An Imperative and a Challenge

The subtitle to this blog is “Living the crucified life in the 21st century.” I want to build on that ideal for a few moments. Nothing, in my opinion, is more critical for the health and vitality of the church today than the goal of each disciple of Christ to surrender his or her self and walk a crucified life. I do not think that is an option. I believe that to be an imperative. Cultural Christianity is dead, and with it the scores of churches who sold their souls to the god of the moment. We have “crossed the Rubicon” in terms of what is real and what is fake in Christianity, and if Christ’s church is to survive, it will be due to the witness of those who have surrendered their life to the cross.

So here is my challenge: make a list of what you believe the world considers to be important. Here is my short list – power and money. If you have the power you can enrich yourself, and if you have wealth you can purchase (or at least influence) power. These two worldly goals coalesce in the realm of politics – the very reason to be involved in politics is to gain power, so that ultimately you can gain wealth. Those who have wealth are frequently those most interested in politics, as they want to ensure their wealth remains protected.

Now, compare that to the life of Jesus, and that of the early church. Was Jesus focused on the acquisition of power, or the accumulation of money? NO! In fact, he repudiated the subversive nature of both power and money and instructed his disciples to do the same. To the extent that the modern church is focused on either power or money (or both), it is rejecting the plain and simple teachings of the One it claims to follow. I cannot stress that point enough. Focus on power, or wealth, and you deny Jesus.

So – how do we purge ourselves of this lust for power and money? Try this simple (yet painful) task. For the next thirty days, consciously remove yourself from every source of media that attempts to persuade you to act in a way that would demonstrate the use of power or wealth. Do you follow certain political sites on Facebook? Mute them. Do you follow political sites or politically motivated people on Twitter? Mute them. Better yet, try a 30 day Facebook and/or Twitter/Instagram/Snapchat fast. Just stay off of your favorite social media site for a month. Call it 30 days to purify your soul. Notice what happens.

I am going to make a statement here that I know many Christians will disagree with – that’s okay, I am gracious enough to let everyone be wrong every once in a while. It is impossible to wallow in the filthy depths of power, prestige, and money and not have your soul corrupted. It is just impossible. This is why (among other reasons) David Lipscomb was so adamant that disciples of Christ abstain from any form of political activity, up to and including even the act of voting.

If you think I am crazy, just stop for a moment and ask yourself why you think it is valuable, or even appropriate, for a disciple to crave political power or the wealth that drives the political system in America. If you say that if Christians are not active in the political system the other side will “win,” you have just identified your god – power. We elect certain people to give them the power to do things – things we want done. Our opponents elect certain people to do things – things they want done. If our guy or gal wins, we say our god won. If their guy or gal wins, they say their god won. And, to be blatant, both sides are right – power has won.

Jesus told his disciples to renounce power. He told us not to be like those who lord it over their subjects. His greatest example of leadership was taking a towel and washing the feet of his apostles. He then surrendered his life to be lifted up on a cross – the ultimate victory over the “power” of this world.

Can his disciples claim his name and refuse to follow in his steps?

I don’t think so. Renouncing power is an imperative. Challenge yourself to see if you have what it takes to deny the god of this world his grip over you.

Let those who call themselves disciples of Christ start living a crucified life.

Willow Creek and Human Pride

If you have been following the news in Evangelical church circles, you know all about Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek Church scandal. If you do not follow such news, you can “Google” the name and read all about the sordid details. For the briefest of summaries – Bill Hybels started the Willow Creek Church in Chicago decades ago as a purely humanistic effort to reach the “unchurched” or “seekers.” Willow Creek, and the hundreds of churches it has spawned, is (are) the epitome of “seeker sensitive” churches. Hybels removed every semblance of Christian worship from the Sunday assembly, even moving the observance of the Lord’s Supper to Wednesday night, so as not to offend those who find such Christian observances distasteful. Driven purely by cultural mores, the church is staffed by female ministers and even female “elders.” (Not quite sure how a female can be the husband of one wife, but I digress.) Willow Creek, and Bill Hybels, have become a massive voice in contemporary cultural Christianity.

I have a particularly distasteful experience with Hybels and WC. During one of my graduate classes, the instructor (who was absolutely smitten by Hybels and his phony-baloney schmaltz) showed us a video of a WC service, and asked for our opinions. I totally lost it. It was all hat and no cattle, all wind-up and no pitch. I was furious. I have never been so angry at a instructor in my life (before or since) and to this day I cannot think of that instructor’s name without my heart rate rising. I hope that instructor is aware of Hybels and his escapades – and of the fact that Hybels accumulated a vast fortune including a yacht, a personal jet, and a summer home to validate his humble ministry.

Despite what it might sound like, this post is not to attack Hybels or WC in particular. I think Hybels and WC have pretty much done that themselves. What I DO want to emphasize is that you cannot take a rotten tree and get good fruit from it. The principle that Hybels used is an ancient one – find out what the people want and then give it to them. Hey – anyone remember Aaron and the Golden Calf? Jeroboam and his Golden Calves? It is easy to be a leader when you find out where the mob is moving and just work your way to the front. But that is NOT Christianity, and it is not Christian leadership.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how you can “draw all people” unto Christ if you do not lift Christ up front and center. This obviously begins and ends with making sure the worship assembly is rich with the symbols and language of Christian worship, but extends far beyond that. Why do people want to take the name of Jesus or Christ (his title) off of the church? Why do people want to eliminate the symbols of the cross or the Lord’s Supper from the weekly assembly? In a much broader question, why do people want to define the church from cultural standards?

Moving further, when you use culture to set the parameters for your “church” you have separated yourself from the church of the New Testament. The leadership issues of the WC are evidence of that – no accountability for Hybels, an “eldership” that cannot even begin to shepherd multiple thousands of “worshipers,” and a blatant disregard for scriptural standards for being called to that role of shepherd.

I cannot question Hybels heart when he started his “church,” his desire to reach the “unchurched” was commendable. But the eventual fruit of his labors illustrates the very point Jesus made is virtually every parable and teaching – if you start at the top and use power and prestige as your goal, you will end up with corruption and abuse. If you start at the bottom and use service and humility as your goal and practice, you can allow God to build His church and His kingdom.

Church – let us learn from this example! Let us ascend by climbing lower!

Jesus Contradicted Jesus

I love that title. And, no, it is not necessarily created  as “click-bait,” although, if it got you here, so much the better. But, my title is absolutely correct. Jesus did contradict Jesus, and in the most emphatic way. Confused? Irritated? Wondering if I’ve lost the only two working synapses in my noggin? Let me explain.

Many Christians wonder what Jesus (son of Mary) was talking about in Matthew 5:43 when he said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'” Up to v. 43 it appears that Jesus has been quoting mostly from the Torah, the book of the Jewish law. I have often heard this verse explained away (and have probably explained it away) by saying that Jesus is quoting oral teaching here – that nowhere is it specifically written that a Jew was to love a fellow Jew, but hate an enemy.

Except, it was written that Jews were to love their neighbor and hate their enemy. It was not written thus in the Torah, but it was written down. In case you were wondering, here is the passage:

Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly; hold back their bread, and do not give it to them, for by means of it they might subdue you; then you will receive twice as much evil for all the good you have done to them. For the Most High also hates sinners and will inflict punishment on the ungodly. Give to the one who is good, but do not help the sinner. Sirach 12:4-7

Those words were written approximately 200 years before Jesus, son of Mary, was born in Bethlehem. They were written by a Jew by the name of Jesus ben Sirah. His book is entitled variously as Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirah, or simply as Sirach.

Now, the words of Jesus our Lord do not perfectly match the words of Jesus ben Sirah, but that is not the point. The point is that for approximately two centuries there had been a strain of Judaism that was promoting the very teaching that Jesus our Lord was seeking to destroy. There was a written document that promoted the active hatred of one’s enemies. Jesus our Lord was not making this up on the fly. His teaching had a specific audience – those Jews who were so distorting the Torah that they were actually teaching the opposite of what Moses taught. [For confirmation, see Leviticus 19:18, 33-34]

What is simultaneously fascinating, and deeply troubling, about this passage is not so much that it exists (although, that is troubling in itself), but, if the comments in the New Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha are correct, the Jews came to reject the book from their canon, and it was certain Christians who accepted it into their canon of Scripture! This explains the title Ecclesiasticus, or “church book.” [See the introduction to Ecclesiasticus, in the Oxford edition of the NRSV, page AP 86.] That really bothers me – here we have a book that, on the whole, teaches some marvelous things about God and human nature – but that in this one instance alone is so clearly and unambiguously refuted by Jesus of Nazareth.

So, there you have it folks, I was not making this up, and I did not create a title in order to deceitfully bring you into this blog. Jesus did refute Jesus – Jesus of Nazareth our Lord clearly and with great power refuted the writings of Jesus ben Sirah. I would suggest that today we are all followers of Jesus – the question to answer is, which Jesus are we following?

Let’s ascend by climbing lower.

Why Lipscomb Had It Right

In my last post I talked about how Barton W. Stone’s apocalyptic worldview was transmitted to David Lipscomb (1831-1917), and how Lipscomb articulated that worldview not only in word (his book Civil Government) but also in his daily life. His views were to be utterly discredited during the heated debates over premillennialism, and today his teaching would be considered odd at the very least, most likely unscriptural, and probably even treasonous and heretical. I think Lipscomb had it right.

To summarize his views would be too much for the time I have allotted, so I will just jump to the conclusion – there has never been a civil government that has been blessed by and chosen by God. None. Never. Nada. I can see the arched eyebrows and hear the snickering – you think you have me with the selection of Saul. But re-read that story. God told Samuel that he was indeed capitulating to the whims of the Israelites, but he also made it very clear that the request for a king was a rejection of the reign of God. Saul was an abject failure. David, the “man after God’s own heart” lead a government that eventually involved adultery, murder, rape, fratricide, and would eventually disintegrate under the weight of misgovernment, violence, and outright idolatry.

Yes, God used the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians for his purposes. Yes he chose Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. But in every situation he punished those leaders for the abuses of the instructions and the limitations he gave them. He destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple at least twice. I repeat – there has never been a civil  government that God has blessed or chosen for more than a very limited period of time, and history (if not Scripture itself) records that God eventually punished that regime/nation. God is not in the business of establishing civil governments.

The reason, I believe, is clear. It is not within the power of man to govern himself – this is Scripture. Even in the kingship of David, the word that is most often used of David’s rule (and often of that of his successors) is not melech, (king) but nagid, (prince). God demands that he remains king. The human ruler is just a figure-head. The government resides with God. When man demands the kingship, disaster follows.

Taking the longest length of an Israelite king (approximately 50 years) and the shortest (just a few months), the United States has been in existence for anywhere from 5 – 15 Israelite kings – not a lot of time. And look at what has happened: the “separation of powers” among executive, legislative, and judicial powers is all but non-existent. Especially over the past several presidents the power of the presidency has been significantly increased. Likewise we see the judicial branch not even coming close to just measuring if laws are constitutional, but the Supreme Court is actually writing legislation. The legislative branch is just a bunch of empty suits and dresses – they have no more power today than a high school debate team. That basically leaves the entire government of the United States in the hands of 10 people – one President and 9 Supreme Court justices. When the President and the majority of the SCOTUS all share the same political affiliation (as happened under President Obama) there is no recourse, there is no justice, there is no rule of law in the land. Harsh words you say? Well, it happened. President Obama and his Attorney General decided that a law that had been in place for a number of years was unconstitutional – a power they did not have – and the Supreme Court, emboldened by his directive, promptly ruled in favor of his administration’s decision. Our “representative democracy” is  quickly crumbling into a marginal oligarchy.

David Lipscomb saw this. He lived through the Civil War. He saw the reality of the dictum, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He, perhaps more than anyone in his time, realized that Christians are just exiles and aliens in a foreign land, and while we are to obey the laws of that land, we cannot foul our hands by participating in a bloody and godless civil government.

It has been argued that Christians have to participate in civil government or Satan will win. I have one question (well, actually, two): where in Scripture does it say that Christians have to participate, have to vote, have to hold political power? And, two, what part of losing your life for the kingdom of God do you not understand?

The essence of politics (of civil government) is power. Individuals run for office in order to gain power, and once in office, their goal is to maintain that power and to try by all means necessary to increase that power. In a closely related issue, the grease that makes a democracy run (if the powers are relatively equally divided) is compromise. That means person A has to give up something he or she wants in order to get person B to vote with his or her proposal. The problem is that you cannot give up Christian morals. You cannot give up Kingdom ethics. You cannot trade a vote on abortion for a vote on war subsidies. Dance with the devil and see how far you get.

On the other hand, the essence of Kingdom ethics is self-surrender and submission. Those who lose their lives will find them. We have to die to Christ in order to be raised with him. We have put off the old self in order to be clothed with Christ. Do not be like the Gentiles, Jesus said, who love power and love to lord it over their subjects. Instead, become servants. Chose the lowest place. Put down your crown and pick up a towel. What part of this is difficult to understand? Where is the concept of grasping power found in the cross – check out Philippians 2 if you need to.

I get that these words are radical. But you want to read an interesting story? Read Jeremiah 35. Jeremiah was told to invite a group of people over for some wine. The folks were known as the Rechabites. He did – he invited them over and set a lot of bowls of wine and cups and said, “party hearty!” They would not touch the wine, because their ancestor gave them two instructions – never live in a walled city and never drink wine. They had obeyed their ancestor for generations – always living in tents and never drinking wine. God used them as a powerful parable against the Israelites who had rejected his teachings repeatedly and in grotesque fashion.

I just wonder if someday God is not going to use the Amish and the Mennonites to judge, and condemn, sinful America. We ridicule those folks with their backward ways, their rejection of everything modern, and of their simple faith. Ah, yes, their simple faith. They believe God told them to eschew extravagance and to live simple, faithful lives. And, for the most part, they have – for generations. To our lasting shame, I might add.

I can live in the United States and pay my taxes and obey the laws of the land and be completely detached from the filth of the government. I do not have to vote – in fact I actually  believe it to be more faithful to my God not to vote. I can respect my leaders, and even pray for them, without becoming complicit in their ungodly and unchristian decisions. In fact, I believe that my God calls me to do exactly that. I am to pray for the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God and all that means, not the continued dominance of one political party or the other.

It all boils down to where is my allegiance – to the Christ of calvary or the American flag?

Listen, I know I am not going to convince everyone – I probably will not even convince some of my closest friends. They, among all who read this blog, know I am a nut, and kind of untethered in certain respects. But I have come to a devout conclusion: if anything nice can be said over my dead, stinking body, I want it to be that I was consistent in my beliefs. If I say, if I preach, if I write, that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God” then I had better act like I believe those words. I just do not see any passage of Scripture that tells me I have to be active in a civil government. I see many that tell me I should not. I see many principles that teach me I should stay away from governmental powers. I see many truths that lead me to believe that compromise with politics is death for spirituality.

I want to know Christ, and the power of his rising, share in his suffering, conform to his death – when I pour out my life, to be filled with his Spirit, joy follows suffering and life follows death.

That, my friends, is why Lipscomb had it right.

Disciples and the Lord’s Prayer

(Spoiler alert: due to the amount of material to cover, today’s post will be longer than normal)

Can a disciple pray the Lord’s Prayer (model prayer) as given in Matthew 6 and Luke 11? While I do not ever remember specifically being told I could not pray the prayer, I have heard many sermons and discussions where the conclusion is that at least with one phrase it is inappropriate to do so. That phrase is “Your kingdom come.” Because within the Churches of Christ the kingdom has been associated with the church, and because the church was established on the day of Pentecost in A.D. 30 (or thereabouts), it is no longer necessary to pray for God to establish his kingdom.

This discussion came up again recently. It got me to thinking – where in the New Testament is the kingdom of God specifically connected to the church? Because that claim is so frequently made, I felt intuitively that there must be some manner in which the two are related. I decided to research the matter and find out myself. So I pulled out my Greek concordance and looked up the word for “kingdom.”

All 157 references. I put my project down and decided that someone else should do the heavy lifting. But, after a while I came back to the question. So, I put on a pot of coffee, pulled out my tablet full of yellow sheets of paper, and started reading and jotting notes.

To cut to the chase (for those who do not want to wade through the following) – yes, I believe that a disciple not only can pray the Lord’s Prayer, but actually should pray the Lord’s prayer – including the debated phrase. To defend my conclusion I offer the following three arguments:

(1)  After reading each of the 157 uses of the word “kingdom,” I could not find a single passage that definitively linked the concept of kingdom to the church. What I did discover is that there is not one single concept that covers every use of the word. In fact, I discovered at least 8: this is purely my own classification and you might find more or fewer. To summarize as briefly as possible –

(a) The use in Jesus’s parables (26 occurrences*, including parallels). Here Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is like . . . ” I just could not discover where the word “church” could be interchanged without some serious distortion.

(b) The reign, or rule of God (39 occurrences). Included in this group would be passages such as “seek first the kingdom of God” and Jesus’s teaching that his kingdom is not of this world. While it might be argued that the word church could be interchanged in a couple of these references, the use would be strained at best.

(c)  References to a future “inheriting” of the kingdom (38 occurrences). Illustrative here would be the thief’s request, “remember me when you come into your kingdom,” and Paul’s statement that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom.” These statements just do not make sense if you insert the word “church” instead of kingdom.

(d)  Of special note are the references to the kingdom being “near” or “at hand” or “among you” (31 occurrences). This is how John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles all started their preaching. Jesus taught on several occasions that children already constitute part of the kingdom, and in the beatitudes he used the present tense, “theirs is the kingdom of heaven/God.”**

(e) and (f)  Two very closely related groups are references to the “gospel” or “good news” of the kingdom (7 occurrences), and the proclamation of the kingdom (11 occurrences). To be honest, I had never really noticed the idea of the “gospel” of the kingdom – but by combining these two groups you get a significant number of references to the kingdom as being the subject of the early church’s preaching and teaching. Once again, it strains the meaning of the word if you insert the word “church” here – Jesus did not preach the good news of the church, nor did Paul preach the church. He specifically told the Corinthians he preached only Christ and him crucified.

(g)  There are a number of references (19 by my count) where the word simply refers to a human, or in a couple of references, Satan’s kingdom. These clearly cannot refer to the church.

(h) And, finally, I discovered 8 occurrences in which the word “church” could be interchanged with “kingdom” and the meaning would not be too seriously changed. Significant here would be Jesus teaching that unless one be born of water and Spirit he/she cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5), and Paul telling the Colossian disciples that God has called them from darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son (1:13). I did not find any passage that demanded the equivalency, but these at the very least allowed for it.

(2)  Very closely related to the above argument, the fact is the church is just one very small aspect of the kingdom of God. The church is the body of Christ – of that there can be no argument. But, here again, can the body of Christ on earth be described as the entirety of the kingdom of God? And, is every church (congregation) purely under the reign of God? It could be argued that the congregation in Laodicea was outside of the rule of God – they had nothing of which Christ was pleased. He was outside of the church, seeking admission. If you want to argue that the “kingdom” is the invisible, ethereal concept of the “church” then you are changing the limits of the discussion, and I could just as well argue that the entire universe has always been, is now, and will always be the “kingdom” of God. It does no good to argue speculative concepts when we only have flesh and blood congregations by which to measure the fullness of the “kingdom,” if indeed the words are interchangeable.

(3)  While Jesus gave his “model” prayer while he was still alive (and thus before the establishment of the church), the gospel accounts were not written down for three or so decades after the day of Pentecost, therefore the gospel writers were writing to teach their churches what Jesus wanted them to know. Because prayer is such a significant part of the disciples’ life, they recorded Jesus’s words regarding how to pray. And a major part of that prayer was the request that God’s kingdom be established on earth as well as in heaven. If Matthew and Luke deemed it necessary for the Christians in the first century to pray for the coming of God’s kingdom (long after the day of Pentecost) then I see no compelling reason that disciples today cannot pray the same prayer.

So, if it is perfectly acceptable (and in my opinion, expected) for the disciple to pray for the kingdom of God to come, why was it ever suggested that we cannot pray the model prayer? The best answer that I can come up with is the early Restoration Movement leaders’ utter contempt for the Roman Catholic Church. If there was a practice supported by the Roman Church, and that practice did not have a specific “book, chapter, and verse” to support it, then it was attacked ruthlessly by the early Restoration leaders. One practice that was, and still is, central to the worship of the Catholic Church is the recitation of the Lord’s prayer. By casting aspersion against the phrase invoking the coming of the kingdom of God, the early Restoration leaders could eliminate the recitation of the entire prayer (that, and the claim that doing so was using “vain and repetitious words”). I cannot guarantee that is the reason – but it is the only one that makes sense to me. This is especially significant in light of the fact that there is no passage in the New Testament which clearly equates the church and the kingdom.

Can we, and should we, pray the Lord’s model prayer? Absolutely! There is no scriptural reason against it, and every reason to do so. The church has come – to be sure. But, let us pray, and pray fervently, that God’s reign will be manifest throughout this bent and broken world.

*If you add up all these occurrences you will have a number that exceeds 157. That is because many occurrences can fit into more than one category. This is not a scientific study – it is just me trying to get a grasp on a very large and complex subject.

**In Matthew the phrase is almost always “kingdom of heaven.” Matthew accounts for one-third of the references to the kingdom (54 out of 157), and there are only 5 times where he uses the phrase “kingdom of God.” This is usually explained as his Jewish reluctance to use the word “God” for fear of using God’s name inappropriately. For whatever reason, it is obvious that he prefers the word “heaven” to speak of God’s reign and dominion.

Rush Limbaugh and the Stunning Collapse of Trumptopia

A little background here. I have been an occasional listener of Rush Limbaugh for years. At first I thought he was some kind of guru or swami. Over time I came to realize he is just a really good entertainer with a keen eye for politics. The title of my page, “Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection” is a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of one of his books, something along the lines of undeniable truths for life. I am not a regular listener, much less a devoted ditto-head. He is a brilliant satirist, and for years he was the only voice that challenged what is now referred to as the “main stream media” – and he has been reviled for it.

But the other day I heard him say things I would never, ever, have expected him to say. When President Trump signed the “Omnibus Spending Act of 2018” I thought Limbaugh was going to bust a gasket. He was absolutely apoplectic – angry, upset, disturbed, irked. I don’t think he agreed with Trump at all.

Which is, to put it mildly, hysterical. I have never heard Limbaugh campaign for anyone more devoutly than he campaigned for Trump – even during the primaries. He claims not to take sides during primaries, but even my occasional listening proved to me that his shows were “all Trump, all the time.” I heard him say on more than one occasion that Trump was not a conservative, but he was willing to overlook that reality for the simple reason that Trump stuck his finger in the eye of the Washington “establishment,” and for Limbaugh that was good enough. And, of course, after the primaries it did not matter who the Republican candidate was, the mission of the day was to make sure Clinton #2 was not elected.

So, returning to Trump signing this 1.3 trillion dollar budget – one that Limbaugh swears was created by the “establishment” in order to destroy Trump. I just have one question – why is Limbaugh, and all of his loyal ditto-heads, upset, or even shocked? They knew that Trump was not a fiscal, nor an ethical, conservative. They knew he made decisions based on what he thought was best for himself. They knew he loved to be provocative and to stick his finger in other peoples’ eyes. What they did not expect is that he would do it to them! They expected a non-conservative, free-wheeling and dealing, ethical opportunist would remain faithful to them and their agenda, and when he did not, they did not know how to handle it.

All of which just drives me deeper into the wisdom of David Lipscomb, and more recently, Glen Stassen. Lipscomb lived during the presidency of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of American presidents. And he also lived during one of the greatest, if not the greatest, catastrophes to ever befall this nation. Through it all he remained steadfast in his conviction that it was only to God and to God’s kingdom that one should pledge allegiance. For Lipscomb a smaller government, or a more constitutionally conservative government, or a more Christian government, was not the solution to mankind’s problem – government itself was mankind’s problem! A physical government might be necessary, but it was an evil necessity, one that should be steadfastly ignored beyond what it was biblically permitted to demand (and for Lipscomb, that was basically only taxes).

Glen Stassen guided me in an individual study of the theology and ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As a result of that study I was introduced to a new, and for me, profound understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Stassen took an exegetical observation made by W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison and gave it hermeneutical “legs” on which to stand. The observation is that Matthew 7:6, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you,” far from being just a disjointed and unconnected saying, is actually a central teaching regarding a disciple’s commitment to God and God’s kingdom. If we sell ourselves, and our allegiance, for a mess of political slop, we should not be surprised when the political dogs and pigs turn around and bite us.

Which is, precisely true to Jesus’s words, exactly what has happened to the followers of Trumptopia.

I have been utterly dumbfounded by the way certain Christians have turned a blind eye to Trump and his ethical and moral collapses. I remember the “moral majority” screaming for then President Clinton’s impeachment over his sexual misconduct and his lies. Now we are told sexual misconduct is not a major factor in whether a man should remain president – only that he promote our conservative agenda.

Except that President Trump is not now, has never been, and most likely will never be, either fiscally nor morally conservative.

When we cast what is holy and precious (our physical and spiritual allegiance) into a political pig sty, can we be surprised that the residents of that sty turn and attack us?

With each passing day I am becoming more and more convinced that the Sermon on the Mount speaks directly to the disciple’s relationship to every aspect of his or her culture – and that includes the government. Lipscomb was absolutely correct. Government may be necessary, but it is an evil necessity.

The disciple’s allegiance is to God, and to God’s kingdom. If we forget that, or if we reject that, we have no one to blame but ourselves when the dogs and pigs come growling.

No King but Caesar

In my daily Bible reading today I came across this phrase (John 19:15). In their zeal to protect their position and have Jesus executed, the chief priests uttered one of the most, if not the most, blasphemous statements recorded in Scripture. I believe John wanted his readers to hear the irony. They were trying to force Pilate’s hand by making him choose between Jesus and Caesar. They wanted Pilate to know they stood firmly with Caesar, and if he chose Jesus, then he would be committing treason. And in so doing, they denied the God they claimed to worship.

As I read and and listen and ponder the discussions involving our national politics I fear the church is sinking to the level of the chief priests. Just consider – the Chief Priests were the visible connection between the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later Moses and David and all the prophets toward God. They maintained the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly worship in the Temple. They were the mediators between the nation of Israel and God. And yet, when their position was challenged, when they feared losing their power, they did not defer to God for their protection, but to a Roman emperor. The death of the Son of God did not matter so long as they maintained their grip on power – and undoubtedly the physical benefits that were attached to their position.

And so today, when challenged by economic problems, or political problems, or ethical problems, the church is not responding with the message of the gospel – it is responding by clinging to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or some undefinable right or freedom. When we do that we are simply and plainly repeating the cry of the Chief Priests. Jesus is on trial each and every time we are faced with a choice between the way of the cross or the way of the world, and by appealing to some form of human government or secular philosophy we betray our Lord and savior.

When Jesus confronted the disciples with a particularly hard teaching, whether it was stated or not, a question was attached – do you want to follow the world, or do you want to follow me? On one such occasion Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go -you have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:67) Even though his faith was imperfect, Peter got the point. Once you commit to following Jesus, everything else pales in significance.

When we confess that Jesus is the Lord of our life, when we confess that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died to set us free, we are making a profound political statement. That statement is somewhat hidden in our language, but in the first century the word Lord was attached to only one person – the Roman emperor. To call Jesus Lord was to make a politically subversive – read treasonous – statement. It could, and sometimes did, result in the death of the one making the statement. A person did not make that confession lightly. It had radical implications for the way one lived his or her subsequent life.

Today, when a person says they can be a Christian if their constitutional rights are protected, if certain laws are passed or are not passed, if a certain political party is in the seat of power, if the tax code is changed to their benefit, if they are allowed to write or say or protest, if they can benefit from the system of supply-side economics, or any one of a dozen other ifs, then what they are saying is that there is something that stands between them and Christ. They are saying they have no king but Caesar.

On the other hand, the apostles had no right to bear arms, they had no right to free speech, they had no right of a fair trial, they had no right of free assembly, they faced confiscatory tax laws, they faced summary execution on the accusation of treason, they enjoyed neither the protection nor the blessing of their national government. And they not only survived – they flourished. They had no Lord but Jesus Christ.

“We have no king but Caesar.” Those are chilling words. The cold harshness cuts like a knife. John intended it. He wanted his readers to hear that blasphemy.

Are we willing to hear it today?