I am not:
a Republican
a Democrat
a Conservative
a Liberal
a Moderate.
I am not any of these things because I am a Christian, and following Jesus Christ prevents me from buying wholesale any of the world’s systems as if any of them encompassed the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
I am a conscientious objector of the “culture war.” Frankly I am not interested in such a battle as I am currently fighting a spiritual war that God has enlisted all of his followers in.
I do not believe the church can or should “take back America,” because this country never belonged to us. We are aliens and strangers here in this world while we await its redemption, and seeking to take possession of a country is more Constantinian than Christian.
I am not a teetotaler, nor a drunkard, because one neglects the gift of God while the other abuses it.
I am not a “professional,” because God has called me to be a pastor, and as John Piper said, “the world sets the agenda of the professional man; God sets the agenda of the spirital man.”
I am not against labels because they often help to clarify where we stand, what we believe, and how we live. I’ll follow this up with some labels I use.
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 15 comments }
has the church desired to take back america? or is it the church’s desire for god to take back america? a mixture of both, maybe. i think one is more desirable than the other… heaven forbid if the church “takes” america just for itself…
btw, can you add a few more “words” to your rss feed? i get a general idea from what you post, but a bit more “meat” would be nice. thanks!
I have a few labels for ya, but most are not good for a church-based blog so I will IM you about them.
Clearly, it is the church’s desire to control America. Listen to the rhetoric. Taking it “back” implies that it was once a Christian nation – which is another topic.
Concerning the rss feed – I know the atom and the other feed gives the whole shabang. Not sure what to di with the rss. I will see what I can do with it when I get a chance. Thanks for the heads up. For now, the RSS button in the sidebar is the RSS2 feed, and it will display the whole thing. You may just want to switch.
As for Steve. I would take offense, but considering the fact that such words come from a guy who has a clown ministry, I can’t take them seriously.
Steve has a clown ministry? I always took him for a puppet ministry type of guy.
Great post Joe. I am with you on the take back America mentality. There is something about it that just does not sit well with me. I am sure that we will see plenty of it in Greensboro.
thanks for the heads up about the rss, joe!
I’m with you in not aligning myself with any political party or politcal philosophy. The funny thing is that some of my Christian friends give me a strange look when I tell them that I am not a Republican or [fill in lame political party] because I’m a Christian.
I also do not buy into the “take back” America mentality. This seems to be a very popular sentiment in American evangelicalism. Overall I think that it is incredibly harmful to the Church’s mission in this world.
Excellent post Joe. During the early 90s I was all conservative and bought the entire Coral Ridge Ministries line. God’s grace prevailed and I because suspicious of political solutions. Now I’m more in line with what you said. Good words.
Steve’s clown ministry is excellent. He has people covered in confetti laughing themselves into the Kingdom all the time!
Certainly there is a sort of unbiblical blend of hyper-nationalism with Christianity that is certainly repugnant and yet far too prevalent within certain segments of American evangelicalism. But let’s be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater! What should we make of the Reinhold Niebuhr categories of Christ and culture? Isn’t there an appropriate (and distinctly Reformed) place within our biblical perspective toward trusting (in good postmillenialist fashion) that we are to transform our surrounding culture through the power of the gospel (which has direct implications for all of life)?
Hey Matt, thanks for stopping by. I do believe the Gospel redeems our culture along with all of life. This is my point. God does it via the Gospel. There seems to be confusion on this very point – even among some of the Reformed. I believe we should be active, involved, voting, speaking to the problems of our day and working redemptively. This is a part of the “spiritual war” I mention above.
I’ll admit a certain level of discomfort with the ‘culture war’ rhetoric, as it can quickly become the dominant subject of our discourse. But I think it remains an appropriate term nonetheless – isn’t the culture war at its heart a spiritual war? And don’t many of the prominent ‘cultural warriors’ recognize that (although I recognize far too many do not)?
Matt,
Hopefully you get my point and can see that I believe we must be working toward something good.
I think we have overused the war metaphors in the church. They can be biblical, but good grief we use them for everything. But more to the point, I do not think the church is called to war against the “culture.” Our war is against sin, unrighteousness, injustice, the works of the devil, etc. I suppose some would say they are fighting “for” culture, but that is not the tone of the rhetoric I hear.
Part of what I am objecting to is the wholesale adoption of a particular political party, and the way some leaders wind up scolding culture without offering redemption. I object to the overly simplistic perspective many have on politics. Man, from the way our cultural critics interpret and review movies to Justice Sunday – I think we can do much better.
Matt, I agree with Joe on this one. I think, at least in part, the point is that some labels work against our mission and get us on a different one. I’m all for transforming culture, but the “how” is crucial. Will we war with them to change things, or will we work in ways less “militant?”
Even if you don’t like the nomenclature, would you at least concede that it is probably reflective of a reaction against years of a raw and unmitigated absorption of the culture on the part of evangelicals?
Matt, I wouldn’t say that. And I have to admit that I’m not exactly sure what your issue is here. It’s the evangelical tendency to bash in the culture’s skull when they act like sinners (shocking they do this, I know) that makes me run from terms like “culture war.” I’m a culture redeemer, not a culture warrior.
Matt,
My issue is not with the phrase as much as it is the approach. I am not suggesting that every culture warrior’s motives are bad. And let’s say that some evangelicals are reacting to other evangelicals “absorption” of culture. That is a problem itself. It’s reactionary, and the pendulum has swung out to far. I do not think the church should take over the culture, but can work for its redemption as a counter-culture within the culture. And if we do this well we will at times be praised and at times cursed.
The culture warriors look like politicians positioning for power, supporting political parties as if they were God’s second church.
They are shocked that the world hates them because they think America is the New Jerusalem, and everyone should realize this is God’s Country. But the funny thing is, much of the time they are not persecuted/hated because of Jesus, but because of their caustic, cold, judgmental tone toward sinners. They often speak without redeeming words and without love. Why? Because it’s a war.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 6 trackbacks }