CGI Pastor Adrian Davis continues to find new ways to insist that he and his allies have a Divine commission to discourse on political and cultural topics. Most recently, he has presented a three-part series of sermons titled "The Joy of the Lord." Now, the title of the series sounds innocent enough - it even gives the impression that Adrian may be returning to a religious theme in his messaging, but nothing could be further from the truth!
In the third installment in the series, Pastor Davis offered an elaborate apologetics for the church's messaging about political and cultural issues. As usual. his message was wide-ranging and long-winded (80 minutes plus). Unfortunately, not only do Adrian and his allies see themselves in the Bible, but they also equate their political messaging with Christ's commission to carry the Gospel to the world. Hence, for him and his allies, any criticism of their messaging is adversarial and constitutes genuine persecution of them and their organization.
In this connection, Davis even had the audacity to compare the pushback that their messaging has received to the stoning of Stephen! He said that just as God had given Stephen a message which enraged folks outside the Church, the message which God had committed to them has enraged the outside world and invited them to isolate and persecute them. Now, for most of us, there is NO equivalency between someone being crucified or stoned and someone being criticized or ridiculed for their messaging. Davis, however, seems to see no distinction between the two!
In a not-so-subtle allusion to the recent pandemic, he went on to criticize his brethren that "have done everything they could to hold on to this life," and he urged all TRUE believers to remain calm and carry on. For Davis, his anti-vaccination and political messaging is the equivalent of the word of God and testimony that Christ and his disciples were preaching. He said that "God wants those who will not back down." The good pastor then went on to note several "red flags" that real Christians should avoid - like anything related to the "Globalist agenda (WHO, United Nations, WTO), climate change, global, vaccine mandates, and social justice! Funny, I don't remember anything about Christ or his apostles devoting any part of their messaging to those topics!
For Davis and his allies, however, the notion that these things have absolutely no connection to Christ's moral teachings, example, or message about the Kingdom makes absolutely no difference to them! The pastor went on to discuss the destruction of the United States by this administration (Biden) and declared that they are evil! And, just in case anyone doubted that that was an appropriate designation, he invited his audience to have a look at Biden's policies (which he went on to enumerate as abortion, vaccine development, forcing vaccination on children, opening the border, trafficking children, and pedophilia. Davis finished by lamenting the fact that Americans are ignoring all of those horrors and were instead focused on inflation (keeping gas prices lower by draining their reserves). Of course, one continues to wonder why the Canadian pastor of an ACOG is so concerned about what's happening on the political and cultural front in the United States!
Davis declared, "The truth is the truth, and we stand by it." Indeed, he implied that anyone who has any problems with his messaging is in danger of receiving the Mark of the Beast! In other words, Davis and his allies are determined to stick with their political/cultural messaging, and no amount of criticism from within or without CGI is going to detour them from proclaiming it. Unfortunately, CGI continues to provide a platform for Adrian Davis and his allies. Hence, we are forced to conclude that they share the conviction of Davis and his allies that all of this political and cultural stuff is an integral part of preaching the Gospel to the world! Sad - so SAD!
I know our personal views don't alway match up exactly, but I covered this same issue today from a different perspective and I'm interested in your input.
ReplyDeleteSeth,
DeleteI commend you for "thinking outside of the box" - there are far too many folks in the ACOG culture who are satisfied to live their lives entirely inside of the box which others have constructed for them! I teach about a God who cannot be contained by ANY of the boxes we construct for "him."
Even so, I would have been among the group that eschewed political involvement for God's people. I believe that the New Testament (especially the book of Revelation) warns Christians away from active participation in the Beast power (a metaphor for man's political, religious, economic and military systems). The book of Hebrews happens to be my favorite book of the Bible, and it clearly states that we (Christians) are supposed to regard ourselves as strangers and pilgrims on the earth - that we are looking for the establishment of a country designed and ruled by God and Jesus Christ.
Although I would agree that a lack of background/education/knowledge certainly disqualifies most ministers from speaking intelligently about things political, I do not believe that this provides us with the strongest argument against ministers preaching politics from the pulpit. In addition to the numerous scriptural injunctions against participating in man's systems, I believe that man's inability to discern all of the potential consequences and outcomes of policy provides the strongest argument against pulpit politics.
You mentioned abortion. I believe that life begins at conception, and that abortion is wrong. Nevertheless, I am also aware that some Christians cite the account of man's creation in Genesis (and numerous other related passages) to support their view that life begins when we take our first breath. What do we do with their consciences on this point? Do we force them to accept the dictates of our consciences on this point? I'm also very aware of the emotional, familial, societal, and economic problems that can spring from an unwanted pregnancy. And what about the very MORAL issues associated with rape, incest, and the life of the mother?
Now, I see NOTHING wrong with a Christian citizen of some constitutional democracy (like the U.S.) exercising their franchise to influence policy or candidates in a more moral direction. Even so, that is a very private and individual decision and should never be something that the corporate Church becomes involved in. After all, we've seen just how divisive politics can be. If we choose a party or side, what do we do with our brothers and sisters who adopt the other viewpoint? How can we possibly hope to reach folks on the other side of the political spectrum with the Gospel if we have alienated them from us before we even have the opportunity to mention Christ or his Kingdom? Just some thoughts.
It is difficult for me to think that Dietrich Bonhoeffer should have simply minded his own business. But other German pastors stood back from Nazism. And I am not sure what I would have done. These statements are an index of how complicated this question is in my mind.
ReplyDeletePaul at one point endorsed secular governments as being agents of God, making it unnecessary for Christians to be concerned with politics. Just obey the laws of the land. The immediate follow-on issue is what if the laws of the land are amoral? Certainly the Paul who rails against immorality in the Epistle to the Romans would not be in favor of acquiescence. What Paul does not do is outline what the practical Christian engagement with a befouled polity should be.
We all live under some form of worldly government. The stratagem of simple avoidance does not work. And I think, in the last analysis, it is not a question of should we engage government, but it is a question of how should we engage government. Biblical figures such as Joseph, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah all had involvement with government. And the lack of condemnation of slavery in the epistle of Philemon is itself an unavoidable statement of policy. And for modern Christian denominations it will be inevitable that political issues will work their way into the pulpit.
A separate but allied issue is whether the pulpit should be spending inordinate amounts of time on controversial political topics to the exclusion of the Gospel message. We are stewards of our bodies. Good health practices are important. Such practices could even be thought of as being allied with the Gospel in some secondary way. But should the dominating message from the pulpit be about the evils of processed food? Likewise, politics has its place and its place is not to dominate the thinking of the church. Moreover, politics and culture are easy to get wrong. Maybe the trendy big concern is really nothing but a carefully crafted partisan conspiracy theory. The problem of politics and the pulpit is compounded when viewpoints that align smoothly with a political party are espoused. Suddenly, the bully pulpit in the congregation becomes an instrument of outside forces. My wife had a relative who left the large congregation of the Southern Baptist Church she attended for years because the pulpit said one Sunday that if you voted Democratic you would go to hell. She never went back again. There is evil in every political party and it is not the role of the pulpit to sort this out or to advocate political partisanship.
There is no easy answer. It would be nice if we did not have to live in the world. But, alas, we must. Our brinksmanship in many dimensions must be profoundly skillful. Living in the time between the Cross and the Parousia is our daily challenge.
While I am advocating for Christians to stay in our lane, I believe that our opposition to evil is an integral part of that lane. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was certainly correct to resist government interference within the Church and speak out against Nazi persecution. I hope that most Christians would emulate such behaviors in similar circumstances. I would like to believe that most of us would have assisted our Jewish brethren or African slaves to reach freedom. I would hope that most Christians would set a good example in how to treat other folks with kindness and respect. In all of these instances, however, Christians must always be subject to the civil authorities - always willing to give up our freedom and our lives for what we believe. And we must remember that these kinds of Christian behaviors represented OPPOSITION to evil behaviors by those civil authorities - NOT working within or in cooperation with them and their system!
DeleteIn other words, I hope we can all see a clear distinction between this kind of civil disobedience and joining a violent mob to invade a government building. I would hope that most of us are able to differentiate between resisting genocide and slavery and supporting one political party or candidate over another. Christ didn't ask his Father to remove us from this world, but he did pray that God would keep us from being contaminated by humankind's ideologies and systems.
Miller, you wrote: "In other words, I hope we can all see a clear distinction between this kind of civil disobedience and joining a violent mob to invade a government building."
DeleteThe controversial nature of this statement lies at the heart of the issue. Both Bonhoeffer and the people who stormed the Capitol saw themselves to be in service to ultimate good. Bonhoeffer participated in a violent plot to overthrow Hitler and the January Sixth Seditionists participated in a violent plot to overthrow the US government. They were seekers of good; they just defined good in different ways. Jesus said, "Wisdom is justified of her children."
At this point, I believe a case based on morality fails to be determinative and a case based on truth gains traction. Christ said, "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Both those who plotted against Hitler and those who stormed the Capitol were moral in their actions, but they were operating on different kinds of data. The plotters against Hitler had valid, incontrovertible data and the seditionists had absurd conspiracy theories. The failure is not in morality but in research and a willingness to believe research.
I do not want to dismiss morality too early. If someone has dubious ulterior motives and is confronted with the truth and denies it simply to go ahead with their pre-determined purpose, I regard this to be amoral. Justification is transformed into pretext. But deception is a horse of a different color. What if someone really believes what they are doing is right? Jesus said of his crucifiers, "...they know not what they do."
In this contest between truth and fable, the bully pulpit can be devastating among those who have been trained to be unquestioning. And Jesus refers this finally to the Highest Court, "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." But is it a case of deceivers leading the blind or the blind leading the blind?
This is a really complex issue with a number of points in the evaluative process where critical judgment is required. It does not yield easily to generalization. Yet, I believe in Christianity there is a decided tendency to generalize. A Jewish scholar once said, in supporting Midrash, that Jews regard the Bible as a problem to be solved and Christians regard the Bible as a message to be proclaimed. I believe she was saying that there is a certain humility in the Jewish approach and a chutzpah in the Christian approach. And I believe that unfounded chutzpah at the bully pulpit is not leadership or ministry. It's just melodrama.
I left out the plot to assassinate Hitler on purpose. Are you suggesting that it is ever appropriate for a person to plot the murder of another individual? It seems to me difficult to construct a moral justification for such an action from Christ's teachings. The Civil Rights Movement was premised on non-violence - a very Christian and moral foundation. If we reach for the guns and bombs, how are we any different from the evil we are professing to resist? Are we advocating a kind of moral relativism or "the ends justify the means"?
DeleteNeo,
DeleteWhen I reread my reply, it sounded snarky and impersonal - that was NOT my intention! You are, of course, correct that this is a complex subject, but I believe that it is one we must wrestle with - and that we have a tendency to sometimes make things more complicated the further we get away from the simplicity of Christ's teachings and example. You and Seth have both forced me to take a second look and sharpen my own understanding of these issues. That is the value of conversation (which I believe is one of the points Seth was making in his comments). Even so, I still contend that this is a very personal - one on one kind of exercise "iron sharpening iron." It is reckless for ministers to try out their ideas on their brothers and sisters in Christ - that's what study and preparation are for. Like Adrian, Watson and Seth, I see the obvious moral implications of policies. Even so, I believe that our participation in humankind's attempts to ameliorate or rectify our problems with certain policy prescriptions undermines the core/foundation of Christ's and Scripture's teaching that our problems stem from our rejection of God's guidance. It is hard to reconcile political involvement with Christ's instruction that we should be praying for God's Kingdom, and for "His" will to be done on this earth in the same way that it currently applies to the spiritual realm.
My point is that plausible arguments can be constructed on both sides of this issue. C.S. Lewis wrote an essay on why he was not a pacifist. My viewpoint is somewhat informed by that essay. Lewis believed in the concept of "just war."
DeleteAdd to this the example of Jesus in two moments. He came to this earth and submitted himself to being executed by the government for his activities. He exemplified non-violence. On the other hand, he will return to the earth, if we can trust a prosaic reading of Revelation, and will smite the nations and tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. We live in the time between these two moments, between the Cross and the Parousia. What are we to make of it? How then should we live?
Bonhoeffer had to first decide if he were going to trust in God to deal with Hitler or if he should join the plot to assassinate him. He decided on the latter. I don't know how but I trust it involved much prayer. Once he stepped into the arena, the calculus was unassailable, one man dead for millions saved.
Nobody likes to engage in math when comes to human lives. Yet this odious exercise has happened over and over again throughout history. The Manhattan Project went forward on the idea that if a few hundred thousand Japanese could be sacrificed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a surrender forced, millions of Japanese and Allied troops could be spared. And afterward we have Oppenheimer looking away from his ardent pursuit of science to quote the Bhagavad-Gita with a long face and saying: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
It is a chilling and dreadful business that we deal with, our living on this earth. And in some cases, like this one, it does not yield to our best analyses.
Yes! You have beautifully articulated the fact that we humans cannot discern all of the consequences/results of our actions.
DeleteVery well articulated Neo.
ReplyDelete