Reformation
Political and Spiritual Repentance Bring Twin Rays of Hope
A political tidal wave washed ashore in the United States last night, bringing some hope to a struggling and fearful nation. A few weeks prior, another important but quieter riptide was set in motion in parts of the American nation.
One of these waves was political and the other was spiritual. At the center of both stands the re-emergence of a very important theological truth:
Repentance.
Political and spiritual repentance brought twin rays of hope to America today.
How so?
In my early years as a follower of Christ I wasn’t taught much about the concept of repentance. In fact, in some early discipleship classes, I was told that repentance was an Old Testament concept (primarily) and that it had been superseded in the New Testament by grace and faith.
Then I began to read the Bible for myself and found the word and concept of repentance all over the New Testament. For example:
- The first words that Jesus said when he began his earthly ministry are found in Mark 1:15, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the Good News.”
- Thirty three times the word repent or repentance is mentioned in the NT books and letters (e.g. Matthew 4:17, Acts 20:21, Romans 2:4, 2 Corinthians 7:9,10 and Revelation 2:5).
- In the first recorded sermon of the Early Church era (Acts 3:19), Peter doesn’t mention the word “faith.” In order to be saved he tells people: “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”
My early teachers must have been confused about the concept of repentance. Repenting from sin and error seems to be at the center of both the Old and New Testament teachings.
During my early missions training, I read Mother Basilea Schlink’s excellent book Repentance: The Joy-Filled Life which was required reading in our YWAM schools. That, and my continued reading of Scripture settled me in the truth that repentance was a critical character quality for both individuals and nations.
Repentance is necessary and it brings both joy and hope!
So what does this old theological word really mean?
Our English word repentance comes from the Greek equivalent metanoia which simply means to “re-think,” “change your mind,” or do a U-turn in thinking which, in turn, changes your life.
Sometimes we associate this change of mind with tears, regret, and an emotional experience that we call “repenting.” But the feelings are not the critical element.
Change of thinking is the key.
Changing your mind and life is a vital concept. We come into right relationship with God by re-thinking or changing our minds about our sin and rebellion against God. We’re wrong. God is right. Our change of mind leads to a change of direction–we stop living for ourselves ands start living for God and His glory.
That U-turn–from self-centered living to a God-honoring lifestyle–brings great joy and hope, not just on this earth but a promise of eternal life.
It might be true to say that nothing brings more joy and hope than the fruits of repentance.
Enter the 2014 election.
A Political Tidal Wave
Though I was expecting some change in direction in the American nation through last night’s election, the tidal wave of results truly amazed me and stunned most political pundits.
Politically, America repented last night. Some significant majorities “re-thought” their position on the way the nation was going and changed their votes to point us in another direction. To state it in negative form, they repudiated the growth of incompetent Big Government and decided to give the Republican Party a chance to take us back to smaller government, economic growth, moral values, and national strength.
This was nothing less than political repentance. Call it what you want–buyer’s remorse, seeing the consequences of bad policies, or feeling the pain of domestic and foreign upheavals–the American people went to the polls last night and RE-THOUGHT the direction they wanted America to go.
Their change of mind–repentance–gave birth to a historic change in voting:
- US Senate: The American people gave the Republicans majority control of the Senate with 8-9 pickups (Louisiana needs to go to a run-off). That was big deal, throwing out Majority Leader Harry Reid and bringing in Mitch McConnell and a new slate of leaders.
- US House of Representatives: Added 14 seats to the House of Representatives–the highest total Republicans have had since 1946. The House stands at 247-183, well beyond what analysts expected. A few races in Arizona and California were not called on Tuesday night.
- Governors: Grew Republican governorships to 31 versus 17 Democrats, with Vermont headed into a run-off and Alaska still being counted (if Republican Sean Parnell loses, it will be to independent Bill Walker.) That’s a net gain of four governorships for the GOP. This leaves Democrats at their weakest point in state legislatures since the 1920s.
- State Governments: Republicans seized new majorities in the West Virginia House, Nevada Assembly and Senate, New Hampshire House, Minnesota House and New York Senate, The West Virginia Senate is now tied. (Control of several legislative chambers was still up in the air early Wednesday as counting continued in several tight races that will determine control of the Colorado Senate, New Mexico House and Maine Senate.)
-
The lone bright spot for Democrats was holding majorities in the Iowa Senate and Kentucky House.
I remember being in Washington, D.C. during the days of the Reagan Revolution which brought a conservative president into the Oval Office and threw many liberal bureaucrats out of town. They called that era “Morning in America.”
We’re not there yet, but I see this morning a shining ray of political hope.
All because a majority of the American people repented (re-thought and changed their votes).
A Spiritual Rip-tide
Something else happened on the Sunday before election day (and the weeks and months that led up to it). Thousands of Christian leaders and their people gathered in a Houston Church to show solidarity during “I Stand Sunday.”
You’re probably aware that Houston Mayor Annise Parker, an avowed lesbian and LGBT activist, recently rammed through the city of Houston an ordinance that became known as the “bathroom bill” which allowed trans genders to use any facility they wanted.
In other words, if you were a man but wanted to be a woman, you could use the ladies’ restroom in any public facility (and vice versa). The residents of Houston didn’t like the intrusive bill and collected 50,000 signatures (30,000 were required) to bring it to a vote of the people.
The activist mayor not prevented a vote on the measure (how’s that for “We, the people”), but issued subpoenas to five local area pastors demanding their Free Speech-protected sermons, bulletins, letters etc. Mayor Parker was ticked off that the pastors had mobilized their people to gather the 50,000 signatures that were required to put the referendum on the ballot.
Her actions were shades of Nazi Germany or Communist China–not America.
Instead of Mayor Parker winning her way, she accidently lit a fire storm of protest from a sleeping church that woke up to realize that basic religious rights were being trampled by secular zealots and needed to be resisted.
The Church’s “repentance”–re-thinking their need to be the salt and light in this nation while facing outright persecution–caused them to rise up nation-wide to send Bibles to Mayor Parker’s office, start a cascade of prayer for revival, and led to the scheduling of “I Stand” Sunday on November 2 where thousands gathered in a Houston Church to speak up for freedom.
We can especially thank Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council for leading the “I Stand” charge.
One observer described “I Stand” this way:
“With more than 7,000 looking on within the sanctuary, there was no mistaking the energy and enthusiasm in the auditorium, as people stood and cheered for nine minutes as dozens and dozens of the area’s pastors marched into the sanctuary for the “I Stand Sunday” kick off. As Dr. Ronnie Floyd, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, told listeners, ‘it is time to wake up from our slumber! While Mayor Parker may have overstepped her bounds, that was only possible because the church had fallen asleep at the gate.'”
“’Our greatest problem,’ Dr. Floyd said, ‘is not in the White House, but God’s house!’ If you’re wondering why things like this are happening in cities like Houston, Fayetteville, and San Antonio, look in the mirror. The blame for this doesn’t rest with Annise Parker or the city — but every Christian, who has quietly stepped into the shadows on tough truths.'”
“‘It’s because a lot of people in our churches have said, “I just don’t want to get involved,” former Governor Mike Huckabee explained. ‘My dear friends, when the government comes to your pastor and says, “Cough up all of the sermons, sermon notes and correspondence that the pastor has had with his own parishioners,” you are already involved.'”
“‘It’s time’, Dr. Floyd and others pointed out, ‘to get right with God.'”
Just prior to the “I Stand” event, hundreds of pastors had participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday–an opportunity to resist some unconstitutional edicts of the IRS regarding free speech in the churches. In 2008, 33 churches participated in the thrust.
In 2014, 1600 churches joined the movement.
Numerous prayer thrusts, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, and the “I Stand” movement all galvanized this fall to call the Church in America to repentance–to change our minds and actions–to see people come to Christ in our nation and resist the advance of evil.
A spiritual rip-tide is beginning in this nation that brings a shining ray of spiritual light to the horizon.
In summary, God is moving in the Church and in our nation that could bring positive affects to our nation and the world in the coming years.
Repentance–continuing and deepening repentance–is the key to both, and can bring back hope that comes through change.
Forty Years Ago in August: Time for Another POTUS to Resign?
I was in England on August 8, 1974 when Richard Nixon became the first US president to resign while in office. It was a stunning demise for a formidable politician who served as vice president, lost the 1960 presidential race to JFK, then rose from the ashes to be elected POTUS in 1968 and re-elected in 1972.
The bottom fell out when he was caught at the helm of a minor political break-in that became known as Watergate–and then lied about it. Years of malaise, including the inept presidency of Jimmy Carter, followed in his wake.
I’ve been thinking for six long years about the failing presidency of Barack Obama. As jihadists be-head an American journalist, Russia subtly invades Ukraine, racial riots explode in Missouri, the US economy subsists on life support, and the national debt nears 18 trillion dollars–while President Obama vacations and plays golf–I’m wondering if another US president should resign for the good of the nation.
Two prominent women–one a secular progressive and the other a conservative–beat me to the punch this week.
Here are their sobering words for all of us to consider.
I rarely read Maureen Dowd because she is a fixture of the secular progressive left and almost always on the wrong side of issues. But she is a noted columnist for the New York Times who recently chose to part company with her once beloved president.
Her blistering attack on President Obama’s leadership is called “The Golf Address” published in the NY Times on October 23. It is brilliant in its allegory, yet tragic in its comparison of Abraham Lincoln’s courageous leadership 150 years ago and the current occupant of the White House.
The most famous speech in American history was Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered during the perilous days of the Civil War. It contains only 272 eloquent words spoken with noble character, passion and burden.
It would be worth your while to take less than one minute and read it here.
Dowd compares Lincoln’s sobering masterpiece to the actions of Barack Obama, who, after lamenting the hideous death of journalist Jim Foley, took all of ten minutes to return to his vacation and get back to the golf course. Minutes later he was photographed smiling and fist-pumping a golfing buddy.
This is not just bad optics. It is a failure of presidential leadership of historic proportions.
Ms. Dowd agrees.
“The Golf Address” – by Barack Obama
As seen through the eyes of Maureen Dowd
“FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.”
“I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun.”
“Now we are engaged in a great civil divide in Ferguson, which does not even have a golf course, and that’s why I had a “logistical” issue with going there. We are testing whether that community, or any community so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure when the nation’s leader wants nothing more than to sink a birdie putt.”
“We are met on a great field of that battle, not Augusta, not Pebble Beach, not Bethpage Black, not Burning Tree, but Farm Neck Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard, which we can’t get enough of — me, Alonzo, Ray Allen and Marvin Nicholson, my trip director and favorite golfing partner who has played 134 rounds and counting with me.”
“We have to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for my presidency, if I keep swinging from behind.”
“Yet it is altogether fitting and proper that I should get to play as much golf as I want, despite all the lame jokes about how golf is turning into ‘a real handicap’ for my presidency and how I have to ‘stay the course’ with ISIL. I’ve heard all the carping that I should be in the Situation Room droning and plinking the bad folks.”
“I know some people think I should go to Ferguson. Don’t they understand that I’ve delegated the Martin Luther King Jr. thing to Eric Holder? Plus, Valerie Jarrett and Al Sharpton have it under control.”
“I know it doesn’t look good to have pictures of me grinning in a golf cart juxtaposed with ones of James Foley’s parents crying, and a distraught David Cameron rushing back from his vacation after only one day, and the Pentagon news conference with Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey on the failed mission to rescue the hostages in Syria.”
“We’re stuck in the rough, going to war all over again in Iraq and maybe striking Syria, too. Every time Chuck says ISIL is ‘beyond anything we’ve ever seen,’ I sprout seven more gray hairs. But my cool golf caps cover them. If only I could just play through the rest of my presidency.”
“ISIL brutally killing hostages because we won’t pay ransoms, rumbles of coups with our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan, the racial caldron in Ferguson, the Ebola outbreak, the Putin freakout — there’s enough awful stuff going on to give anyone the yips.”
“So how can you blame me for wanting to unwind on the course or for five hours at dinner with my former assistant chef? He’s a great organic cook, and he’s got a gluten-free backyard putting green.”
“But, in a larger sense, we can dedicate, we can consecrate, we can hallow this ground where I can get away from my wife, my mother-in-law, Uncle Joe, Congress and all the other hazards in my life.”
“The brave foursomes, living and dead, who struggled here in the sand, in the trees, in the water, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or subtract a few strokes to improve our score. Bill Clinton was Mr. Mulligan, and he is twice at popular as I am.”
“The world will little note, nor long remember, what we shot here, or why I haven’t invited a bunch of tiresome congressmen to tee it up. I’m trying to relax, guys. So I’d much rather stay in the bunker with my usual bros. Why don’t you play 18 with Mitch McConnell? And John Boehner is a lot better than me, so I don’t want to play with him.”
“It is for us, the duffers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who played here have thus far so nobly advanced to get young folks to stop spurning a game they find slow and boring.”
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us of getting rid of our slice on the public’s dime — that from this honored green we take increased devotion to that cause for which Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy gave their last full measure of devotion — and divots.”
“We here highly resolve that these golfing greats shall not have competed in vain, especially poor Tiger, and that this nation, under par, shall have a new birth of freedom to play the game that I have become unnaturally obsessed with, and that golf of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
“So help me Golf.”
Then there is conservative former judge and current Fox host Jeanine Pirro who worked as a district attorney for 30 years in New York. She is possibly the most fearless commentator on television. Here’s what she said on “Justice” barely one day after the Maureen Dowd massacre.
Please watch her “Opening Remarks” here.
I’ve got nothing personally against President Obama. On the positive side he’s charismatic, a good speaker, a powerful fund-raiser, a family man and probably an excellent community organizer.
But he’s not up to the task or image of president of the United States. Why? Because his worldview doesn’t fit reality, he’s an ideologue who seems incapable of change, he appears detached and distracted by golf, fund-raising and his celebrity status, he lacks real leadership skills and competency–and all-in-all, he’s out of his league.
This August he could do the wisest and most humble act of his life and step down as president–for his own good and that of the nation. At least Joe Biden is older and has some experience in foreign policy. He could be a caretaker until 2016–maybe even a decent one like Harry Truman.
Then we need to elect a president with faith, courage, executive experience and leadership skills like Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
And never vote for a “jayvee” for POTUS ever again.
Saving Liberalism: An Appeal to My Progressive Friends
I’ve never liked the words “liberal” or “conservative” to describe people because I’m both liberal and conservative in the historic meaning of the words.
The problem comes when words carry multiple meanings or change over time and end up connotating something far different than when they were first introduced.
Words are sometimes like the proverbial frog boiling in the kettle: slowly and subtlety they can change over the years and need to be either renounced due to distortion or renewed to their original context.
I want to make an appeal to my liberal, progressive friends today. Liberalism has devolved; It is in danger of becoming nothing less than brute force– which is not liberal.
Will you join with me in saving liberalism?
I’ve been thinking about this subject for some time, and this week I read an article by Michael Barone that expressed my hunches better than I could.
Barone is the senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, and one of the most knowledgeable political pundits in America. He is probably the nation’s leading authority on the political demographics of the United States. Name any county or Congressional District in the nation and Michael Barone can tell you why and how they will vote.
He’s also an independent man who is not an ideologue for either liberal or conservative politics. And he’s spot on regarding the present and extremely dangerous devolution of liberalism.
Here are his recent thoughts after which I will make some suggestions about how liberalism can be saved.
How Obama is Turning Liberalism into an Instrument of Coercion
By Michael Barone
Liberals just aren’t very liberal these days. The word “liberal” comes from the Latin word meaning freedom, and in the 19th century, liberals in this country and abroad stood for free speech, free exercise of religion, free markets, free trade — for minimal state interference in people’s lives.
In the 20th-century, New Dealers revised this definition by arguing that people had a right not only to free speech and freedom of religion but also, as Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1941 Four Freedoms speech, freedom from fear and from want.
Freedom from want meant, for Roosevelt, government provision of jobs, housing, health care and food. And so government would have to be much larger, more expensive and more intrusive than ever before.
That’s what liberalism has come to mean in America and much of the Obama Democrats’ agenda are logical outgrowths — Obamacare, the vast expansion of food stamps, attempted assistance to underwater homeowners.
But in some respects the Obama Democrats want to go further — and are complaining that they’re having a hard time getting there. Their form of liberalism is in danger of standing for something like the very opposite of freedom–for government coercion of those who refuse to behave the way they’d like.
Example one is the constitutional amendment, sponsored by 43 of the 55 Democratic U.S. senators, which would cut back on the First Amendment and authorize Congress and state legislatures to restrict political speech [i.e. fund-raising).
The amendment is poorly drafted and leaves many questions dangerously open, perhaps because its sponsors know it has no significant chance of passage.
It also seems animated by a delusionary paranoia: Democrats profess to be afraid that conservatives will be swamped by a flood of rich people’s money, even though rich Democratic supporters have raised more than the other side in recent years.
Nonetheless the picture is striking. Many conservatives wanted to change the First Amendment in order to prosecute flag burning, not the Founding Fathers’ central concern. Today’s liberals, in contrast, want to change the First Amendment to restrict political speech, which is the core value the Founders sought to protect.
Or consider liberals’ recent attitude toward free exercise of religion, made plain in their reaction to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision declaring the Obamacare contraception mandate invalid as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The RFRA was passed, with three dissenting votes, and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. It was prompted by a Supreme Court decision upholding the penalization of Oregon Indians for using peyote, which they claimed was a religious rite.
In passing RFRA, liberals and conservatives alike responded as Americans have often done when small groups have claimed laws infringed their religious beliefs: They put a higher priority to a few individuals’ free exercise of religion than they did to widely supported laws of general application.
Thus Congress allowed for conscientious objectors to be exempt from military service in World War II, in which more than 400,000 U.S. service members died. Even in a national emergency, when lives were at stake, Americans were willing to accommodate religious beliefs that a large majority did not share.
Today’s liberals take a different view. They want to make Hobby Lobby’s owners pay for what they regard as the destruction of human life. They spent much time arguing the owners are mistaken (actually, Hobby Lobby had a plausible scientific basis for their belief).
But the point about freedom of religion isn’t that everyone has to agree. On the contrary: Almost no one agreed with the Oregon Indians’ beliefs about peyote. They just thought the larger society should not use compulsion to bar them from practicing their religion.
Today’s liberals seem comfortable with using the force of law to prevent people from doing so.
Or consider the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn, ruling that care givers for disabled relatives paid with Medicaid funds are not state employees and thus cannot be forced into a public employee union.
Today’s liberals did this in President Obama’s Illinois to channel public money away from low-income care givers and toward public employee unions that do so much to fund and support the Democratic Party. They seem unembarrassed by this crass political motive and indifferent to the plight of the needy.
Today’s liberals seem bent on pushing people around, preventing them from speaking their minds and practicing their beliefs. It’s not just the language that’s changed.
Barone is right. American liberalism has dangerously altered course in the past century–and even in the past six years.
Noah Webster’s original 1830 dictionary summarizes the classical view of liberalism:
1. To be liberal is to be free to be generous–to give or bestow blessings.
2. To be liberal is to not be self-centered, but have an enlarged mind regarding others and their needs.
3. To be liberal is the embrace literature and sciences (as in a liberal arts education).
4. To be liberal is to desire to liberate or make people free. The word itself comes from the Latin liber or “free.”
I’m a liberal according to that definition. I wholeheartedly agree with all the meanings.
British jurist John Locke is widely recognized as father of liberalism. In his “Two Treatises of Government” which were first published in 1690, Locke taught that men had God-given rights to “life, liberty and estate (property)”–i.e. people were meant to be free–something no king, religion, or cultural tradition could usurp.
His ideas found Christian expression in the birth of America and the Declaration of Independence, and a fascist form in the French Revolution where two million people died–400,000 of them by execution. Both revolutions were based on the concept of “freedom”–but one was brought about by virtue and principle and the other by bloodthirsty force.
The founders of the American Revolution were all classical liberals, not fascists. Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism says this was due to American exceptionalism. “American culture supersedes our legal and constitutional framework. It is our greatest bulwark against fascism.”
Goldberg says that today’s “conservatives are the more authentic classical liberals.” In fact, Goldberg points out that in the past fifty years, it was been conservative leaders that have really carried on the legacy of Lockian liberalism:
“Conservatives were launching an extensive project to restore the proper place of the Constitution in American life [during the latter 20th century]. No leading conservative scholar or intellectual celebrated fascist themes or ideas. No leading conservative denigrated the inherent classical liberalism of the United States political system. To the contray, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley and other conservatives dedicated themselves to restoring the classical liberal vision of the founders.”
Yet, as Michael Barone laments, today’s liberals are turning their backs on their heritage and are beginning to behave like totalitarian fascists, not true liberals–forcing their ideas and morality down the throats of the American people.
I appeal to my progressive friends to wake up and see that your liberalism is being hijacked by a spirit of force and control.
This is not liberalism. It is coercion or bondage (non-freedom).
It’s the same spirit behind fascism, communism, militant Islam, and ISIS who recently forced all Christians in Mosul, Iraq to either convert to Islam or be killed.
We’re not that extreme yet. Our culture (exceptional Christian heritage) still prevents it. But we’re on our way, and the devolution of liberalism into force or coercion has picked up steam during the Obama years.
Let’s be true liberals through a renewal of faith, freedom, generosity–and true conservatives by preserving our culture through the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
This means anchoring ourselves to the Bible–the source of liberal ideals (freedom) as well as conservative ones (wisdom).