by chrisaiken | Nov 17, 2015 | America, American, culture, missional, Pastor's Reflections, politics, Uncategorized
ARLINGTON, TX – DECEMBER 12: Referee Terry McAulay #77 at Cowboys Stadium on December 12, 2010 in Arlington, Texas. (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
I, like many of you, have been watching with great sorrow the events that have unfolded in recent days with terrorism against Russia, (An airliner bomb) in Paris (Multiple coordinated attacks of an Islamic group), and in other places. There are thousands of people directly affected and millions more that are indirectly affected through the strategy of causing terror and disrupting social order (terrorism).
These events have been read into the narrative of the US policy to accept Syrian Refugees (political and humanitarian cause refugees) as 10,000 have been relocated to the United States as part of an international effort to alleviate suffering.
I am not going to opine on the wisdom of such actions. The problem is complex and cannot be solved with a few sentences on one pastor’s “blog site.” I believe there are scores of people who are far more qualified to offer a solution to the two-pronged problem of humanitarian assistance and national security. [NOTE: I believe that we have a tendency to drift toward one pole or the other in this complex situation and the ultimate solution may ver well be a balance of interests between both extremes].
Today I am a bit perplexed by some of my fellow pastors and missionally-minded individuals that have weighed into the discussion. Some have advocated a fullscale approach of receiving all refugees as a means by which we have an instant audience for the gospel. Others have advocated that we secure the borders and reject all refugees as an effort to provide security for our nation’s citizens because there is a clear lack of security protocol in screening the refugees.
What I find most curious…many of these pastors were the loudest critics of the church engaging in political causes through the years. These precious servants of God argued that the will of a previous generation of pastors to seek to engage the political process, help like-minded believers get elected, and prevent candidates of a different values system from coming into office was totally MISPLACED and HURTFUL to the missional purpose fo the church. These dear brethren trumpeted a position that the church was “supra-political” and should not seek to identify with or even be overly concerned with the political will of a nation since the Christians’ first and highest loyalty was to a King and not a political entity.
The arguments notwithstanding, is not your current demands for the national government to act in a certain manner the antithesis of your previous position on the church and politics?
I think, it would do well for us to remember that our nation has a role. Our government has a function as ordained by God to be a means of bring good to a people (common grace) regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds. The national government of the United States is not an instrument of the church to accomplish any particular act of will.
In other words, if you think the church should get out of politics, then you are inconsistent to argue for a Christian immigration policy. There is no such thing. There is, however, a responsibility for Christ-followers to care for and help the needy among them…including the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner/refugee. We can and should do that because our King tells us too.
In closing, the words of a really wise philosopher seem appropriate: “Before you tear down a fence (i.e. argue for the church to remove itself from politics), you ought to consider why someone may have built it. Perhaps there is a “bull” you don’t want to tangle with just beyond the former fenceline.
Love to hear your thoughts…
by chrisaiken | Nov 10, 2015 | culture, missional, Pastor's Reflections
In a conference that I participated in this week, one of the speakers posed the question, “What if you had three and only three years left to live?” How would you lives those remaining days?
As I have been chewing on that, it occurs to me that this is both helpful and painful. It is destructive and edifying…all at the same time.
How so…you might ask? (Yep…me too.)
If you only had a limited and fixed number of days to live, you’d likely spend every one of them in the most productive way possible. You would pursue the most important purposes. You would not allow yourself to become bogged down with the trivial things that so often consume your time and energy. You would be highly sensitive to the investment and outcome of every ounce of effort. After all…today is nearly gone and tomorrow promises one less day to invest in the Kingdom of God.
- Certainly, you would invest in helping your family know how to live without you. You would pour into your children (in every possible way) the wisdom necessary to make it through the next several chapters of their lives.
- You would seek to impress your affections for your spouse.
- You would “bury the hatchet” with that old and lingering enemy. After all…life is short.
- You would make amends with everyone.
- You would seek to help others know (if you are a disciple of Jesus) the urgency of Salvation!
What would likely not be so prominent:
- Your sports team’s record.
- The fact that your friend hurt your feelings by saying something stupid.
- Getting another raise (as if ten cents an hour really was important).
- Buying that third pair of shoes or the latest CD or “rims” for your truck.
The fact is, we spend a lot of energy on things that are temporal and allow that which is eternal get pushed back until tomorrow. This, in light of the fact that we do have a fixed number of days (It is appointed unto man once to die), and that all men will stand before God and give an account for what he/she did with the Messiah of God. He/she will not be judged for his comparative righteousness or his education or heart for social justice…but for what he/she did with Jesus. In light of that…does not our daily concern for the temporal call us to repentance in light of its idolatrous pursuits.
I am dying! This is certain. If I am to be effective in my life and not squander the gift that God has given me, I must act AS IF it is at an unknown but very soon coming date and live purposefully and for the glory of God above all else. God deserves nothing less from me as I respond to His great grace toward me in giving me abundant life through salvation in His Son.
by chrisaiken | Nov 3, 2015 | America, BSA, culture, Scouting
I have been in a painfully arduous dialogue for 2 days over a recent change in Scouting to expand achievement requirements for Boy Scout to include one additional step in the early rank achievements. (You can read about the move HERE). Now let me state simply and plainly up front: Scouting has, by design, always required a Scout to have a faith position in god. This view was never mandated as to what god or which god or even which gods. You could be an animist, a Buddhist, a Protestant Christian, a Muslim, Jewish, Native American, Wiccan, or even agnostic (since even this view acknowledges a higher force/power/being…but finds it irrelevant).
Consequently, there is much to be said about this approach to religious beliefs. It is an approach that is consistent with our cultural view of religion and is very American. We, as a nation, actually protect a person’s right to believe in any god he wishes and to practice any religion he wishes. The State cannot affirm any official religion, nor can it deny any citizen the right to worship in any manner he wishes. Our nation has always seen worship as an inalienable right, conferred on a person by his Creator. (Weird right…the right to ignore the Creator was conferred by the Creator).
In Scouting, the value of personal devotion/worship had to be synthesized with our American value stated above. As such, a scout was required to fulfill a duty to God regardless of who the Scout believed God to be. (Now for my Christian militant friends…I know that this seems weird since you might argue that if it did not specifically teach one religion–ours, then it is of no value, or worse–was harmful. I view this differently. I believe it to be a privilege to be part of the conversation. I hsve well-known that I hold a minority position as a faithful “Baptist” but am glad for the opportunity to speak of what I believe to be the ONLY accurate position about God).
So what made the conversation so painful? Simply stated…it is abundantly clear that most people I dialogued with are either IGNORANT of matters of faith, AMBIVALENT to matters of faith…or they are HOSTILE to Christian Faith (the primary image that comes to mind here in the modern Western world). A very small minority in the conversation would hold to a doctrinally faithful view of Christianity as I do.
Painful though? YES! Living in the Southeastern part of the United States, the “Bible-belt” of old, we have a limited view of the nation as a whole. Most people in my city (though it is changing) are at least polite about religion. Most would identify themselves as believing in the Christian God…as long as they could define the term. Few would outright deny the Christian God…or worse, see Jesus as harmful to the world (as MOST people in the world do). LET THAT SETTLE…because I know that last statement stings.
You can read the comments (which will make you crazy AND, I pray, make you weep as well). They give a picture of a cross-section of our nation and provide perspective on the post-Christian existence that we as a nation are accelerating toward.
All of this reminded me this morning of three biblical truths:
- None of this Surprises God: 2 Timothy 3:1-5.
- None of this Conquers God: John 16:33
- None of this Changes the Mission. It only intensifies it and increases our obvious dependency on God: Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15.
Recent Comments