2019-10-29T18:17:26-04:00

Disaffected evangelicals sometimes swim the Tiber, going over to Rome.  Others swim the Bosporous, to Constantinople and Eastern Orthodoxy.  But they would do better to swim the Mississippi, to the St. Louis-based Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

So says an article at RealClear Religion by Tom Raabe entitled Swim the Mississippi: Why Conservative Lutheranism is the Faith Tradition Many Evangelicals Seek.

I should say that you can also swim the Mississippi and land in Wisconsin, home of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  And you can swim the other way and find yourself in Minnesota, home of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  So swimming the Mississippi is a fitting figure of speech for finding confessional Lutheranism in the United States.  Though we could speak of swimming the Assiniboine in Canada or the River Murray in Australia, a more global expression would be swimming the Elbe to Wittenberg.

 Raabe’s point is that what so many evangelicals are attracted to in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy–liturgy, sacraments, doctrine, history, catholicity, beauty–can be found in Lutheranism, while allowing them to stay “closer to home,” retaining in their fullness the Gospel and the Word of God.
Read the whole article.  Here are some excerpts:

Evangelicals who value tradition and history may not know that in conservative Lutheranism they will find the same critical elements of Christianity for which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are known. Retaining membership in the true church, celebrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper in all their power, singing the historic liturgy–the very things many evangelicals seek when they turn to the east–are all found in conservative Lutheranism. . . .

Also appealing to evangelicals making the move east are the ceremonies of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Lutheranism is sacramental as well; it narrowed the Catholic seven sacraments to two–the two instituted in Scripture, which are baptism and the Eucharist–but left intact their power to remove sins. Luther did not allow them to be interpreted representationally, as others in the Reform did. Thus, they are termed “means of grace”: spiritual vehicles whereby sins are forgiven. Like Catholics and Orthodox believers, we hold to the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, that Christ is physically present in the elements, and to the sacramental power of this means of grace–our sins are actually forgiven in the eating and drinking. . . .

Other rituals were either retained or abandoned on the basis of Scripture. One such is the historic liturgy. . . .Luther kept the historic liturgy in his renewal of the church, both because it did not run counter to Scripture and because the people were accustomed to it, enriched by it, and comforted by it. It was their vehicle for accessing the gospel.

The hymnals used by conservative Lutheran churches feature this centuries-old historic liturgy, much of which harks back to the biblical witness. They also contain the millennia-old ecumenical creeds, one of which is confessed every Sunday, and the books are organized around the liturgical calendar–from Advent to Pentecost–which rehearses, yearly, the entire history of salvation.

Historically, Lutheranism has contributed significantly to the beautiful and meaningful music that makes up those hymnals. . . .

Conservative Lutheranism retains the Bible as the sole religious authority. Certainly, the Bible plays a role in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but it isn’t the supreme authority in doctrine and practice. When the Bible is forced off center stage, bowing to tradition or reason, the door is opened to theological error.

[Keep reading. . .]

I would add that evangelicals who swim the Mississippi will also learn the proper distinction of Law and Gospel, which will give them a stronger appreciation of what Christ has done for them, filling them with the assurance of salvation and a genuine, righteous Christian liberty.

They will also see the holiness of ordinary life, as they learn about their vocations in the family, the workplace, and the society, and how God works through them as they love and serve their neighbors.

Swimming the Mississippi will also cleanse their faith from the contamination of politics, while still allowing them to pursue their political interests and responsibilities in their vocations of citizenship.

I myself have swum the Mississippi from the empty desert of mainline liberal Protestantism.  Who else has plunged into the muddy waters of Old Man River and come out on the other side?  Tell us about it in the comments.

If you want to learn more, read my book Spirituality of the Cross:  The Way of the First Evangelicals.  Also my book with Trevor Sutton, Authentic Christianity:  How Lutheran Theology Speaks to the Postmodern World.

 

HT:  Steve Bauer

Photo:  Upper Mississippi River Watershed by Bob Nichols, Public Domain via publicdomainfiles.com.

 

 

2019-10-21T22:44:32-04:00

Life.Church here in Oklahoma is a pioneer in how churches can use technology.  They put out YouVersion, the world’s most popular Bible app, and their very name emulates that of a website.  Life.Church is one of the earliest adopters of an innovation that is catching on around the world: the multi-site church, in which a single pastor presides over multiple congregations, preaching to them all through a video screen.

Life.Church has 34 locations throughout the country.  Each location, called a “campus,”  has its own “campus pastor” and “worship team.”  People gather for worship at their local campus, but they all watch the same sermon from senior pastor Craig Groeschel, broadcasting from a studio in Edmond, Oklahoma.

I like this description of the studio technology, from the Daily Oklahoman‘s Carla Hinton, Oklahoma megachurches find success at the vanguard of video worship services:

[Pastor-Innovation Leader Bobby] Gruenewald said Life.Church’s recent enhancements are geared to using the latest technology to reach more people for Christ. This includes robotic cameras, an LED wall for visual imagery, and stadium seating. He said the newly designed facility helps creates a more intimate experience for all church members, whether they are sitting in seats experiencing the spiritual message live or if they are watching Groeschel on a screen at another Life.Church location.

Creating “a more intimate experience”!

This multi-site model is being adopted at more and more congregations.  In 1990, there were only 10 multi-site churches in the United States; today there are more than 5,000.  The model allows megachurches to become even more mega-, or giga-, or tera-, by breaking out of the limitation of being a single congregation to multiply over a number of congregations, all under the same pastor!

Do any of you attend a church like this?  If so, what’s it like?  And let me ask this, since I’m not as well connected as I used to be:  Are any Lutheran churches–particularly LCMS, WELS, or ELS congregations–using this model?

I have two main problems with this approach.  The first has to do with the office of the holy ministry.  I don’t see how you can have a meaningful involvement in a congregation without knowing your pastor or without your pastor knowing you.  Yes, the various campuses have their campus pastors if you need counseling or the like.  But the pastorate is a preaching office, and when the minister who preaches and who leads the congregation lives in a different city, I think that congregation is missing something.

What is the purpose of this arrangement?  Why does one pastor want to lead multiple congregations?  Wouldn’t it be better for the local campuses to call their own pastors?  Actually, they do have campus pastors.  Why aren’t they allowed to preach?

Traditionally, when a congregation became so large that the pastor could not know all of his flock, it would split into two congregations.  There would now be two congregations, and thus the churches multiplied.  What is the advantage of having numerous buildings, distinct communities, and being in various locations, yet being under one pastor who is remote from them all?

“Leadership” has become a major preoccupation in the pastoral ministry today, and I’m not sure that view is completely healthy or orthodox.  Yes, a shepherd leads his flock, and pastors lead and exercise authority in their congregations.  But they do so in vocation; that is, as masks of God, who works through their office by means of the Word and Sacraments.  Pastors are not leaders in the sense that politicians or C.E.O.’s of  corporations are leaders.  The leader of a nation might seek to increase his rule by building an empire.  A business leader might seek to increase the number of his companies.  But the church is a different kind of institution and needs a different kind of leadership.  Otherwise, things can go terribly wrong.

To be sure, having many different congregations all under the same leader has its pedigree.  That was the aspiration of the papacy.  If only the Church of Rome throughout its history could have had today’s video technology, the pope could be the preacher to all Catholic congregations, thus establishing unity amongst all of the diversity.  Of course, this would require a common language, possibly bringing back Latin.

In addition to the multi-site model having an inadequate view of the pastoral office, it also shows an inadequate view of preaching.  A sermon is not just conveying information.  Nor is it just an inspiring words.  Nor is it a performance.  Nor is it a TED talk.

A sermon is a means of grace.  The Holy Spirit uses the preaching of God’s Word to create faith in the hearts of its hearers, as the Law brings them to repentance and the Gospel brings them to Christ.  Preaching is thus sacramental.  Just as Baptism requires water, and the Lord’s Supper requires bread and wine–tangible, physical elements that God uses to reach us tangible, physical beings–a sermon requires a pastor.

I’m not saying that a video sermon cannot convey God’s Word.  Shut-ins can be blessed by watching video-recorded services at home.  Multi-site services, though, are different.  The people are gathered into each other’s presence.  The only one who is not present is the preacher.  I think he should be there.

Churches have debated the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.  Now we have to debate the real presence of the pastor in his congregation.

 

Photo:  City First Church by Rockfordmark – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40137183 via Wikimedia Commons

2019-10-11T20:01:56-04:00

Sunday is Pastor Appreciation Day, and October is Pastor Appreciation Month.  We should indeed appreciate our pastors and express that appreciation to them.  They are working night and day to bring us to eternal life.

The pastoral office is under quite a bit of stress and strain these days.  Some of it comes from unfaithful pastors who tarnish their holy calling with scandals, heresies, and abuse.   And, as Milton complained in Lycidas, an elegy about the death of a young man studying for the ministry who would have made a good pastor, there are shepherds more concerned with sheering their sheep than nourishing them, so that “The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed.”  But good shepherds are also assailed by wolves from the outside, and, even worse, by rebellious sheep.  To move out of the extended metaphor, many congregations treat their pastors appallingly.

But, according to the doctrine of vocation, God Himself has called your pastor, and He Himself works through him to bestow His blessings upon you.  God proclaims His Word through the voice of human pastors.  Christ Himself baptizes and gives us His body and blood by means of your pastor, whom He has called to this ministry through your congregation.  And though your pastor is as human as you, with similar sins and shortcomings, God still works through him by virtue of his office.  So that, “as a called and ordained servant of the Word,” he can “announce the grace of God unto all of you,” and “in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ,” he brings us Christ’s forgiveness (Lutheran Service Book).

Not too long ago, I wrote a post entitled A Book Every Pastor Should Read, about my friend the Rev. Harold Senkbeil’s The Care of Souls. That book gives pastors practical advice on how to care for the souls entrusted to them and also encourages them as they live out their lives in the ups and downs of their vocation.  In my review I made a statement that is good advice for Pastor Appreciation Month:  If you are a pastor, you should buy this book.  If you are not a pastor, you should buy it for your pastor.

It turns out, you can get it for free.  I am grateful to Rev. Andrew Hussman, a WELS pastor from Rapid City, SD, who reminded me of Pastor Appreciation Month and also alerted me to this offer.  I’ll let him explain it:

Since October is Pastor Appreciation Month, Logos Bible Software provides a $20 gift to pastors (the code at checkout is: PAM20). It’s easy and free to set up a Logos account (the cost comes in adding books and other advanced features). The reason I share this with you is that, as part of Pastor Appreciation month, Logos also currently has a sale on Harold Senkbeil’s new book, Care of Souls, for $11.99 (https://www.logos.com/product/169227/the-care-of-souls-cultivating-a-pastors-heart). I believe you blogged about this book a while back. So essentially, any pastor can get this book for free and still have money to spare on the $20 gift.

You can also get another book free, a soon-to-be-released collaboration by Rev. Senkbeil and someone who happens to have been one of my pastors from years ago, Rev. Lucas Woodford:

Furthermore, Lexham Press (which has some connection to Logos and Faithlife that I’m unclear on) offers a short little book by Harold Senkbeil and Lucas Woodford entitled Church Leadership and Strategy: For the Care of Souls (https://lexhampress.com/product/175813/church-leadership-and-strategy-for-the-care-of-souls). Pastors can also get this book for free with the code THANKYOUPASTOR at checkout.

I will repeat that code for my pastor, my former pastors, and to all of you readers who are pastors:  THANKYOUPASTOR.

 

Image by melaniko from Pixabay

2019-10-05T14:59:55-04:00

God created the Heavens and the Earth.  “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:31).  Then an alliance between human beings and the devil brought sin into the world and all our woe.  Then sinners, to excuse themselves, see everything that God had made and behold, it is very bad.

Augustine said that evil is an “absence of being,” that is, a lack of something God created good.  Death is the absence of life, and murder attempts to negate someone else’s God-given life.  Sexual sins reflect the absence of life-giving sexuality according to God’s design.  False witness, stealing, coveting, cruelty, hatred, and other sins against our neighbor exhibit the absence of love.  In this view, sin amounts to a rebellion against reality.

What provoked these thoughts is a post by John Ehrett, former student and fellow Patheos blogger, entitled Lovecraft and the Metacrisis of Liberalism.  It is a masterful example of how literary criticism can illuminate a worldview issue and give us insight into our times.

The post is about the horror writer H. P. Lovecraft (1890-1937), whose writings are enjoying a comeback, along with the horror genre generally.  Lovecraft developed the Cthulhu Mythos, in which human beings inadvertently awaken the underlying deities of the universe, who are utterly malign.  I’ll let Ehrett explain it:

Lovecraftian “cosmic horror” is built around the premise that the cosmos is utterly indifferent to human beings. But that’s not to say the cosmos is empty. Rather, the most powerful forces in reality are ancient, godlike beings of chaos—the Great Old Ones—whose intentions are inscrutable and who care nothing for humanity. These Great Old Ones cannot be comprehended within the frame of normal human experience: even momentary exposure to the Great Old Ones’ presence is enough to reduce a human consciousness to gibbering madness.

This, of course, is very different from horror stories influenced, if only implicitly, by Christianity.

Lovecraft’s tales of cosmic horror reflect a metaphysical picture wholly alien to Christianity. Other stories like DraculaThe Exorcist, or even Event Horizon emerge from a distinctly Christian milieu. The forces of evil in those stories are understood to be evil by virtue of what they oppose: Dracula sets himself up over against God, a demon seeks to claim the soul of an innocent girl, and an ancient power of evil defiles the image of God in man. That is to say, there is a distinct moral duality at work in these tales and others like them—one that allows the descriptor “good versus evil” to be properly applied to them. The heroes are on God’s side, and the villains are on the devil’s.

But that is not how Lovecraft’s tales proceed. “Evil” is an unintelligible concept in Lovecraft’s literary world, because there is no transcendent ideal against which “evil” might define itself. There is no good or evil, only comprehensible or incomprehensible power. Indeed, the very essence of the Great Old Ones is near-absolute coercive authority that feels no need to justify or legitimate itself. They will do what they will do, and be what they will be, regardless of what human beings might think. There is nothing democratic or deliberative about these power relations; Lovecraft’s cosmos is ruthlessly, relentlessly hierarchical—and the human species is at the bottom of the ladder. The primary objective of any human character in a Lovecraft story is simple: escape!

I remember watching a modern Dracula movie that purported to be more faithful to Bram Stoker’s original 1897 story (1897) than the iconic black-and-white 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi.  But it wasn’t.  In the Lugosi film, as in Stoker’s novel and as in vampire folklore, Dracula is vulnerable to sacred symbols and cannot remain in the presence of a crucifix.  But in the modern version, Dracula attacks a man who, cowering, holds up a crucifix.  The vampire swats it away to general laughter.

Consider today’s hit movie Joker, which portrays the comic book villain in terms of the isolated involuntary celibates associated with today’s school shooters and mass murderers.  His world is “utterly indifferent” to him, wholly bleak and ugly and evil, which eventually transforms its victim into someone who himself becomes “utterly different” to other human beings, wholly bleak and ugly and evil, his “human consciousness” reduced to “gibbering madness.”  In this Joker, there is no Batman.

Ehrett relates this nihilistic worldview to the “postliberal” mindset that we have discussed.

The increasing popularity of Lovecraftian horror, I think, tracks (at least in part) a broader cultural shift away from the good/evil conceptual duality. In Lovecraft’s pitiless world, the traditional “good/evil” dyad is replaced by the dyad “freedom/oppression”—as it has in much contemporary discourse.

Leftists think all authority is a Cthulhu-like imposition of oppressive power.  The only hope is for the oppressed to assert their freedom by resisting the power structure and its imposed values until they can seize a similar power for themselves.  But conservatives, while being very different, sometimes think in terms of the same dichotomy, with government, by its nature, exercising oppressive power, with individuals needing to assert their freedom against it.

We have lost the basis of legitimate authority and legitimate power, the sort that is “very good.”  Vocation teaches that God, in His providential love, works through human beings–in their ordinary callings in the family, the workplace, the church, and the state–to care for His creation.  We not only lack that understanding, we have a lack of people carrying out their callings in love and service to their neighbors, preferring instead to use them for their own Cthulhu-like self aggrandizement.

In the absence of God and His righteousness, people assuming that “the real world” is intrinsically evil.  When people do talk of God, they often project Him as being intrinsically evil too!  This is evident in the new atheist’s moral arguments against God’s existence.  And sometimes even believers in God present him as an arbitrary, indifferent, amoral power not much different than Cthulhu!  Ehrett notes that we sometimes hear this view of God from extreme Calvinists–of the sort Lovecraft grew up with–though the Reformed folks that I know do not go nearly that far but always insist on God’s radical and inherent goodness.

Still, I appreciate Ehrett’s Lutheranism:

As a Christian, I would argue that the legitimation of power (in the very deepest sense) begins with the fundamental ontological hierarchy inscribed into the very fabric of creation: the infinite God calls into being the order of finite things. This foundational hierarchy can never be transcended, try though we might. But the Lutheran tradition goes a step further: God’s power is revealed in the death of Jesus on the cross and His subsequent resurrection—not through explosive demonstrations of sovereign will that shatter human categories. And in the cross, the categories of power relations are accordingly subverted: the truest and best leader is the one who voluntarily dies for his people. Power, in short, manifests as love.

Without God all you have is the devil.  The Biblical worldview recognizes the darkness inherent in a sinful world.  Those who feel trapped in that world–the depressed, the hurting, the unfortunate–are not abandoned in their suffering.  God Himself entered that dark and sinful world, bearing it all in the cross, bringing redemption.  And then He rose from the dead.  He now calls us to join Him in the battle against the Cthulhu in the world and in ourselves.

 

Illustration:  “Cthulhu,” by Reiner Zaminski [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons

2019-10-04T08:41:24-04:00

Christians have long struggled with the competing claims of faith and good works.  Luther cuts the Gordian knot by making a simple, but profound, distinction:  Faith must be directed to God, and good works must be directed to our neighbors.

Luther’ neighbor-centered ethic is foundational to his doctrine of vocation.  To summarize:  We are not saved by our good works, and works that we think we are doing for God–such as rituals, acts of asceticism, or other attempts to curry favor with Him–are not “good,” strictly speaking, at all, unless they actually help someone.  Our salvation is based solely on the grace and forgiveness of God, which we receive by faith in Christ and His atoning sacrifice.  Whereupon God sends us into the world and calls us into our vocations, where our faith bears fruit in love and service to our neighbors.  In the words of the liturgy, which dismisses us after our faith is strengthened by God’s Word and Sacraments, we go out to live our lives “in faith toward You and in fervent love toward one another.”

Luther explores these teachings, through a number of Biblical texts, in his sermons, particularly the ones collected in his Church Postils, sent throughout the Reformation churches for local pastors to preach themselves, thus spreading the teachings of the evangelical theology.  So what Luther teaches here about vocation, ethics, and other topics, had wide currency and became quite influential among ordinary Christians.

Here are some excerpts on this topic from a wonderful online source, Martin Luther’s Writings:  Sermons, Commentaries, & Other Writings.

God Does Not Need Your Works, but Your Neighbor Does

Here Luther develops his well-known distinction.  He does so in an exposition of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, which he relates to the Gospel (how God forgives us) and to the Christian life (how Jesus sends those whom He has loved and forgiven to likewise love and forgive their neighbors).

From Martin Luther’s Sermons, TWENTY-SECOND SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY. [1st series] Text: Matthew 18:23-35.  [The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant]:

  1. This is what we have often said, that we Christians must break forth, and show by our deeds and before the people that we have the true faith.

God does not need your works, he has enough in your faith. Yet he wants you to work that you may show thereby your faith to yourself and all the world. For God indeed sees faith, but you and the people do not yet see it, therefore you should devote the works of faith to the benefit of your neighbor. Thus this servant is an example and picture of all those who should serve their neighbor through faith. . . .

  1. But you say: Do you still insist that God will have no regard for our good works, and on their account will save no one? Answer: He would have them done freely without any thought of remuneration; not that we thereby obtain something, but that we do them to our neighbor, and thereby show that we have the true faith; for what have you then that you gave him and by which you merit anything, that he should have mercy on you and forgive you all things that you have done against him? Or what profit has he by it? Nothing has he, but that you praise and thank him, and do as he has done, that God may be thanked in thee, then you are in his kingdom and have all things that you should have. This is the other part of the Christian life, which is called love, by which one goes out from God to his neighbor.

 

You Live to Carry in the Sick Man

In his sermon on those who brought the sick man to Jesus, Luther also develops the notion that an important way we love and serve our neighbors is to bring them to Jesus, so that they too will have faith.  This is what we do, Luther says, when we bring an infant to baptism.  Luther disagrees with those who teach that an infant is baptised on the basis of his parents’ faith or on a faith that the child will have in the future.  He teaches that infants can have faith of their own.  Baptism bestows that faith, which must be fed by God’s Word throughout the Christian’s life.  “So I do not baptize the child in my own faith or in the faith of Christendom. But my faith and Christendom bring the child to baptism, in order that by rightly bringing it God may give it a faith of its own, that it may believe as I believe and be preserved in the same Word that Christ has given me” (paragraph 27).

From Martin Luther’s Sermons, NINETEENTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY. [1st series] Text: Matthew 9:1-8. [The healing of the man sick of the palsy]:

  1. But the kingdom of Christ consists in this and thereby grows, namely, that the conscience be comforted with the Word. What else takes place through works and laws, all pertains to our neighbor. For I need no works before God, and must only be careful rightly to confess my sins. Then I have forgiveness of sins and am one with God, all which the Holy Spirit works in me. Then I break forth with blessings toward my neighbor, as they did here who brought the man sick with the palsy to the Lord. Those were in the kingdom, or show who are in the kingdom, as the Evangelist says, that the Lord had respect unto their faith. For had they not had any faith, they would not have brought the sick to the Lord. Faith precedes works, works follow faith. Therefore, because they are in the kingdom by faith, they bring in the sick man and thus do the work.

 

  1. On this earth man lives not for the sake of works, in order that they may be profitable to him, for he is not in need of them. But if you do good works in order thereby to obtain and merit something from God, all is lost, and you have already fallen from this kingdom. But since you believe and continue to live you ought to know that you live for this very cause, namely, to carry in the sick man. God does not desire the Christian to live for himself. Yea, cursed is the life that lives for self. For all that one lives after he is a Christian, he lives for others. So these also do who bring in the sick man, they no longer live for themselves, but their lives serve others; yes, with their faith they win for the sick man a faith of his own. For this sick man had at first no faith, but after he heard the Word, Christ instills into him a faith of his own, and awakens him with the Gospel; as he is accustomed to instill faith by the Word.

 

Luther on the Benedict Option

I think highly of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option, with some reservations, as I say in my review of that book.  While I agree about the depravity of contemporary culture and the need for Christians to offer something better, I have problems with Christians withdrawing from the world, following the model of monasticism.  In this sermon, Luther discusses Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, with an excursus on the papacy and the Last Days.  In doing so, he also refers to the fall of Rome and the rise of monasticism, St. Benedict style.  He maintains that Christians must not flee to the “wilderness” when tribulation comes, but should “move freely in public society.”  To flee to the wilderness, as the monastics do, is to undermine our vocations in the world, deprive the world of our witness, and suggest that some Christians are better than others.

From Martin Luther’s Sermons, TWENTY-FIFTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.  [2nd series] Text: Matthew 24:15-28.  [On the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Last Days]:

  1. At the time of the holy fathers, Anthony and others, shortly after the Apostles, the fallacy already arose, of which Christ is speaking here, although Anthony strove against it, that everybody was running to the wilderness by the thousands, and it gained such favor that later Jerome and Augustine almost worshipped custom, and did not know how sufficiently to praise it. Now when we look at it in the right light, this text powerfully opposes that movement, and there were also among them many heretics and many condemned persons, and although there were godly people among them who escaped the deception, nevertheless the example was dangerous and cannot be commended. Also St. Francis was a holy man, but his example and the order he established we are not to follow. But this no one, not even the saints, has recognized; so deeply and with such great display has it taken root. The Christian life is not confined to the wilderness, but moves freely in public society as Christ and the Apostles lived, that we come before and among the world, preach and admonish openly, to bring the people to Christ; but the people who run to the wilderness, do not want to remain in the world where they must suffer so much. They choose for themselves their own strict life, want thereby to be better Christians than others, as also the cloisters do.

 

HT:  Jackie

 

Illustration:  Detail from the Weimar Altarpiece by Lucas Cranach (John the Baptist, Cranach, and Luther) via Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

 

2019-09-30T10:01:21-04:00

Americans have become highly polarized over politics, and the Congressional impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump are going to make it worse, from both sides.

Anecdotally, one can hear about lifelong friends now hating each other over politics.  Families are split between pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions, with relatives either raging at each other or refusing to speak to their own flesh and blood.  Churches are being torn up, with some members of the congregation saying, “How can you call yourself a Christian if you support Trump?” and others saying “How can you call yourself a Christian if you don’t?”

In addition, political animosity and political harassment  have become problems in America’s workplaces.  So says an article in MarketWatch by Andrew Keschner, who cites data from the Society for Human Resource Management.  The HR organization says that they are getting more complaints about political harassment than sexual harassment.  And that political arguments have become major contributor to “toxic work environments.”  From the article:

Worker turnover because of “toxic” office cultures has already cost companies $223 billion in the past five years, up 24% from 2008 to 2012, according to findings released Wednesday from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). . . .

A survey last year from the staffing company Robert Half International RHI, -0.64%   found 22% of workers got into a “heated discussion with a co-worker” during the last presidential election. Another 15% said their productivity slipped because of the water cooler political talk. . . .

The SHRM hot line already received 916 queries this year on how to handle politics in the workplace, up 195% on 310 politics-related calls the previous year, said Alexander Alonso, the professional association’s chief knowledge officer. The hot line receives 600,000 calls every year.

In fact, calls on politics are coming in at a much higher rate than questions about sexual harassment, even as the #MeToo movement gains steam.

“It’s like nothing we’ve seen,” notes Jimmie Taylor, the CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management. “The level of toxicity in the environment is at an all-time high.”

These are not just the time-honored good-natured arguments between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservative, that friends, family members, and fellow workers have always engaged in when they “talk politics.”  Today “talking politics” often means rage-filled, contemptuous personal attacks.

The “toxic” political talk comes from both sides, but my impression is that supporters of Trump have tended to employ mockery and sarcasm in an attempt to “own the libs,” while opponents of Trump pour out their hatred for the president–there is no other word for it–onto his supporters whom they blame for putting him into office.  But that was before the impeachment proceedings, which, as the HR organization says, is making everything worse.  As Trump opponents exult in a sense of vindication, Trump supporters are infuriated by those who are attempting to remove the lawfully-elected president.

There is nothing wrong with righteous anger, though we are enjoined to “be angry but sin not” (Eph 4:26).  That’s hard to do, but possible.

Intense political conflicts have broken out throughout our history.  But when they disrupt the family, the church, the state, and the workplace–that is, the various realms of our callings–they become a vocational issue.  We need to remember that the purpose of each of these vocations is to love and serve the neighbors whom each vocation brings into our lives.  Not “own” them, not hate them, not win over them (as opposed to win them over), but love and serve them.  We might still be angry with them, but not at the expense of loving and serving them.

We do have a vocation as citizens, and we are right to promote our beliefs and take part in the public square.  So the answer is not for Christians to withdraw from politics.  But all the while Christians should remember that while they are citizens of the temporal kingdom, they are also citizens of an eternal kingdom.  The temporal kingdom will not last.  If we get the government we want, it won’t solve all our problems.  And if we get the government we don’t want, it won’t thwart God.  All human governments will pass away.

That should give us some perspective, at least, which is sadly missing today, especially from people who have let politics become their religion.

 

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay 

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives