America: Love it or Leave it!

 This is a phrase that I most frequently hear from people who consider themselves conservative American patriots.  They are generally referring to protesters, people who complain when a Republican President is in office and who generally are vocal about their discontent with conservative policy.  Oh, yeah, I get that they are just venting frustration and attempting to change the topic of discussion because they can't handle criticism of their favorite politicians.  

But after events in Michigan today, and some of the rhetoric that is now swirling around Washington, DC, it is taking on a new meaning.  

We live in a country with a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people.  Until recently, I thought that it might be next to impossible for a tyrant to emerge here, but the current Presidential administration is giving me second thoughts about that.  So if you're a patriot, and I mean a true patriot, there's nothing wrong with being critical of your government.  You have a recourse for change.  It's called "voting."  If you don't take advantage of it, well, then that's your fault.  If you don't like the results it produces, then if you're a true patriot, you accept the fact that people who think differently than you do have exactly the same rights, privileges and ability to make a change that you do, and when the time comes around again, you go vote again.  

You're not always going to get your way.  In some circumstances and some places, change doesn't happen frequently.  If you aren't happy with liberals in charge of the government in your state, move to one where conservatives are in charge, or accept the results of the elections and go on with your life.  At the federal level, this is a big country and public opinion is going to shift over time.  Chances are good that for about half of your lifetime, you'll have to endure a Presidential administration and a federal government that is dominated by a party that you disagree with.  If you're a patriot, you understand that's part of what comes with being an American.  But you don't make false claims about unfair and "rigged" elections without proof or evidence and you don't threaten to ignore the will of the people if they don't vote like you think they should.  If that's the way you feel, then you need to pack your bags and go somewhere else.  But don't stick around here and mess it up for the rest of us.  

Governor Gretchen Whitmer was elected by the people of Michigan.  After having a governor in office whose policies hastened the state's economic collapse, decimating its cities, his administration's blunders let to contaminating the drinking water in one of its larger cities, Flint, and then he failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership necessary to resolve the crisis, failing to repair the damage that had been done and leaving it without a drinkable water supply for years.  Tired of his failed leadership, the voters overwhelmingly elected Whitmer and provided her with legislative support.  

Faced with another crisis, this time the spread of COVID-19 which hit Michigan hard, Whitmer demonstrated the kind of leadership that the former Republican governor of Michigan never demonstrated.  Exercising her constitutionally-given emergency powers, her leadership helped the state weather the crisis.  Her actions led to slowing the spread of the virus, making sure there was adequate hospital care for the more serious cases, securing adequate testing to help with quarantine efforts and helping the state get through a nasty "peak" period of its spread.  Michigan is now one of the states that is safely opening, recovering nicely and putting people back to work thanks to her efforts and she enjoys a high job approval rating among the state's voters.  

No matter your opinion of her handling of the situation, there has been absolutely no excuse for the criticism she has received from right wing extremists who have bullied and attempted to intimidate state leaders because of the restrictions.  You don't have to like them, but this is America so you have a choice.  You can either decide you're going to live with the situation, because the state government is acting according to the expressed will of the people, or you can leave and go somewhere without those kind of restrictions.  And good luck with that, since the places that have failed to provide the kind of leadership for their state's people that Whitmer has done for Michigan are seeing infection rates and death rates soar.  But there's no tyranny involved here, just a whole lot of ignorance and selfishness.  And some dog whistling from a President who is now suffering politically because he has failed to do what Governor Whitmer has done--protect the people of the United States by taking leadership during a crisis caused by a viral pandemic.  

Americans have frequent opportunity to make whatever changes in their government they want.  They can do it every time they go vote.  The people of Michigan did just that in 2018 and the governor has followed the law in every step she has made to protect the people of her state from the spread of this virus.  If people aren't happy with it they can vote to make a change.  If that doesn't work out, well, if you don't like living under a government "of, by and for" the people, then you are free to go elsewhere to pursue happiness.  Moderates, liberals and progressives are just as entitled to win elections and run the government as conservatives are and when they do, you either live with it, stop complaining and go vote, or leave.  But you don't take up arms and commit treason.  

And if you're occupying the White House, you don't publicly encourage that kind of behavior on twitter.  Voters, take note and hand out some consequences for that, too.  It's your government and you can do it if you want to.  

I'm Not Voting for a "Pastor-in-Chief"...

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.  Isaiah 5:20

Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings who cannot save.  Psalm 146:3

I've pretty much stopped looking at social media over the past month.  As the election approaches, and the tension mounts, the rhetoric is getting pretty ugly.  Most people don't seem to be able to find words to express themselves, so they just post memes which are really statements which are missing rational thoughts.  

One that was particularly annoying tried to make note of the fact that Christians can't vote for a Democrat and be true to their faith.  If you feel that way, you've completely missed the point of the Bible's writers have to say about what it takes to become a Christian.  Aside from the fact that to make such a statement is an incredibly insensitive personal judgement which falls outside the scope of acceptable Christian standards, anyone who would make such a statement is either completely ignorant of what is going on politically, or has made a willful decision to compromise their convictions based on narrow political self-interest.  

A False Dichotomy

Abortion rights are not the only issue in this campaign.  Personally, I'm opposed to allowing abortion to be practiced as a legal means of birth control, and have always been pro-life, from conception to the grave.  But I'm not willing to support the election of a politician whose corruption and narcissistic behavior undermines the integrity of the office he holds as well as the principles of our constitutional free Republic.  This President's incompetence, corruption and lack of integrity are far greater liabilities for the United States of America than the ability of a woman to abort a fetus.  The former is completely undermining the nation.  The latter can be resolved in other ways when those who are opposed to it are willing to get past the idea that a political solution to the problem is the only solution to the problem. 

The evidence of Trump's corruption is documented fact.  Most of the facts which support charges of obstruction of justice by this president came from individuals he himself appointed to office, his own cabinet members and associates who worked with him during his campaign and during the first months and years of his administration.  Is that a surprise?  Prior to becoming President, this man had a reputation wrapped up in years of debauchery and immoral behavior, fraud, lying, cover-ups and crooked business dealings.  

His political enemies have a lot to talk about, but the evidence of his corruption and incompetence has come from those within his own party and his own White House administration.  Some of them realized how bad it was and got tired of carrying the burden associated with it, walking away when they had the chance and saving at least some of their dignity and personal reputation.  Others had to be threatened with indictment and prosecution for their own crimes, well, in fact, some of them were prosecuted but they still provided us with the information.  What Trump has done, which turned up in both the Mueller investigation and in his impeachment, outweighs any possible political benefit that might come out of his dubious position on abortion, about which he has no personal conviction except for its use as a political wedge.  You're not advancing your cause by supporting Trump if this is the reason.   

Some Perspective on Abortion as a Political Football

Abortion isn't going away just because a President has appointed a few conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  The current chief justice has committed himself to the position that the Roe v. Wade decision is, in his own words, "the settled law of the land."  I've never heard Justice Roberts actually articulate any personal conviction about abortion as a practice.  He's Catholic, which is not an indication of his view on abortion one way or the other.  His rulings and comments would indicate that he leans heavily toward the "liberal" perspective on the court with regard to Roe.  He's the gatekeeper, so it is unlikely that under his leadership, the court will ever hear a precedent-setting case that would either take the guts out of the Roe decision or overturn it.  

Trump's two current Supreme Court appointees both testified before the Senate that they hold a view similar to that of Roberts when it comes to Roe v. Wade.  Both have a record which would indicate they are not likely to rule in a way which would overturn previous precedent-setting cases.  Both specifically addressed the issue of Roe v. Wade in public statements in front of both the judiciary committee and the entire Senate that they believe the Roe v. Wade decision is "settled law."  

That kind of zaps the reasoning for Christians to support Trump.  Beyond that, what do you have?  A man who has lived his life and made his fortune capitalizing on his lack of moral conviction and character integrity and flaunting his crude, immoral behavior, the kind of lifestyle every Evangelical Christian pastor preaches against every Sunday.  It's either inexcusable, willful ignorance or a deliberate choice for Christians to support him.  It's hypocritical to excuse it by claiming to be "electing a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief". Collectively, those in the Evangelical right who bashed Bill Clinton because of his lack of character and immoral behavior have turned themselves into hypocrites and liars with their unqualified support of Donald Trump.  I won't put myself in that position. 

Where's the Church? 

Abortion isn't going away until the underlying causes of it are addressed and resolved.  The church, and particularly the Evangelical Conservative American branch of it, has had decades to do something about it besides whine about who is on the Supreme Court.  While spending literally billions of dollars each year on the Christian entertainment industry, and billions more on the principle and interest payments for capacious, luxurious edifices in which people gather for a few hours a week, it spends next to nothing on ministry that would reach into the communities where abortion is rampant because of the lack of education and the presence of poverty and deprivation.  

The Obama administration, of which Joe Biden was a member, invested some real cash in communities where long standing systemic poverty and crime were rampant.  The result was a decline in the crime rate, and a noticeable decline in the number of abortions performed in this country in a year.  Isn't that what we're after?  Yeah, it's a government program but if it helped change hopelessness into hope, provided a light at the end of the tunnel, and helped someone see their way clear to keeping and raising a child instead of aborting a pregnancy, isn't that the desired result?  Better to spend tax dollars that way than on tax cuts for people who are already too wealthy to notice.

And from a Christian perspective, aren't we supposed to be chasing away the kind of ignorance that causes people to make poor decisions by leading them to know Jesus?  Why can't we spend the kind of money on ministry to people where decisions about aborting pregnancies are made based on whether they have a roof over their heads or food to eat, which is why most abortions happen?  Why are we leaving that kind of ministry to the "liberal" churches?  If you want to be taken seriously, then your actions need to be consistent with your words, and on this particular issue, action is sorely lacking.  

Take Some Initiative

Several years ago, I encountered a Christian "children's services" agency operated by a major Evangelical denomination that had an adoption agency as part of its "ministry."  You would think that an agency operated by conservative Christians would be pro-active in making it as easy as possible for good, stable, Christian families to adopt children so that those women struggling with the decision to have an abortion would at least have an option.  That was not the case.  

It was financially impossible for a middle class, working family with a moderate income and not a whole lot of debt to afford an adoption through this agency.  Not only did they not offer any financial assistance at all, but they expected the family to finance the adoption by adding to their debt.  This was in the early 90's, and the cost would have been more than $20,000 in legal fees plus the agency's cut of $12,000 for facilitating and processing the adoption.  Only a small percentage of the families in any given Christian church could afford that and the alternative would be getting in the line to adopt a child through the state, a process which took anywhere from two to five years.  

If conservative Christians are serious about reducing abortion numbers, the should start spending some of the billions they now spend on music, movies and $50 a ticket "Christian" concerts to help their adoption agencies provide the funding for more families to adopt children instead of seeing adoption as a means of making money.  

Do that, and then you might have a reasonable complaint about those of us who aren't supporting the re-election of an immoral, inept, incompetent, unqualified President.  I'm not voting for any of his enablers, either.  Casting a ballot for Biden and against Trump's other Republican enablers leaves me with a clearer conscience and a better perspective on being consistent with my Christian moral values.  Other Christians who feel this way should take note of the same.  You're not voting for a pastor-in-Chief either.  

Why This Evangelical Christian isn't Supporting Trump

Recognizing that two early Christian apostles, Paul and Peter, both made statements about the relationship between God's authority on earth and civil government, I am putting this statement forward as an expression of my right as an American to free speech and free expression.  I believe that to exercise free speech includes the ability to have an opinion about the fitness of politicians for office which does not violate the guidance provided by either of those apostles and which is showing the respect for authority in accord with their position.  See Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-17

Back in 1998, Dr. Adrian Rogers, the well-known pastor of the Bellevue Baptist Church of Memphis and a two-term president of the Southern Baptist Convention preached a sermon entitled, "Does Character Count?"  He was addressing the issue of whether or not Christians should evaluate the moral and ethical character of candidates for any political office and make their decision to support them based on the evidence of that character, or lack thereof.  His message wasn't specific with regard to a particular politician, but what was happening politically in America in 1998 gave many Southern Baptists and other Evangelical Christians a framework by which to publicly criticize then President Bill Clinton and justify their own criticism of him.  And they did.  

Anyone among the religious right back then who would have attempted to defend Clinton with the statement "We're electing a commander in chief, not a pastor in chief" would have been jeered, shunned and declared to be reprobate.  With my own ears, on more than one occasion, I heard pastors and Christian leaders I once respected stated unequivocally that you could not be a Christian and vote for Bill Clinton, citing Dr. Rogers' message, which was printed in at least one of the Southern Baptist Convention's monthly publications, as evidence.  I don't think Dr. Rogers actually went so far as to question the spiritual integrity of someone who voted for a particular candidate, but plenty of others did.  

Times have changed, quickly.  Dr. Rogers' message has disappeared from the archives of SBC Life, the magazine in which it was originally published.  The support that the current President receives from the same quarter that was, at times, vicious and caustic in criticizing Bill Clinton would indicate that the kind of personal morality and ethical behavior which are indications of the kind of character about which Dr. Rogers wrote are relative, not absolute, based on the political affiliation of the individual candidate, not on acceptance of any Biblical standard.  I would not speculate on whether Dr. Rogers would have walked his sermon back now, since he passed away before the current occupant of the White House came along but it is clear that many Evangelical Christians have either long since forgotten his words, or are deliberately ignoring and rejecting them since it no longer fits their political interests to demand that candidates for public office demonstrate a higher level of moral character than society deems acceptable.  

Citing Dr. Rogers words, perhaps along with a few Bible verses, in judging and condemning President Clinton and any Christian who supported him, but now claiming to be voting for a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief to give Trump a pass would be sheer hypocrisy, wouldn't it?  I accept Dr. Rogers' perspective on the matter and I agree that character counts. And that's the main reason why I cannot support the sitting President's bid for re-election.  

Yes, Character Does Count:  Making the Case Without Condemnation or Judgement

Donald Trump was a businessman, a celebrity, a television personality and a well-known "man of the world" (his own description) long before he decided to run for President.  There's no hiding who he was or what he did, mainly because he celebrated his behavior and built his personal fame by reporting his escapades and ensuring that the entertainment and gossip media in particular were always aware of what he was up to.  He bragged about his multiple affairs across three marriages, celebrated sexual deviancy and perversion and promoted it by packaging it into sexually oriented business enterprises, tabloid television and media and gaming operations most Evangelical Christians would call sinful vices.  Clinton tried to hide his immorality, Trump promotes his to turn a profit.  

And that's not making a judgement, that's simply an observation.  Trump lives as he chooses and celebrates it, setting his own standards for morality and making his own determination of what is ethical.  Those are choices he has made and as far as his faith and eternal destiny are concerned, that's between him and God.  But as an American citizen, I have higher moral and ethical expectations of those whom I vote for to serve in political office.  Personally, I don't consider what he does either entertaining or amusing and to engage in it and then sell it to the public for a profit is an indication of moral and ethical weakness.  It creates a lack of respect that disables the kind of leadership capability necessary to serve in public office, particularly the Presidency.  And Trump has proven his lack of character to be a major obstacle to his ability to exercise any kind of effective leadership.  

Dr. Rogers made a case widely accepted by Christians back in 1998 that character in the person of the President of the United States matters.  If I was critical of Bill Clinton's character in office, and I certainly was, then I can't support Trump for exactly the same reason.  

The Most Corrupt Administration in American History

The United States, in spite of the lofty idealism that created it, has had to endure political corruption just like everywhere else in the world, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the perspective used to look at it.  But no presidential administration has had the kind of hard evidence of corruption brought against it like the Trump Administration.  And while his supporters blithely dismiss virtually all of it as politically motivated, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of evidence that has been turned up in investigations has come not from Democrats and his political enemies, but from his friends, associates, appointees and former supporters!  

Pay attention.  Do some reading and some research.  There's a volume of evidence, over 400 written pages of it, which outline corruption among Trump and his first presidential campaign that will make the hair on the back of your neck stand up in horror.  It's called The Mueller Report.  Don't even think about engaging in a discussion of Trump's corruption without having read through that volume.  For over two years, an investigation did impeccable research mostly into Russian interference in the election on Trump's behalf and established that it did indeed occur, beyond any shadow of doubt.  It also established, through the testimony of people who were mostly Trump's business and political associates, that he tried to cover it up and attempted to criminally derail the investigation.  

The investigation succeeded in gathering enough evidence to gain multiple felony convictions or confessions and plea deals from eight of Trump's closes associates.  Testimony came from a litany of well-known and well-respected Republicans and American military leaders.  

The same can be said for the investigation into the Ukrainian connection.  The information that came out of the investigations did not come from Democrats and political enemies of Trump, it came from people who were working inside his administration, many of them who were given direct orders by the President to do things that were illegal and which they were forced to do because they were following orders and had their livelihood threatened if they didn't.  

The list of Republicans who have provided massive amounts of information about mind-boggling corruption in the White House under Trump reads like a who's who of loyal Republican party liners.  General John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff under Trump.   General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, former Secretary of Defense.  John Bolton, Trump's national security advisor.  Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the former senator from Alabama.  Reince Priebus, another former White House chief of staff.  Anthony Scaramucci, a Trump insider and business associate who served the shortest term as White House communications advisor in history.  That doesn't count those who had to have the information dragged out of them by threats of indictment.  

The mother lode of evidence of Trump corruption came from his own attorney, his "fixer," Michael Cohen.  If you're concerned about corruption in politics, why haven't you asked the question as to why a President needs a "fixer" anyway?  What Republican would tolerate a Democratic President having an attorney who publicly acted on his behalf as a "fixer"?  Donald Trump was already a con artist and a crook with quite a reputation for using his money to get out of debt and problems long before he became President.  You've deceived yourself if you thought he'd be different in office.  

I have multiple references to cite here supporting my contentions as facts, noting that the scope, breadth and depth of corruption in the Trump administration is massive, documented and largely ignored by his supporters.  The impeachment got it right.  Who knows him better than his former friends, business associates and political appointees?  They're the ones who have uncovered and documented his corruption. 

Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who contrive mischief by statute?  Psalm 94:20

Incompetence in Office

There is nothing that illustrates Trump's lack of fitness and ability to lead this country more than his handling of the Coronavirus pandemic.  He is incapable of listening to advice or responding to crisis. His reaction, when he is wrong, is to lash out, blame everyone else but his own inept incompetence for the mistakes, fire people and then make false claims to try to prove to everyone that he was always right and claim that political opposition is engaged in a conspiracy against him.  

The dereliction of duty and the gross negligence and incompetence demonstrated by Trump's failure to handle this pandemic is his most egregious failure in office, and that's saying something in an administration that has been profoundly" Hoover-esque" in its indifference and lack of accomplishment.  From his initial declaration that it was a "hoax" perpetrated against him to his publicly stating that he takes "no responsibility" for the failures of his administration to do anything but whine about his own CDC officials to his attempts to get political gain out of his criticism of the governors of states that did step up and show leadership his handling of this crisis has been inexcusably incompetent. If it had indeed been a war against a foreign adversary, as he suggested it was, by now we would have been defeated and occupied by the enemy.  

And what if we did become involved in a war, which is a heightened possibility with the kind of unstable, impulsive reactions exhibited by this President?  That possibility alone is enough to make sure he doesn't get a second term in office.  

The states that have managed their peak and are returning to normal are those same ones that Trump criticized when their governors and legislatures decided to take leadership and do something about it when he wouldn't.  All but a few of the others have seen how it works and are following the lead of governors like Andrew Cuomo, Gretchen Whitmer and J. D. Pritzger, among others, whose states are seeing businesses open, jobs return and the virus managed and controlled, diminishing in spread.  Even in hard hit California, it's not as bad as it has been in places like Arizona, Florida and Texas, and the people there know it.  

Aside from the viral pandemic, a stream of largely worthless and unenforceable executive orders is the sum total of this administration's achievements.  That, along with the exodus of more than a hundred of its own appointees to positions in cabinet agencies and the isolation of the United States from its most loyal military and economic allies is its only legacy.  

Policy Decisions

From my perspective, I've already made my case for not voting for Trump. To keep it brief, I'll just touch on a few of the things Trump has bragged about doing but has failed to achieve. 

1.  It's been four years, two with a Republican majority Congress, but we've seen no proposal, not even the broadest outline for the health care plan that Trump claimed would be the best thing we've ever seen.  Nothing.  Nada.  All he's done is attempt to sabotage and starve the existing Affordable Care Act plans which has had the effect of insurance premiums doubling, mostly on the working class people who supported his election in 2016.  

2.  His tax cuts turned out to be exactly what his critics said it would be, money in his own pocket and those of his billionaire buddies, but it amounted to less than a token for some of the middle class, an average of less than $7.00 a year for most, and turned out to be an actual increase for hourly wage earners and small businesses.  Taking away the exemption, even with standard deduction doubled, actually increased taxes for 60% of Americans who work for a living.  

3.  No real progress has been made in the direction of a "pro-life" perspective on abortion.  It won't be, either, as long as Christians allow politicians to use it as a political football like Trump does instead of actually caring about it and holding genuine convictions about it.  Trump's priority in judicial appointments has been to ensure that those he places on the bench believe that a sitting president is immune from prosecution and that's resulted in the appointment of two Supreme Court justices who declared in front of the US Senate that they believe Roe v. Wade is the "settled law of the land."  

Abortion won't be reduced or ended in this country legislatively, and a candidate's position on the matter won't change that.  The church has lost a lot of ground spending its time and resources and aligning itself with politicians who don't produce when it could have been influencing, educating, assisting with alternatives and basically preventing abortion by bringing people to Christ which is its mission and purpose.  It has made virtually no progress on this issue for its political alignment and involvement and monetary investment going all the way back to the Reagan administration.  

Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.  When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.  Psalm 146:3-4

In Conclusion

Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech.  I Peter 3:10

Trump appears to have a measure of contempt for the intelligence of his own base. Recently, a Trump television ad appeared, showing pictures of burning buildings, of riots that have edged in front of some protests and made note of the increase in social unrest and violence that has occurred in the past weeks since the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis.  The ad claims that if Biden is elected, protests, riots, looting, arson and social unrest will be the result.  But the fact of the matter is that we already have violence, social unrest, rioting and looting and it is occurring under Trump's presidency, not Biden's.  In fact, all of those scenes that are playing in those ads are visual pictures of the America that has resulted from four years of the Trump presidency.  The social unrest is a response to his failed leadership, not Joe Biden's.  It's not a vision of what the future will look like, it is photographic evidence of what is happening now.  

I don't think I could cast a ballot for anyone running for public office who demonstrates that kind of contempt for my intelligence.  

Somewhere in the blend of Evangelical Christian doctrine and theology is an explanation for why so many conservative Christians seem willing to follow a politician whose character and behavior is so much at odds with what they claim to believe, simply because he's willing to pick up an issue like abortion and use it as a political football.  Most Evangelical Christian churches and denominations see themselves as a restoration of a "true church of Christ" which was lost somewhere in human history between the first century and the founding of America.  

Growing up in an Evangelical church connected to an Evangelical denomination, I heard many, many sermons from many, many pulpits claiming doctrinal superiority to traditional Christian expressions like the Catholics and Orthodox, and even over many of the mainline Protestants.  Blend that kind of belief in your own superiority and in the righteousness of your own faith with futurist eschatology and partisan politics and it at least explains the inconsistency of placing a higher value on the President's lip service to a single issue than on any consideration of his character based on moral and ethical standards found in the Bible.  It does not, however, justify the demonization of the opposition.  

He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it.  For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil. I Peter 3:11-12

I can't ignore Trump's character.  And if I acknowledge that character is, as these words of scripture indicate, important in determining how I as a Christian cast my ballot, then I cannot vote for Trump, nor can I support any politician who has helped enable him.

 

Statues, History and the Confederate States of America

A screen-print of a photo taken at sunset on the Gettysburg National Battlefield hangs on the wall of my office.  It was a gift from the parent who took the photo while we were chaperoning a school class on a three-day field trip.  The sunset was absolutely gorgeous, the gray clouds and blue sky above and the green fields and trees below made a perfect portrait.  Only the cannons to the right, on the ridge that slopes gently upward on the right side of the picture give a hint that it was taken on a former battlefield.  

But that spot on the battlefield is the place where one of the most significant events in American history occurred, a place perhaps more important than Yorktown in that what occurred there led to the preservation of American ideals and freedom beyond what was achieved by the American Revolution.  The cluster of trees in the center of the photograph is known as the "copse of trees" marking the "high watermark of the Confederacy.  At that place, on July 3, 1863, the Confederate army under General Robert E. Lee made its furthest advance against the Union army lines on the battlefield that marks its furthest penetration into Union territory during the Civil War.  

The specific part of the battle in which this event occurred is known as Pickett's Charge.  In an attempt to end the battle and open a way for his army to advance towards Harrisburg, Lee ordered General Longstreet to charge the Union line on the top of Cemetery Ridge.  Lee hoped to force Lincoln to sue for peace and preserve the Confederacy's existence by threatening or capturing Harrisburg and breaking the Union line at Gettysburg was the key to that.  The Union's last stronghold on the battlefield was the line on Cemetery Ridge.  The cannon were lined up near the top of the ridge and the soldiers were lying behind the low rock wall about thirty yards in front of the ridge, just below the copse of trees.  

The Union line held.  At one point, a group of Confederate soldiers succeeded in getting past the wall in an attempt to reach the artillery line and spike or turn the cannons.  They reached the small cluster of trees (which was probably much thicker and larger in 1863 than the photo now shows) but that was as far as they got.  There is a small plaque at that point noting the location as the high watermark of the Confederacy, representing its furthest advance on the battlefield during the war.  From that point forward, Lee and his army was in retreat and the end of the unjust and oppressive institution of slavery in the United States was within sight.  

It is not possible to talk about the event being "history" and look at events on the battlefield without understanding why there was a Civil War in the first place.  My first tour of the Gettysburg battlefield was led by a retired middle school history teacher who, along with his expertise and knowledge of every movement of the battle, also believed that God's divine presence was there, guiding the decisions that were made and the events that occurred which led to the defeat of the Confederacy and the end of institutional slavery in America.  

In a speech now known as the "Cornerstone Address" given by a former Georgia congressman who became Vice President of the Confederate States of America, Alexander Stephens claimed that slavery was a "fundamental and just result of the inferiority of the Negro race."  It was this specific "truth", in Stephen's opinion, that cause the sharp contrast in ideology between the United States Constitution and the constitution of the Confederacy and which Stephens used to justify secession and ultimately the attack on the U.S. military at Ft. Sumter leading to war.  An exact quote from Stephen's speech makes this very clear.  "Our new government foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man."  Stephens notes in his speech that belief in this "truth", not some vague diagreement over "states' rights", is what separates the Confederacy from the United States government.  

The Confederacy was defeated.  It was a rebellion against the United States, not just its government but by extension, its people.  Secession, along with the attack on Ft Sumter leading to war, was an act of treason, and the leaders of the Confederacy were duly charged after the war, though the sentences and penalties were very light and extremely forgiving.  That alone is more than enough reason to disqualify anyone involved in the leadership and support of the Confederate States of America from being memorialized and honored with statues, monuments, and having buildings, schools, and particularly military bases named after them.  Acknowledging history is one thing, honoring those who rebelled, attacked and fought against your own country is something else.  

It isn't possible to separate the Confederacy from slavery.  Slavery is, by any Biblical standard, the evil exploitation of human beings, a practice that devalues the sanctity of human life and demonstrates a love of money over love for others.  The Confederacy, via its constitution and in the words of its Vice President Alexander Stephens, decided to call evil good, and go to war against those who believed otherwise.  American perspectives on race weren't settled in the Northern states by any means, but they were solid enough not to give up on preserving the Union even when the military situation got bad.  That's why placing statues and monuments to Confederate leaders in public parks and government buildings and flying the Confederate flag is giving honor to the nation's enemies.  It's as plain and simple as that.  

How the Church Resolved the Problem of Racism...

...and still has the power to do the same thing today.

One of the most remarkable days in the early history of the Christian church is the Day of Pentecost.  Jews who had been scattered by various conquests and invasions but had remained faithful came to Jerusalem to celebrate.  The Holy Spirit came upon the members of the Christian church at that time in dramatic fashion, visibly appearing as flames of fire while breaking down the barrier of language among the Jews gathered from different parts of the known world, allowing those gathered to hear that the Messiah had come in the form of Jesus of Nazareth who had just been crucified and resurrected from the dead.  Peter preached, the message was heard and received, the Holy Spirit was present and three thousand souls were added to the kingdom.  The conversion of so many Jews from different places guaranteed that the gospel would be spread and churches would be planted among Jewish communities everywhere to which those who were saved in Jerusalem would return.

But as miraculous and barrier-crossing event as that was, even after Pentecost, the Christian church and its leaders still saw the gospel as only being for Jews.  The church had bridged the social and religious prejudices and barriers that existed within Jewish religious culture, but its leaders still could not fathom that the message of salvation in Christ was intended for gentiles.

The first indication that the developing church would break down, and inevitably ignore, ethnic and racial barriers is found in the account of Jesus and the disciples travelling through Samaria, where Jesus encounters the woman at the well and miraculously reveals himself as the messiah to her.  While Samaritans were not really of a completely different race, the differences that developed between them and the Jews taken into captivity in Babylon meant that they were separated by ethnic prejudice and hatred.

Following Pentecost, the first account of the conversion of a Gentile to Christian faith is slipped into the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.  Prompted by the Holy Spirit, Phillip encounters an Ethiopian court official returning home from Jerusalem.  Apparently, he was a Jewish proselyte, not an unlikely situation at the time.  At the instigation of the Holy Spirit, Phillip does something a good, practicing Jew would never do.  At the invitation of the Ethiopian, Phillip gets into his chariot.  This would be a "double whammy" in Jewish culture since the man was a gentile and a eunuch, both conditions which would have made him "unclean" and caused Phillip to become unclean as well. But this racial barrier is broken in an instant.  Phillip shows the Ethiopian that Jesus is the Messiah about whom Isaiah speaks.  The Spirit opens his heart and mind to the gospel and he is baptized.  This is clearly a spiritual initiative because Phillip is "swept away" and the eunuch does not see him again following his baptism.  So this African man becomes the first gentile convert to Christ mentioned in the New Testament.

The narrative in the book of Acts moves to Peter's encounter with Cornelius, a Roman who also appears to be a proselyte to Judaism, or who at least has a working understanding of the Jewish covenant and scriptures.  A meeting that wouldn't have happened without the prompting of the Holy Spirit, who moves Peter through a vision in a dream, giving him the courage to set his Jewish convictions aside and visit Cornelius' home where a potential church was already gathered.  Peter explains that it is unlawful for him, as a Jew, to enter the home of a gentile.  The key words in the English narrative as translated in the NRSV are "but God."  

"But God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean."  And right there, in the words of one of the church's Apostles, is the whole foundational Christian teaching on the matter of race and ethnicity.  Cornelius had gathered all of his relatives and friends and they were sitting there, ready to listen and willing to respond, waiting to hear from Peter.  Pentecost happened again as the Holy Spirit appeared, giving each of those who were gathered the same miraculous gifts that confirmed his presence the first time Peter preached.  Grace was poured out, God answered the question and resolved the difficulty right then and there.  Peter would still struggle with this issue, and so would the church, which struggles with every issue that it attempts to resolve on its own and not by depending on the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, it caused a controversy.  Peter faced a critical inquiry when he went back to Jerusalem because the word had come back to the church leaders there that Peter had gone to Cornelius' house and that he had preached, fellowshipped, and eaten with the uncircumcised, and had baptized them. The scripture says that after he explained everything to them, "they were silenced."  (Acts 11:18).  And they praised God saying, 'Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life."  Was it really that easy?  Was an ingrained, cardinal doctrine based on centuries of religious bigotry and hatred overcome by a single encounter with the Holy Spirit based on the testimony of the experience by a single apostle?  But God....

But God...
The boundaries of centuries of religious and racial prejudice set in place by Jewish practice were swept away in these encounters with the Holy Spirit.  God had a purpose he intended to accomplish through Christ and that was the salvation of his human creation.  Think about the depth of religious bigotry that prevented people from associating with people of a different racial and religious background to the point where it was believed that to do so separated one from the presence of God and required a lengthy, obnoxious purification ritual to regain your previous status.  How would the gospel get shared across a gap like that?

But God's presence gave both Phillip and Peter confidence that they were following his will and boldness to take the necessary steps to do it.  Phillip climbed into the chariot with an Ethiopian who, by Jewish law was unclean first because he was a gentile and second because he was a eunuch.  Phillip's action not only won the man to Christ, but also opened the door for the gospel to be preached in Ethiopia.  Peter crossed the threshold of a house where a group of people had gathered for the purpose of becoming a church.  The Holy Spirit's response, witnessed by one of the church's apostles, open the door for the eventual evangelization of the whole world but the miraculous signs poured out on the gentile believers testified to the fact that they were God's chosen as well and that what had been symbolized by the torn veil in the Temple was a prophetic occurrence come to pass.

The Church Resolving Racism Today
The early church in Jerusalem clearly did not have a concept that included preaching the gospel to gentiles.  Even though it can be seen from this side of those events in the Old Testament scriptures, at the time they were blind to it.  Look at the dramatic transformations which were required to convince the leaders.  Phillip was physically moved from the spot where he baptized the Ethiopian to Azotus as confirmation of the Spirit's presence.  Peter witnessed a full repetition of the Pentecost experience at Cornelius' home following a supernatural revelation through a vision.  It took the same kind of spiritual encounter to lead Paul to a transforming encounter with Jesus.

In spite of the fact that the indwelling Holy Spirit gives Christians direct access to the "mind of Christ" and to the very wisdom of God (I Corinthians 1 and 2) it is also evident that the fallen nature of the world has had an impact on the church's effectiveness.  Having this spiritual power and wisdom is one thing.  Using it is quite another.  It is not there for us to conjure up at those moments when we seem to need it the most, but set it aside, counting on our own wisdom when we want to do something our own way.  Submission is a requirement when it comes to accessing the Spirit's power because using it is intended to accomplish God's will, not our own.

"But God..." Must be Experienced
The title of the conference was intriguing, the "Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit," hosted by Dr. Dwight McKissic, pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist Church of Arlington, Texas on the church's campus.  The speakers and presenters included pastors from a variety of Baptist churches, some dually affiliated with National and Southern Baptist conventions, some independent, some predominantly African American, some predominantly white, with participants mainly from Texas but from a scattering of other states including Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana.  The title caught my attention, so I went.

Unlike most other church conferences I've attended, the purpose of this one was more on the experiential side and less on the informational side.  The lineup of speakers and worship experiences was intended to focus participants on the Spirit's presence, discerning the Spirit's will, submitting to the Spirit in order to be transformed through an encounter in worship.  I had never experienced anything like it.  The only way I can describe it is that the presence of the Holy Spirit is truly transformational.  I felt conviction, the release of forgiveness, a variety of other emotions, a sense of the presence of God and unity with the other believers who were present.  In the follow-up sessions on the second day, there was openness and fellowship with people I'd never met before.  God was present in the form of his indwelling Spirit.

There was unity.  The divisions between people that were present, from different local churches, different denominational backgrounds, different racial and ethnic backgrounds, were gone.  It dawned on me that, for the first time in my life that I could remember, I was submitted not only to the Holy Spirit, but to the preaching and spiritual guidance of men who were of a different race than me, and it didn't make a difference.  No one pointed that out, not that they had to, but it was something that I noticed.  It made permanent differences to me in many things, not just in the way I approach worship and submit to the Holy Spirit, but in the way I relate to Christian brothers and sisters of different racial, ethnic and denominational backgrounds.  Those are all things which the enemy has used to divide and attempt to conquer the church, quite successfully in most cases, at least among American Christians.

"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God" 
There can be no human agenda in this.  Anything less than complete reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit will fail.  The wounds run too deep.  There are those who don't want to see this issue get resolved, who prefer the status quo and who thrive on hostility.  It's not easy being a peacemaker, it comes with a price called sacrifice.  Look at what happened to Jesus.  We still live in a world where there are those who would rather burn a cross, or nail someone to it than to lift it up as a symbol of redemption.

But God...

Time to Be Silent and Let Somebody Else Speak: Shai Linne on George Floyd

There is very little I can say at this point that will contribute anything to the discussion prompted by the murder of George Floyd.  I think there are plenty of voices coming forward whose life experience has been so very different from mine when it comes to experiencing injustice because of their race.  I do not have anything to contribute to the discussion except that I will do whatever I can to stand against injustice and support the kind of change we need to make things better.

Shai Linne is a recording artist who has released numerous acclaimed Christian hip-hop albums, including his recent release for children, Jesus Kids. He is the author of God Made Me and You: Celebrating God’s Design for Ethnic Diversity and coauthor of It Was Good: Making Music to the Glory of God. After completing a pastoral internship at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., Linne cofounded Risen Christ Fellowship, an inner-city church in his hometown of Philadelphia. Linne, his wife, and three children live in Philadelphia. Learn more at www.shailinnemusic.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/george-floyd-and-me/

The Church and the Governing Authorities

During this current pandemic and the accompanying states of emergency, stay-at-home orders and measures taken by state governments in an attempt to stop its spread, at least to avoid overwhelming hospitals and trying to save lives, the political climate of the day has contributed to a conversation centered around whether or not a state government, specifically a governor, has the authority to include churches in executive orders which limit the size and scope of public gatherings.  The courts, and inevitably the Supreme Court, have been called on to interpret the constitutionality of their executive orders and the extent of their authority.

In a decision specific to a California congregation, the court majority ruled that churches are subject to a governor's emergency executive orders, specifically, orders which limit the size of a gathering during a pandemic.  You can read the media account of their ruling here.  The ruling would also have applied to two Chicago-area churches who had also filed a case with the Supreme Court but the governor changed his executive order when the state moved to a new phase of its re-opening plan.  There has been a lot of muttering, along with some outright civil disobedience, on the part of some churches over whether closing churches is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.  The correct course for churches to pursue in this regard was the pathway through the court system.  The incorrect course, according to the Bible, would be civil disobedience.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.  Romans 13:1-7, ESV

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.  I Peter 3:13-17, ESV

These are the words of two of the most prominent Christian Apostles to the churches.  They have a meaning within the specific context that they were written and there is an interpretation that provides relevant instruction to the church today.  There are some additional scripture passages, among them Jesus' own words, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's", in Matthew 22:21.  Paul puts some clarification to the context behind these words in explaining how Christians in the Corinthian church should handle the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols.  It was an issue that went to the very core of the church's testimony of faith in Christ.  A church that was seen as rebellious against the governing authority would be seen as just another faction, not as a church bringing a message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.

There are no places in the scripture where there is an "opt-out" or an exception to the principles given by the church's apostles in these two passages of scripture.  And while there are a few examples in the New Testament where Christians found themselves at odds with the civil government regarding the restriction of their activity, instead of resistance or civil disobedience, they followed the principles outlined in these scriptures, accepting the consequences that came as a result of their actions.

Paul was a Roman citizen and invoked the rights of his citizenship on multiple occasions to clear a pathway for the gospel ministry to move forward.  This included his eventual appeal to Caesar.  Had Paul been labeled as a troublemaker, rebel, or been involved in civil disobedience as a result of the wrongs done to him by the government authorities, he likely would not have survived.  As it was, his demeanor led to his being permitted to live in a house and continue his gospel ministry in Rome while waiting on his appeal.

The argument that Christians don't have to apply these verses to a "tyrannical" government, or one that doesn't reflect their values has no Biblical support.  In fact, it would not be very many years after these words were written that one of the emperors whom Peter says to honor would begin to distinguish the Christian church from Judaism, perceive that its growth and spread, visible within the city of Rome itself, was a threat to his authority and to his rule and would light the fires of persecution that would result in the deaths of literally thousands upon thousands of Christians and last for over 200 years.  If the church had responded by rebellion or civil disobedience, it would have been wiped out when its numbers were decimated.  But it was the steadfastness of their obedience to Christ, visible in their obedience to these specific passages of scripture, that amplified their testimony among their neighbors, convincing them that Jesus must have been real if he was worth obedience to the point of death.  By the beginning of the third century, evangelism had overwhelmed most of the empire, leading to the conversion of the emperor himself.

I've seen some attempts to justify bypassing the literal application of these passages from Old Testament examples.  But the context in the Old Testament doesn't apply here.  These passages were instructions given to the church in the first century, not to Israel in captivity so the example of both Daniel and that of Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego do not apply.  God allowed the captivity of Israel as punishment for disobedience to his law.  Through his prophets, he gave a direct word to Israel regarding his expectations for their obedience during their captivity and for those who were obedient.  And while the Old Testament makes a clear distinction between the theocratic government of Israel and the surrounding pagans, the Apostles established a church that would transcend the artificial divisions of humanity and be capable of spiritual transformation through the gospel of Jesus Christ in any culture or nation.

Peter makes this distinction very clear:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. I Peter 2:9, ESV

Those words are written to the church, made up of a variety of different nationalities, cultures, former religious backgrounds, races and even economic status.

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11, ESV

There's no question that the early church faced far more opposition and found themselves at odds with the civil government of their day in far more serious and consequential ways than the American church faces in a democratic republic where its members have been a dominant force in the political system and a majority of the members of the elected government at every level are also professing members of Christ's church.  There is no comparison between the persecution that the early church faced at the hands of the Roman emperors and a disagreement with the political position of some members of the various levels of government entities in America.  What others have endured for the cause of Christ makes our grumbling and complaining pitifully petty.

Nothing about the American system of government in any way resembles the context of the times during which Peter and Paul wrote those words.  Executive orders and emergency restrictions issued by governors of various states (irregardless of partisan political affiliation, since such orders were issued across the board by Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike and some of the more restrictive orders were issued by Republican governors) are not some kind of sign of an outbreak of persecution against Christians. 

In the broad, collective definition of the term "church" as it applies to the institutions which exist in the United States, Christianity is still the biggest single influence at virtually every level of government, from municipal to state to federal and there is no other place in the world where the Christian churches receive anywhere near as much government favor.  The churches and church-related institutions in this country just received billions in government assistance for their payrolls and expenses, including churches themselves, which used the funds to pay pastors, church employees and missionaries serving in the field. 

It would have set a better example, and been more in line with the mission and purpose of the church, if more Christians would have looked at the pandemic as an opportunity to step up and do more in the way of outreach and ministry, and less whining and complaining about infringement on rights that they still have and privileges which go beyond the scope of government "neutrality" toward religion and which still cross the line of church-state separation.



.