate. Lovely! At least, the universities and schools teach religion this way, as does the media.

Some Christians are living as though this state of affairs will go on forever, wherein we can keep our own Christian "dish" or "flavor." This is life in modern America, we are told. It is a veritable smorgasbord, but we evangelicals can keep our unique and exclusivistic identity- so we are informed. For example, Christian colleges and universities offer religion courses with the specific Christian “brand” (evangelical, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, for example) being just one religious perspective among the many of the world. Yet, these institutions usually do allot a higher percentage of religion-credits to their particular brand. Thus, their “Christian” identity is retained. Others are a little less naïve- read, they don’t live in a bubble, and actually see what’s happening to Christians all around them. Christians are harassed. If you are a baker and refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex “marriage”, then you’ll be creamed by the media. 

How should we react as Christians? We are told by some that we should not pessimistically think that it’s all going to get worse. We should engage in dialogue with the secular “public square” and the religious world. [2] Even so, we have moved on, we are told, from the assumption that we all have things in common with everyone else- try selling to the gay community that we are all made in God's image! Instead, dialogue, secular or religious, must allow for divergence of opinion and also for diversity of practice. Paul Helm and Os Guiness talk about a “tough civility”, by which all groups in society should tolerate one another- not agree with one another. A deep thinker like Helm is not blind: he sees what is really happening. Western society and its pluralism are eating away at Christian freedom. [3] Yet, the solution, according to Helm, is to get everyone on board with “tough civility.”
Yet, for "tough civility" really read "tough luck." I agree with Helm that in the United States and Britain that it would be best if “tough civility” were the order of the day. But “it ain’t gonna happen”! Helm himself, to all intents and purposes, concedes this, when he tells us that society is operating against Christianity. Has there ever been a non-Christian society that has welcomed Christian exclusivism? Either you bow to Caesar and the gods of Rome, or you feel the wrath of the state. In the midst of such hatred did Yahweh sustain Daniel, and the Father in heaven communed with Jesus Christ. The idea that Christianity will be welcomed within a “free market economy” of religions and competing world views is at best wishful thinking, a dream.

“But aren’t we all made in God’s image? Can’t we reason on that basis?” Sure, we can reason on that basis. But we won’t get far! There’s a big difference between communicating with fellow workers, for example, about proper ethics in the workplace, and expecting these same workers to swallow my Christian perspective on anything. Don’t forget, the image of God in man is a broken image! We are never going to get pseudo-neutrality when it comes to Christian exclusivism.

What’s the solution then? Engagement in politics? Many Christians see this as necessary, even essential, to getting ahead. As citizens of America, Christians have a right to speak up on the political level. I see no harm in this. Indeed, as American citizens, there is a dire need for it. That being said, the Christian is first and foremost a citizen of heaven. His weapons of warfare are spiritual, and do not belong to this world. We pray to the Almighty to turn events- not vote or petition the state senator. We wield the sword of the Spirit to fight our battles- not the freedom of speech. We put on the full armor of God to defend against evil- not the Constitution. Let’s be clear here, the New Testament knows nothing of promoting the welfare of the church through secular, this-wordly means…nothing!!
So we come back to "evangelical" and the evangel in it. Only as a society is transformed by the Gospel and by Christian values, does that society “welcome” the Christian perspective. In this way alone will “evangelical times” be created. Politics may be used as a tool by the Almighty. Yet, politics is not necessary to create that society. The Gospel must influence politics and the public square- all things must be subordinated to the will of God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Lord. Thank God for his Gospel, “For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed” (Romans 1:17).

 [2] http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/1224/01-2010?pg=all
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/02/taking-line-vi-tough-civility-and-civic.html
[3]  http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/02/taking-line-vi-tough-civility-and-civic.html