Author: Frank

I was going to post about this when I first read about it, but listening on Air1 this morning reminded me of the pastor in Arizona who is praying for President Obama to get cancer and die like the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I don’t know where to start other than grieve that many who call themselves Christians agree with him. One, in fact, brought a gun to one of the President’s town-halls on health care. A caller to Air1 said he didn’t “necessarily agree” with the pastor, but “sees nothing wrong with praying that God will remove evil from high places.”

So here we see the problem with mixing religion and politics- the label of opposing political beliefs as ‘evil’. However, the Bible tells us this is not the case. Paul, writing to the church in Rome wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Rom 13:1) Keep in mind, Paul is writing to the same church that within a generation would be dipped in tar and burned alive to provide lighting in the Colosseum while their brothers and sisters in Christ were fed to lions. This church existed under a government that practiced infanticide and did not value what we’d call traditional marriage. Yet Paul says even this government is established by God.

Well just because we ‘submit’ to those authorities doesn’t mean we have to agree with them. Of course that’s true. But disagreeing is a far cry from wishing death or even calling someone evil. Even if our president (or anyone else for that matter) was truly evil in his entire being (can anyone really believe that?), how should we treat that person? Again, Paul gives the answer to a Roman church who justly feared for their very lives.

“Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:19-21)
And earlier, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Rom 12:17a)

The caller this morning said he wasn’t afraid of being called crazy for standing up against evil and even went so far as to suggest those who don’t are ‘watered down’ Christians. Well there are a lot of instructions in the Bible on how to deal with evil that we can turn to. I personally like this one from Jesus and I’d recommend Pastor Anderson reads it: “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Though I admit that’s a bit of a cliche. But interestingly most of the time when Jesus is talking about evil, he’s talking about our very own hearts. In other words, we need to check ourselves.

But there’s more. Again Paul writing in Romans after describing “all kinds of evil” in Chapter 1 begins the second chapter by writing, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Rom 2:1)

If you want to be militant, you could look at the “armor of God” in Ephesians 6 where we read, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12) But even here, the struggle “is not against flesh and blood” and the evil forces are spiritual, not physical. So we use weapons “not… of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:4ff).

But again, this battle is personal. We do not fight on others’ behalf. “Our struggle…” When it comes to facing evil personally, we are instructed to “flee the evil desires of youth…” (2 Timothy 2:22) to “get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent…” (James 1:21) “do not conform to the evil desires you had…” (1 Peter 1:14) to “turn from evil and do good…” (1 Peter 3:11) to “not imitate what is evil…” (3 John 1:11) and to “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7) for “the Lord will rescue [you] from every evil attack.” (2 Timothy 4:18)

I see nothing in here that advocates fighting evil in others or wishing harm on anyone. It’s a shame that a pastor (the word means shepherd) is spreading such false doctrine. But we shouldn’t be surprised. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

(more playing catch up)

First example, the recent release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. On the surface the decision for release sounds reasonable given the circumstance. And you could argue that it’s better to err on the side of compassion (you only need to point towards the debate over the world’s view of the US during the Bush administration to see how important “good will” is to many). However, the pomp and circumstance when he landed in Libya tells the rest of the story. I don’t know if there was a backroom deal or not. But by releasing al Megrahi, the UK gave Libya a bargaining chip and a boost to their own patriotic ego. In that context, I don’t think the cost was worth the price of being compassionate.

In the second example, a family is denied adoption because they are atheists. There’s nothing about this case that makes sense to me, from the family waiting 17 years after their first adoption to adopt again (I’m sorry, but for personal reasons I take adoption very seriously), to the legal statute being used to deny this second adoption. It is an interesting statement in the state Constitution, but if applied broadly would give child-welfare agencies the right to remove children from non-believing households. Where do you draw the line? If a family misses church two Sundays in a row, can the state take custody of their children? That’s as ridiculous as that right being applied in this case. You could even go so far as to call this judge an “activist judge”, but that rhetoric only comes from one side of the spectrum. So it’s unlikely you’ll see this decision derided by those who rail against judicial activism.

In both cases, the prevailing religious motive has some merit, but the application is not thought about broadly or long term. Religion has no place guiding policy. There, I said it. However, religion informs morality which can, does, and should guide policy. Yet the application needs to be weighed against the broader context of a democratic, pluralistic society. The problem with either the Religious Right or Religious Left is that this thought process is in the wrong order. For the religious politician, politics informs religion which then guides policy. Note how this is circular. The Christ-like way should look like this instead: morality informs religion (see the change in order) which guides action. The notion that morality defines religion, not vice-versa, is foreign to American Christianity ™ and thus confuses the religion-in-politics debate.

“Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs…” (2 Timothy 2:3-4a)