Posts tagged ‘Donald Trump’
Election Day 2020
Election Day is one day away. And what an election season it’s been. In what has become a quadrennial ritual, campaigns have been waged, accusations have been leveled, statements that have very loose associations with the truth have been uttered, and our nation has become even more divided over politics than it already was.
It can be difficult for Christians to navigate through what feels like an exponentially increasing number of political landmines all around us. So, as we head into another Election Day fraught with fights and frights, let me remind you of two things.
First, Christians live as dual citizens. In his famous fifth-century work The City of God, the church father Augustine spoke of how Christians belong both to the City of Man and the City of God. Sadly, the City of Man is deeply disordered because of sin. Those who care only for the City of Man often gladly and unrepentantly operate in ways that involve much deception and transgression. Thus, though we may be among the City of Man, we cannot be in league with the City of Man. Our first, highest, and final allegiance must be to the City of God. This does not mean that we run away from the world, but it does mean that, in many ways, we refuse to operate like the world.
Second, the City of Man matters. For all its brokenness, God can still use what happens in the City of Man for His glory and the world’s good. This understanding of the City of Man was key to the success of the apostle Paul’s ministry. Paul, for instance, was not afraid to appeal to his Roman citizenship in the City of Man to protect himself from being mobbed (Acts 22:22-29). He also seems to have preferred his Roman name Paul to his Jewish name Saul. This is why, in the many letters he wrote to churches in the ancient world, he introduced himself as Paul rather than Saul, though he retained both names throughout his life (cf. Acts 13:9).
Why would this apostle prefer introducing himself using a pagan-sounding Roman name instead of his more traditional Jewish name? Because he fashioned himself as an apostle to people who were pagans in the City of Man – people who did not yet believe in the God of Israel and the Messiah He sent in Jesus. “I am an apostle to the Gentiles,” who were pagans, he wrote, and “I take pride in my ministry” (Romans 11:13). His Roman name – and his status as a Roman citizen – helped him reach pagan Roman citizens he may have not otherwise been able to reach with the gospel.
Some Christians can too often be tempted to leverage the resources of the City of Man primarily to win against others – political enemies, cultural contraries, and socioeconomic opposites. Paul, however, leveraged his citizenship – a gift bestowed on him by the City of Man – and his Roman name to win over people. He used what he gained from the City of Man to point people to the City of God.
In a recent article in National Review, Kevin Williamson wisely cautioned his readers: “There’s more to citizenship than voting, and partisanship is not patriotism.” Sometimes, I think we can be tempted to fall into the trap of believing the sum of our citizenship in the City of Man is winning an election through partisanship and voting. But being a good citizen in the City of Man goes so much further than that. Like Paul, may we use our citizenship in the City of Man not only to protect and further our interests, but to love and reach others.
That’s something we can all choose to do on Election Day – no matter who we vote for.
The President Tests Positive for COVID-19
Disease doesn’t discriminate. Anyone – high or low, rich or poor, powerful or powerless – can fall ill – sometimes mildly, sometimes seriously. This reality was brought forth in stark relief early Friday morning when the President of the United States tweeted that he and the First Lady had tested positive for COVID-19. Blessedly, their symptoms, so far, have been relatively mild and, according to his physician, the president is doing well.
But all of this has not quelled the barrage of questions that inevitably comes at news as big as this. People want to know: What is the fuller picture of the president’s health history? When, exactly, did the president first suspect or know that he had contracted the virus? Should the people in his inner circle have been more cautious in their meetings and interactions? From whom did the president contract the virus? What will happen if the president falls seriously ill? Will a second presidential debate be possible in a week and a half? And, how will all of this affect the 2020 presidential election?
Just as the brokenness of sickness can affect anyone – no matter who they are – the promises of God are offered to everyone – no matter who they are. As the Psalmist writes:
Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all who live in this world, both low and high, rich and poor alike. (Psalm 49:1-2)
God wants to speak to everyone. This is why, in the Scriptures, we read stories of God speaking to kings and to peasants, to the wise and to the foolish, to the righteous and to the depraved. Disease doesn’t discriminate. But neither does the Divine. He calls all to repentance and He promises all those who trust in Him salvation.
At a moment where so many are in danger of contracting a dangerous virus, I take comfort that even those who are high risk have a Most High God. He rules over these uncertain times and He will see us through to what will hopefully be better times.
I pray for the President and First Lady’s speedy recovery and I praise God that, even if many of the questions we have during a time like this are still unanswered, the God we serve is faithful.
Disagreement and Division
Credit: Michael Krause / Pixabay
In his book Love Your Enemies, Arthur Brooks argues for the often-overlooked value in disagreement using a template drawn from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics:
Aristotle wrote that there were three kinds of friendship: The first and lowest form of friendship is based on utility, wherein both people derive some benefit from each other … The next level of friendship for Aristotle is based on pleasure; both people are drawn to each other’s wit, intelligence, talent, good looks, or other attractive qualities … The highest form of friendship – the “perfect friendship” in Aristotle’s telling – is based on willing the good of the other and a shared sense of what is virtuous and true.
In the first two levels of friendship, Brooks explains, we carefully avoid disagreeing, because we don’t want to lose whatever it is we’re gaining from the other person. In the third level of friendship, conversely, we heartily engage in disagreement because we want what’s best for the other person, and, if they are heading down a path that is harmful or unhealthy, we are not afraid to call it out. In other words, disagreement can be helpful because disagreement can be revealing. Disagreement can be refining.
Disagreement can be good. Division, however, is something quite different.
In his letter to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul practically begs his readers not to fall prey to division:
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
The Corinthians were divided over a whole host of things, including which spiritual leader they liked the most:
One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:12)
For Paul’s part, he finds the notion of division dangerous, asking, “Is Christ divided” (1 Corinthians 1:13)?
This past week, the deep political divisions that have long plagued our nation reared their heads in obvious and astounding ways. When the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, tore up her copy of the State of the Union address the President had handed her at the beginning of his speech, she – even if inappropriately – perhaps unintentionally acted out physically a deeper relational reality in our nation. There are certain groups of people who cannot stand – and indeed hate – other groups of people. There are parts of us that are torn apart.
I will not pretend that I can even begin to fix the partisan hatred that ails us. But it is worth reminding ourselves that, for those of us who bear Christ’s name, even if we can’t fix our world’s divisions, we can model a holy communion.
A holy communion does not just arise when we all agree with each other. Instead, it is also forged in how we disagree with each other. Do we truly listen to what a person is saying, or do we quickly move to caricature their comments? Do we assume the best in each other rather than the worst? Do we celebrate places of agreement, even as we hash out points of disagreement? And, most importantly, is our love for someone contingent on their agreement with us, or does it flow from the grace that God has first given us? If we disagree without love, we are left only with sore division. If we disagree with love, we can retain devotion to each other even as we dispute with each other. If we disagree with love, we can keep and reach people, even as we question their opinions and positions. And this is not just a way to avoid division. This is the Church’s very mission. May we carry it out faithfully by God’s grace and under His guidance.
Character and Civics
Credit: Wikipedia
The economy is booming. There is hearty hope for a diplomatic breakthrough between the United States and North Korea. Pressure is mounting on Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions. And the President of the United States is embroiled in a controversy over whether or not campaign finance laws were violated when his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid an adult film actress, Stormy Daniels, $130,000 during the closing days of the 2016 election to, ostensibly, keep her quiet about an affair she now claims to have had with Mr. Trump in 2006.
If the accusations against President Trump are true, this episode is morally disquieting – and not just because campaign finance laws were potentially broken. Not only that, the responses to this episode are themselves morally disquieting. Many who are opposed to the president see this episode as a convenient way to defeat a political enemy. The moral turpitude of what has allegedly happened is merely a pretext for a political power grab. Others, who are aligned with the president, are quick to cast the allegations against him as nothing more than a witch hunt. Even if they suspect the charges might be true, they calculate that sexual immorality is a small – and, I would add, historical – price to pay for the power of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Whatever your political proclivities, these accusations present Christians with much to ponder. On the one hand, it is important for us to remember that character still matters in our leaders. All the way back in the sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli famously argued that political leaders do not need actual virtue. They simply need to project the appearance of virtue:
It’s seeming to be virtuous that helps; as, for example, seeming to be compassionate, loyal, human, honest, and religious.[1]
This is nonsense. Appearing to be virtuous while not actually being virtuous is, plainly and simply, hypocrisy – a sin that Jesus fiercely and consistently condemns. Hypocrisy in virtue is not only immoral; it also is dangerous. If a person cannot lead himself by cultivating in himself basic virtues, he will struggle to lead others as well as he could. Self-leadership is a necessary prerequisite for other-leadership.
This is certainly not to say that our leaders need to be perfect – no leader is, has been, or ever will be. But it is certainly preferable that our leaders be self-aware. Self-awareness cultivates both humility and curiosity – humility over how one has fallen short and curiosity about how one can grow in competence and character.
At the same time it is necessary to encourage character in our leaders, it is also important demand character in ourselves. A critical part of personal character development, according to Jesus, is to carefully consider our own shortcomings before we address the iniquity of others. Jesus explains it like this:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)
Notice that Jesus does not prohibit holding others accountable for their specks of sin, but He first wants us to hold ourselves accountable for our own planks of peccancy. Understanding and addressing our own struggles with sin gives us both wisdom and empathy to help others in their tussles with transgression.
Over the years, as I have watched the dialogue that unfolds during scandals involving the character of our public officials, I have come to suspect that at least a segment of our population doesn’t care too much about helping the people involved. Instead, it only cares about maximizing the power it has. Depending on one’s political preferences, maintaining or overturning the power of this or that politician becomes the driving and deciding factor in how some people respond to any given moral crisis. When this happens, we’re not really defending our politicians, even if we like them, or honoring them, as the Bible instructs. We’re simply using them. And that’s a character crisis in us that, though it may not make the headlines, should certainly serve as food for thought in our hearts.
______________________________
[1] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Tim Parks, trans. (New York: Penguin Books, 2009).
Victory, Truth, and Politics
When there’s the potential for dirt on everyone’s hands, it is easy to turn that dirt into mud to sling against your political opponents. This is what we are learning from the ongoing saga of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election. News broke last week that Mr. Mueller has interviewed some of the most powerful officials in Washington, including former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Many are speculating that Mr. Mueller is close to asking for an interview with the president himself, and is moving beyond his initial collusion investigation and is now building a case for obstruction of justice against the Trump administration.
But it’s not just the Trump administration that is the subject of severe suspicion. Mr. Mueller and the FBI are too. Recently uncovered texts between two FBI agents who once worked for Mueller’s team seem to reveal a manifest “anti-Trump” bias. Coupled with the fact that some of the texts between these two agents seem to reveal that the FBI intentionally tempered an investigation they were conducting at the time into Mr. Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, many people are becoming worried that something foul is afoot. Calls are now coming to appoint a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.
None of this, of course, is good. But neither is any of this particularly surprising. Politics, after all, is a dirty business and can often evolve into nothing far short of outright combat. It is also not surprising that, depending on your political convictions, you may find yourself rooting for one of these stories to overtake the other. Democrats are hoping that the Mueller investigation will reveal something that will discredit and perhaps even destroy the Trump presidency while Republicans are hoping that the Mueller investigation itself will be discredited and destroyed by the anti-Trump bias that was apparently harbored by some of the FBI agents connected to it.
Sadly, in politics, there seems to be an ascendant attitude that victory over an opponent is more important than the truth about an issue. Thus, overlooking shady dealings in the president’s administration if you’re a Republican, or ignoring serious questions of integrity in the FBI if you’re a Democrat, is simply an expedient necessity to achieve what many believe to be “the greater good” of their particular political party’s continued empowerment.
Christianity knows that real victory cannot be gained without a commitment to truth. The two go hand in hand. This is why, for instance, the Psalmist can implore God: “In Your majesty ride forth victoriously in the cause of truth, humility, and justice” (Psalm 45:4). The Psalmist knows that victory from the Lord is inexorably connected to the truth of the Lord.
As Christians, our hope and consolation are that what has been written about Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the devil is actually true! If it’s not, then there is no real victory. Thus, in a culture and in a political landscape that can sometimes love victory more than truth, let’s love both. Otherwise, we just might wind up with neither.
And that would be a tragedy.
Persons, Nations, and Immigration
What a week it has been in politics. Immigration took center stage this past week with President Trump first holding a meeting with both Republicans and Democrats in front of the cameras, discussing everything from the DACA to a border wall to chain migration to comprehensive immigration reform. This televised meeting, however, was quickly eclipsed by some comments the president allegedly made behind closed doors, where he expressed, supposedly in vulgar terms, dismay at accepting immigrants from places like Haiti and Africa and wondered out loud why the U.S. was not more interested in encouraging emigration from places like Norway. The president has since denied that he made the disparaging remarks attributed to him, tweeting:
The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for DACA!
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2018
Whatever the president’s actual remarks were, his alleged remarks, predictably, ignited a firestorm of a debate over how we should view other countries and the peoples from those countries. Some found the president’s alleged remarks to be simply a realistic diagnosis of the awful living conditions that plague third-world countries. Others decried his remarks as racist. Is there any way forward?
The famed poet Dorothy Sayers once wrote:
What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person. A certain amount of classification is, of course, necessary for practical purposes … What is unreasonable is to assume that all one’s tastes and preferences have to be conditioned by the class to which one belongs.[1]
In the midst of a white-hot debate over immigration, Sayers’ insight is a good one for us to keep in mind. The problem with making or defending disparaging remarks concerning whole countries with regard to immigration is that whole countries do not immigrate. Individual persons do. And individuals ought to be treated as unique, precious, and worthy of our consideration and compassion.
But, as Sayers also notes, this does not mean that we should dismiss any and every classification. For instance, the Scriptures themselves use the classifications of “image” and “child.” “Image” is a classification that applies to creation. Every person, Scripture says, is created in God’s image. “Child” is a classification that applies specifically to redemption. When one believes in Christ, they are adopted as God’s child. And though these two classifications are certainly not comprehensive, they can be instructive in that they remind us that the classifications we use, first, should be generous. Disparaging classifications are generally not helpful or productive.
Scripture cautions us against both an arrogant individualism and a dismissive collectivism. It is important for us to remember that we are not solely individuals who have only ourselves to thank for who we are. We are who we are due in large part to our cultural backgrounds, our experiences with others, and the help we receive from others, among many other factors. All of these things collectively shape us. At the same time, we are still individuals, specially and preciously created and redeemed, one at a time, by God, and we are always more than the sum total of our cultural backgrounds, our experiences with others, and the help we receive from others. This is why, in Christ, we come to realize that so many of the classifications we once used to define ourselves, and that others use to define us, are not ultimate or unabridged. As the apostle Paul writes:
In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
In the middle of a debate over what does and does not constitute appropriate classifications for nations, let us never forget who we are as persons. And, by God’s grace, let us treat each other accordingly.
__________________________________
[1] Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 24-25.
2017 in Review
2017 is officially history. And what a whirlwind of a year it was. As we gear up for what will more than likely be another fast-paced year in 2018, it is worth it to reflect on some of the biggest news stories of this past year and ask ourselves, “What lessons can we learn from what we’ve experienced?” After all, though the news cycle is continually churning out new tragedies, scandals, stresses, and messes to capture our immediate attention, the lessons we learn from these stories should linger, even if the stories themselves do not. Wisdom demands it. So, here is my year in review for 2017.
January
By far, the biggest story of January was the inauguration of Donald J. Trump into the office of President of the United States. After a campaign that was both contentious and raucous, many were on edge when he was inaugurated. As our nation increasingly fractures along partisan lines, Mr. Trump’s presidency continues to inspire both sycophantic adoration and overwrought incredulity.
February
A debate over immigration led the headlines in February as fallout over President Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from nations with known terror sympathies – including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – came fast and fierce. The president’s travel ban was, until very recently, the subject of endless court battles.
March
The headlines jumped across the Atlantic in March when Khalid Masood, a British-born citizen apparently inspired by online terrorist propaganda, drove an SUV into pedestrians on the Westminster Bridge, leaving four dead and forty injured. After crashing his vehicle outside Parliament, he ran, fatally stabbing a police officer before he was fatally shot by law enforcement.
April
In one of the strangest stories of the year, Vice-President Mike Pence was both criticized and, at times, even mocked for refusing to dine alone with any woman who was not his wife or one of his close relatives. Many people interpreted his boundary as needlessly prudish. Mr. Pence viewed it as a wise way to guard his integrity.
May
Another story of terror echoed through the headlines in May, this time in Manchester, England, when suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated himself at an Ariana Grande concert leaving 22 dead and 59 wounded.
June
The terrorist attacks continued in June as seven were killed and another 48 were wounded in London when a vehicle barreled into pedestrians on London Bridge. Three attackers then emerged to go on a stabbing rampage. Also, Steve Scalise, the majority whip for the House of Representatives, was seriously wounded when 66-year-old James Hodgkinson opened fire during a congressional baseball game.
July
President Trump and Pope Francis offered to provide medical care for the family of Charlie Gard, a baby born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. A judge in the UK, where the Gard family resides, ordered that Charlie be taken off life support because he saw no hope for Charlie’s recovery, which prompted the president’s and the pope’s overtures. Charlie was eventually removed from life support and passed away.
August
James Alex Fields killed one person and injured nineteen when he plowed his Dodge Challenger into a group of counter-protesters at an event called “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville, Virginia, which was protesting a decision by the city to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Hurricane Harvey also ripped through Texas, devastating the Coastal Bend, the Houston area, and the Golden Triangle on the Texas-Louisiana border.
September
Hurricane Irma churned its way across Cuba, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, the Virgin Islands, Antigua, Barbuda, and, finally, Florida, leaving mass devastation in its wake.
October
The worst mass shooting in American history took place when James Paddock broke the window in his hotel suite at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas and fired onto a crowd of country concert goers below, killing 59 and injuring hundreds. In a much more heartwarming moment, the Christian Church celebrated the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.
November
On the heels of one mass shooting came another – this time at a tiny church outside San Antonio in Sutherland Springs. 26 people were killed when a gunman opened fire on the congregants inside in the middle of a Sunday service. A sexual assault epidemic also broke wide open, as man after man – from Hollywood moguls to politicians to television news personalities – were revealed to have engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior.
December
Devastating wildfires ripped through southern California, scorching thousands of acres and forcing hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate.
These are only a few of the stories from 2017. There are, of course, countless others that I did not mention. So, what is there to learn from all these stories?
First, when I compare this year in review with others I have written, I am struck by how, in the words of Solomon, there really is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Other years have featured other terrorist attacks, natural disasters, mass shootings, and political upheavals. Even the freshly revealed charges of sexual assault chronicle things that happened years, if not decades, ago. The news cycle seems to have a certain, sordid rhythm to it. The news may be saddening, but I’m not so sure it’s surprising.
Second, if anyone ever needed a bit of empirical verification of the biblical doctrine of human depravity, the news cycle would be a good place to find it. Both the drumbeat of dreariness in our news cycle and the fact that we, as a matter of course, are often more riveted by horrific stories than we are by uplifting ones are indications that something is seriously wrong in our world.
Finally, at the same time the news cycle testifies to human depravity, it must not be forgotten that, regardless of how bad the news cycle gets during any given year, hope seems to spring eternal for a better set of stories in the coming year. Yes, we may brace ourselves for the worst. But this cannot stop us from hoping for the best. Such a hope is a testimony to the fact that God has “set eternity in the human heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11) – an eternity when everything that is wrong in this age will be set right in the next. We cannot help but yearn for that age to come.
So, here’s to hoping for a grand 2018. Yes, the news cycle may indeed take a turn toward the sour, but we also know that God has promised a new age to come, even if we do not yet know its day or hour.
Debating DACA
Credit: NBC News
When President Trump sent his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, before the cameras to announce the reversal of the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals policy – an executive order signed by President Obama that allows certain undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as minors to receive a renewable two-year deferral of deportation – he had to suspect that his announcement would spark controversy both on the right and on the left. In his statement, the Attorney General explained:
As the Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld…
To have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, we cannot admit everyone who would like to come here. That is an open border policy and the American people have rightly rejected it.
Therefore, the nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means all cannot be accepted.
This does not mean they are bad people or that our nation disrespects or demeans them in any way. It means we are properly enforcing our laws as Congress has passed them.
It is with these principles and duties in mind, and in light of imminent litigation, that we reviewed the Obama Administration’s DACA policy…
The Department of Justice has advised the President and the Department of Homeland Security that DHS should begin an orderly, lawful wind down, including the cancellation of the memo that authorized this program.
Acting Secretary Duke has chosen, appropriately, to initiate a wind down process. This will enable DHS to conduct an orderly change and fulfill the desire of this administration to create a time period for Congress to act – should it so choose.
Key to understanding the Attorney General’s remarks is his acknowledgement that Congress can act to pass a bill that addresses the issue of immigrants brought to this country illegally as minors in the time that DACA is winding down. President Trump, in a Tweet, explicitly encouraged Congress to pass some sort of legislation that addresses this group of immigrants:
Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2017
Though the issues involved here are many, I believe there are three specific concerns we must take into account in order to address the questions and controversies that surround DACA faithfully and sensitively.
The first concern is that of constitutionality. Many are arguing that the action President Obama took when he signed his executive order on DACA was indeed constitutional. Others are arguing just the opposite. Just the fact that there are so many questions surrounding the legality of this executive order should at least encourage us to consider what other, less constitutionally questionable, options are available. Operating squarely within the law brings a stability and sustainability to governmental actions that flirting with policies and positions on the legal periphery does not. The Attorney General put it well in his statement when he said:
No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed.
Societies where the rule of law is subject to political whims and personal biases tend to become societies afflicted by corruption, poverty, and human suffering.
The law, when it is written morally and enforced equitably, can indeed be a force for great good and a guard against dark evil. Thus, constitutional questions ought to be carefully weighed when considering the future of DACA.
A second concern in this discussion should be that of safety. Since its inception, about 1,500 people who were once eligible for DACA have had their DACA status revoked because they committed some sort of crime. Since President Trump took office, arrests and deportations of DACA eligible immigrants have increased, pointing to a more rigorous prosecution against those who commit crimes. In the interest of “providing for the common defense,” those who appear poised to do citizens harm should be carefully monitored and those who have done citizens harm should be appropriately punished. A well-ordered society where wrongdoers are held accountable “promotes the general welfare” by allowing people to live in reasonable safety and societal prosperity. The safety of people has been – and should continue to be – a focus not only of this government, but of any government.
A final concern in this discussion should be that of morality. We must never forget that the legality of something doesn’t necessarily ensure the morality of something. Abortion, for instance, may be legal, but it is certainly not moral. This is why, for decades now, biblically minded Christians have been speaking out against it. We must grapple with the question of morality when dealing with issues of unlawful immigration. What is the right thing to do with this or that group of undocumented immigrants? Are we called to help others, even if they are here illegally? In Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan, a priest and a Levite missed an opportunity to be a neighbor to a man who had been badly beaten and was laying on the side of the road because of some legal concerns over helping such a man. Mosaic law stipulated that touching a dead body rendered a person ceremonially unclean. The beaten man, although he was not in actuality dead, looked dead. Checking on him, then, if he did turn out to be dead, would have legally defiled them. So, they passed by as far away from him as they could “on the other side” so as not to risk defilement. A Samaritan, however, when he saw this man, opted to take a risk and help him. Jesus commends the Samaritan for having done the right thing. A spirit of helpfulness and neighborliness can and should be paramount in how we address this issue.
Most of the angry polemical positions people take on this issue come when one of these concerns – be that the concern of constitutionality, safety, or morality – is exalted to the exclusion of the others. Some are concerned only with legal questions and never bother to ask, “How can I be a neighbor to everyone, even to those who are here illegally?” Some love to paint themselves as morally superior neighbors, but are loathe to do the hard work of studying, supporting, and, when appropriate, critiquing immigration law for the sake of the long-term stability and equitability of our nation’s immigration policy. Still others are so concerned with safety that they see threats where, sometimes, there are none and take a by-any-means-necessary approach to security, even when the security measures they support harm innocent people.
Taking into account all of these concerns, though difficult, may just offer us a path forward that will be legal, reasonably safe, and neighborly all at the same time. Let’s see if we can’t find such a path – and then walk it.
Kim Jong Un, Power, Politics, and Christ
Credit: Damir Sagolj / Reuters
Last week, when The Washington Post reported that North Korea had successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads that can fit inside the long-range missiles it has been so publicly and ostentatiously testing, the world snapped to attention. The U.N. Security Council had already voted unanimously the previous weekend to impose new economic sanctions on Pyongyang in response of North Korea’s launch of two intercontinental missiles. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that continued provocation from North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, is “intolerable, from the president’s perspective” and warned that the president is leaving “all options…and that includes the military option” on the table. President Trump himself declared that any further threats from the Kim regime would be met with “fire and fury.” Kim Jong Un responded to the president’s warning by threatening an attack against the U.S. territory of Guam. Tensions have crested dangerously.
As the world grapples with a dangerous and potentially deadly conflict, how do we, as Christians, process this battle of words between the United States and North Korea that could quickly degenerate into a battle of bombs? Here are a few thoughts.
Pray for a peaceful solution.
Jim Geraghty of National Review outlined three ways the U.S. can potentially respond to North Korea’s latest threats:
A) Learn to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea that can strike the United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles; B) a conventional war sooner to eliminate the threat, that will involve massive casualties on the Korean peninsula and possibly elsewhere; or C) a nuclear exchange with North Korea sometime in the future.
While U.S. officials weigh what Geraghty admittedly calls “three bad options,” Christians should be praying for an option beyond these options: peace. I have never been ashamed or afraid to pray what appear to be quixotic prayers. When someone is terminally ill, I still pray for healing – along with praying for comfort if an earthly healing doesn’t come. If a marriage seems inexorably headed toward divorce, I still pray for reconciliation – along with praying for each person’s best possible future if reconciliation does not come. In the case of this latest conflict between the United States and North Korea, I have no problem praying that God would bring peace – that weapons would be laid down and that threats would turn into productive talks – along with praying that our national leaders would be able to respond with other-worldly wisdom to Kim Jong Un if he continues in his menacing ways.
If God can bring peace between Himself and us through His Son, Jesus Christ, peace between nations cannot be dismissed as unrealistic or impossible. With God, even the impossible can be possible. So, let us pray for peace.
Don’t let the scope of the threat fool you.
Part of what makes this threat appear so ominous is its scope. The very word “nuclear” brings to mind visions of mushroom clouds, radiation fallout, and mass casualties. But the scope of destruction does not have be extensive to be egregious in God’s sight. Every murder that is committed, every lone wolf terrorist attack that is carried out, and every life that is lost angers God, for all of these things pervert the goodness of God’s creation by destroying the lives of God’s creatures. The destruction of life offends God deeply, even when it does not make headlines in the form of a nuclear missile. God is not just concerned with international crises. He is concerned with every single life – including yours.
Remember, Christ has triumphed over every rogue authority.
One of the fascinating features of North Korean culture is how it has deified the Kim regime. A North Korean defector, Yeonmi Park, admitted in a 2014 interview that she believed Kim Jong Un’s father, Kim Jong-il, was a god who could read her thoughts. Of course, such deification of earthly leaders is nothing new. The first century Roman emperors fashioned a whole cultus around themselves. In Jesus’ day, Tiberius Caesar had coins minted with the inscription, “Tiberius Caesar, son of divine Augustus,” with the obverse side declaring Tiberius to be “the high priest.”[1] The early Christians rejected such deification of political leaders because they knew that Caesar was not Lord. Christ was. This is why the apostle Paul can write that Christ has “disarmed the powers and authorities [and has] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15). There is only one God – and He is not in North Korea, the White House, or any other human seat of power. He is enthroned “in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19). Christ is the authority over every earthly authority.
Caution is certainly needed as we head into an uncertain future with North Korea. Fear, however, is not. Kim Jong Un may have nuclear weapons, but we have the sword of the Spirit. And the Spirit’s sword will continue to wield its power long after human weapons have been beaten into plowshares. For that, we can be thankful. And because of that, we can be hopeful.
_________________________________
[1] See Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 325.
Trump, Lavrov, Comey, and Flynn
What a week it’s been at the White House. Last week brought what felt like a one-two punch of political crises. First, The Washington Post reported this past Monday that President Trump, in an Oval Office meeting, shared highly classified information concerning terrorist activity with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Because the information the president shared was first shared with us by one of our allies, the potential exists, according to some experts, to compromise our intelligence sharing relationships with these allies. Then, the very next day, The New York Times published a story claiming that President Trump had asked the now former FBI director, James Comey, to end his investigation into the president’s fired national security advisor, Michael Flynn. As soon as the story broke, many began to raise questions about whether or not the president potentially obstructed justice. The president has since denied The New York Times’ report.
As politicians and pundits debate the consequences, the legality, and the constitutionality of the president’s alleged actions and their implications for our country, and as our political discourse continues down a path that seems to be increasingly marked by fear, distrust, and anger, here are a few reminders for us, as Christians, to help us navigate these heady times.
Pray for the president and for all our leaders.
Whether you love him, hate him, or are on the fence about him, President Trump needs our prayers. Scripture commands us to pray for him along with all those who serve in our nation’s government: “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people – for kings and all those in authority” (1 Timothy 2:1-2). This means Republicans should be praying for Democrats and Democrats should be praying for Republicans. Political leadership is not only geopolitically treacherous because of the power it wields, it is spiritually perilous because of the prideful temptations it brings. Politicians need our prayers.
Love the truth more than you love your positions.
In February, Elizabeth Kolbert wrote a piece for The New Yorker titled, “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds.” In it, she cites a Stanford study in which researchers rounded up two groups of students: one group that believed capital punishment deterred crime and another group that believed capital punishment did not deter crime. Both groups of students were then given two studies, one of which presented data that showed capital punishment did deter crime and the other of which presented data that showed capital punishment had no effect on crime. Interestingly, both of these studies were completely fabricated so the researchers could present, objectively speaking, equally compelling cases. So what happened? The students who were pro-capital punishment applauded the study that bolstered their position while dismissing the study that called it into question. Likewise, the students who were anti-capital punishment applauded the study that agreed with their position while dismissing the other study. These two groups were so entrenched in their positions that they dismissed, out of hand, any information that called their positions into question, even if that information was presented as factual. In other words, they loved their positions more than they loved the truth.
Politics seems to be custom-made for the kind of thinking that is more interested in holding positions than in seeking truth. I have seen several social media posts where people boast openly that they no longer watch this or that news channel. Instead, they receive their news only from outlets that are sympathetic to their positions. As Christians, we should humbly recognize that there is truth in all sorts of sources – even in sources that disagree with and call into question our political positions.
The nature of truth is that some of it will always make us uncomfortable. Sin, at its root, is based on lies, which means that some lies will inevitably appeal to us more than some truth, for all of us are sinners. Indeed, if some truth never makes us uncomfortable, then we are probably missing the truth!
Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska offered a great bit of moral clarity on the subject of truth in political discourse when he said recently on a morning news show:
Both of these parties, going back a couple of decades now, regularly act like your main duty is to – if here’s the truth, and you think the other side’s going to say this – you think you’re supposed to say this to try to counterbalance it. I think that’s a bunch of hooey … You’re supposed to say what you think is true and try to persuade people to come alongside with you. You’re not trying to counterbalance one falsehood with another.
This is exactly right. You don’t fight one political tall tale with a tall tale of your own. Truth trumps political posturing. In the words of the prophet Jeremiah, we are to “deal honestly and seek the truth” (Jeremiah 5:1). We are not to blindly and sycophantically defend the positions of our favorite politicians.
Trust in the Lord; not in an earthly leader.
In politics, crises will always abound. Politicians, after all, are fallen human beings who are prone to making the same mistakes we are and can, at times, even intentionally and malevolently sin. This is why we cannot trust in them for deliverance from our plights and blights. Only the Lord can deliver us from these things.
Perhaps the thing that disturbs me the most about our current political environment is not what our politicians do, but what so many of us believe our politicians can do. So many of us seem tempted to fashion our politicians not as public servants, but as civil saviors. Sometimes, we can be tempted to believe our politicians can usher in a humanly wrought utopia (think of some of the hopes that rested on the chant, “Yes, we can!”) while at other times, we can be tempted to believe our politicians can repristinate a bygone America full of wistful nostalgia (think of some of the discourse that surrounded the slogan, “Make America great again!”). As Christians, our hope lies not in utopia or in nostalgia, but in Parousia – the day when Christ will return and sin and death will be conquered by Him once and for all. That is our hope. He is our hope. So let’s devote ourselves to proclaiming Christ, Him crucified, Him resurrected, and Him coming again.
Pastor Zach's Blog 