News Intelligence Analysis
let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches [of America]:
“I know thy works.”
Rev. 3:22
Do We Have a Christian Presidency?
by Dennis Crews
December 3, 2004
Last week I received the following statement in an email from a correspondent:
“I cannot understand any American believer with a solid and consistent walk with the Lord voting for any other candidate in this election than George W. Bush—can’t understand them, but am compelled to love them.”
I offer the following as a possible explanation. Most of it is from a letter written a few weeks ago to another old friend, who feels much as this correspondent does about our president. Some of my correspondent's concerns aren’t covered here (homosexuality, abortion etc), but this is long enough already. I hope readers can wade through the first part of my reply, as there are some principles to establish before getting to his answer:
Back in the early part of the Old Covenant, Israel was judged by prophets. But Israel wished to be like the nations around them – they wanted a king to rule them (1 Samuel 8:4-9). This wasn’t God’s preference, but he granted the people their wish. Not all Israel’s kings were good men, were they? There were David, Solomon and Asa, but there also were Rehoboam, Abijam, Nadab, Ahab – kings who led the people away from God, into idolatry and servitude. So when you say, “God, in His wisdom, appoints leaders for His purposes and plans” I have to try and understand the way in which you mean this. I’ve asked you for clarification on questions like this before, but still remain in the dark.
My correspondent also says, presumably in response to my objections to the loss of life in this present war, “God has fought many wars and battles for His people. And many innocent children and women were slain, as God often told the Israelites to leave no remnant behind of the many nations they conquered.”
Yes, this is true. At the time Israel was a theocracy under the Old Covenant, they were guided by prophets, the high priest had the Urim and Thummim stones on his breastplate for divine revelations. The Shekinah glory resided above the mercy seat of the Ark in the most holy place of the tabernacle. There were blood sacrifices pointing toward the Lamb of God to come, and Mosaic law permitted eye-for-eye retribution. Sinners were stoned, the law was an outward force that people feared more than they understood, and they understood it less as time went by. The people abused the Old Covenant by turning sacrifice into commerce; cruelty was rampant.
Jesus came “to magnify the law, and make it honorable” (Isaiah 42:21). God did not want the service of fear, nor was he pleased by the rivers of blood from people’s sacrifices. He desired mercy, and the service of love, which is a higher motivation than fear (Hosea 6:6). Jeremiah 31:33 prophesied the terms of the New Covenant: God’s law would be written in his people’s hearts. And so God sent his Son, who showed that the entire divine law is an expression of love – a revolutionary concept to many, but most of all to the religious leaders. The first four commandments were condensed by Jesus into one: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength.” And the second is like unto it: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets Matt. 22:36-40.
Jesus didn’t negate any of the commandments – he magnified them, so people could understand the principle behind them. But the Old Covenant had run its course. No longer was the eye-for-eye law valid. Jesus superseded it in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:38-48). Now there was a higher path of obedience. Paul recognized it: ”Love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). Peter said “Love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).
This is why Jesus, instead of encouraging the Pharisees to stone the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11, told them “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.” Nobody qualified! This was a radical new precedent. Most of all, Jesus wished to awaken love for God in the woman’s heart – not fear and self-loathing, as the Pharisees did (and still do). God is not willing that any of his children should perish, but that all should come to repentance (1 Peter 3:9, Ezek. 18:23). It is the goodness of God, his love, that leads to repentance – not his wrath. Rom. 2:4.
At Christ’s death the veil in the temple was torn top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matt 27:51). The most holy place was laid open to common eyes, the glory had departed. The sacrificial system was finished – the Lamb of God, to whom all other sacrifices pointed forward, finally had been offered (see Hebrews 9 & 10 for a deeper study on this). Now salvation was by faith in Jesus Christ alone. The Old Covenant was torn asunder with the temple veil; the New Covenant is the very essence and vitality of the Christian faith.
Paul says in 1 Thess. 5:21, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” This isn’t a suggestion, it’s an imperative. Let’s now prove George Bush’s Christianity. He places great stock in the American people knowing just where he stands, and in his own consistency. As governor of Texas he signed off on a record number of executions. Many Christians across the country pled with him to commute Karla Faye Tucker’s death sentence. Her crime was heinous, but her new life was an electrifying testimony to the transforming power of Jesus Christ. Even her jailers were awed by her example. Instead Mr. Bush executed her – after God had turned her life into a beacon for good. This fits nowhere in biblical Christianity; it was like stoning the woman brought before Jesus, only worse – after complete reformation had taken place.
Nobody is arguing that the criminal justice system be overturned, but if ever there was an opportunity for a leader to show what it means to be a follower of Jesus, that was George Bush’s golden moment. Instead the governor reverted to vindictive, Old Covenant logic. He extinguished Karla Faye Tucker’s light, to prove to his constituents that he was tough on crime. Nearly everything he has done since then has flowed from this same Old Covenant logical base.
I have said before that I do not regard George Bush a wicked man, but I believe his religious rhetoric is hollow and his general policies and demeanor not reflective of true Christianity. This president sought to circumvent Geneva conventions, to find a legal means by which torture can be used, and his office justified itself by finessing the law. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” Gal 5:4.
I’m not trying to conflate Constitutional law with God’s law here. My point is simply this: if a man rises to prominence and power over the lives of others on his claims of Christianity, and calls Jesus his favorite philosopher, then he owes it to that same Jesus to magnify Christian principles with his policies. A tree is known by its fruit, and a true Christian leader would hold his administration to the highest possible standards, rather than seeking novel ways to lower permissible standards of behavior by using fine points in the law. The New Covenant in the president’s heart would be a bulwark against such things, but without it carnal, Old Covenant policies will ensue. 2 Cor. 3:14-18 may offer more food for thought on this.
The Iraq war further confirms the Old Covenant value system. Human life meant less than making a point – whatever that point may have been. Romans 12:17 says, “Provide things honest in the sight of all men,” but no factual case was ever made for plunging another sovereign nation into chaos. The counsel of multitudes was dismissed (Prov. 20:18, 11:14). We were going to war – for any reason or none at all. As Colin Powell observed, after 9/11 the president wanted to kill somebody. God’s law says “Thou shalt not kill.” Of course in a sinful world there will be wars of necessity, but this president chose gratuitous war, to the dismay of millions around the world. Turning a blind eye to all the casualties, or worse still excusing them by saying that “we are clay, some vessels are made for honor, others for destruction,” is folly and presumption; only the Creator has the moral prerogative to take life at will.
The administration’s steadfast refusal to negotiate for the lives of hostages taken in Iraq repudiates the Good Shepherd’s active love. When Pfc. Keith Maupin’s face appeared in news accounts last April I was shocked at his resemblance to my own son, and thought Mr. Bush surely would move heaven and earth to find him. Negotiation is not capitulation; in fact the FBI’s Crisis Negotiation Unit is authorized to help manage kidnapping situations overseas involving U.S. citizens, and has done so in over a hundred incidents. The CNU's motto is pax per conloquium, or “resolution through dialogue.”
The president's favorite philosopher provided even stronger motivation to leave no stone unturned to bring Maupin to safety: “If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and go into the mountains, and seek that which be gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoices more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” Matt. 18:12-14.
But Keith Maupin was executed by his captors, without even minimal attempt at “resolution through dialogue,” nor the least assumption of responsibility by the commander in chief who sent him to war. The abandonment that young man must have felt once he realized no one was negotiating to save his life is horrible to contemplate. Now there have been so many more. Imagine Kenneth Bigley's and Margaret Hassan’s despair, knowing the British government stood firmly with America’s president, and would refuse to make any conscientious effort to save their lives. Let not Christianity be mingled in any way with such policies. It’s one thing to lay down your own life for a cause; it is entirely another to spend others’ lives.
Sometimes it seems America today stands exactly where Israel did when they asked Samuel to anoint them a king. Evangelicals have unwittingly (or perhaps not?) chosen as their model their very declared enemy: militant Islam, who also embraces a theocracy! Of all absurdities, this caps them. We have no divine mandate to do this – God has manifestly blessed America as a Democratic Republic, and the Old Covenant is dead. Yet we are creeping inexorably toward the closest thing the evangelical right can approximate to a theocracy, and surely you must be aware of these ambitions. I submit that Mr. Bush’s religion is a perfect fit for those who wish to bring America to such a destination.
“God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen, to take dominion…What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him...” (Pat Robertson, on the 700 Club). This attitude is dominant now all over the evangelical world. Contrast this with Jesus’ words in Matthew 23, the whole chapter. But focus on this: “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” v 11, 12.
With America’s vast wealth and power we have the means not only to be a great servant but a historical inspiration to the world. But we now are spending over a billion dollars a week waging war and further embittering our enemies, with full support of the evangelical right, when the over $150 billion spent by our government on this war since last March could have cut world hunger in half already, plus covered AIDS medicine, childhood immunization and clean water for the developing world for more than two years! Which of these courses would be more consistent with what Jesus taught and lived?
Romans 12:17 says to “recompense no man evil for evil.... If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good” v 20, 21. Vengeance is God’s business, not ours. People snicker up their sleeves at such suggestions, saying it isn’t government’s role to feed the hungry, this is not an admonition for governments. To which I would respond: it is indeed, if any government characterizes itself as a Christian government.
People who love power always have seen Jesus’ way as weakness but the truth is, no government has ever tried it. At a time when America fancies itself in a spiritual war (General Boykin’s characterization) with an enemy that has set itself against our “Christian” ideals, with an administration trying to capitalize on ”moral values” – yet our leaders won’t reckon with the very foundational principles Jesus taught and modeled, where are we really? Prove all things. That’s essential – otherwise we become spiritual dupes. And such hypocrisy will only worsen America’s position in the world at large, as the Holy Spirit retreats and we are left to reap the violent consequences of our failures. This is a profoundly disturbing prospect.
My definition of Christianity is simple: the religion taught and modeled by Jesus Christ. I’m still trying to understand what the evangelical right’s definition is. Nobody over there will address that question, and I’ve been asking for many months. I’m dismissed as a kook (which is okay with me, as long as I can get people to think). You spoke truly: in the end all that matters is whose book we’re in – but in the meantime what entities are we supporting down here with our material efforts and moral encouragement? All through spiritual and scriptural history, the powerful side has rarely been the morally right side. And in these times of great spiritual upheaval that fact is surely worth contemplating.
May the scales fall from America’s eyes. Let our leaders declare their every policy proceeds from the will to power, not from Christianity, and let the American people choose from truth instead of mythology. Then at least we can begin to have an honest debate.
Right now we’re living in a moral house of illusions, and we ought to be wide awake. As I told my correspondent, I know there are many sincere people out there – but I believe they need to start wrestling with core biblical issues independent of pastors and leaders who have a vested interest in political outcomes.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/dorfman-chile.html - see excerpt below:
“...And so, we come to George W. Bush.
“I doubt that he paid attention to this dilemma shattering the Chile he briefly visited, and I would wager that he has never allowed the misgivings and moral questions we Chileans are facing to surface in his soul. Bush has not, of course, directly ordered the torture of his adversaries. But nothing could be more crucial to his second term than to deal with the issues we are working through: how men with immense power are ultimately responsible for the violence perpetrated on remote bodies, how death and destruction can rain down on so many faraway innocent thousands in the name of security and freedom....”
Dennis Crews is a columnist for the Yurica Report. You may contact him at: mailto:[email protected].
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article