Prophet, Priest, King

Along the Way @ mlsgregg.com (2) Gentle Reader,

Studying fundamentalist ideology can leave one with a sour taste in her mouth.

A very sour taste.

I was not raised in a fundamentalist home. I wore pants, played sports, went to public school, read books. listened to music, had boyfriends and asked questions. A lot of questions. I probably drove my parents and teachers up the proverbial wall.

Now, as an adult, I’m still not a fundamentalist. The more I study the Bible and the longer I walk with Jesus, the more convinced I become that God never asks us to turn off our minds. He does not desire us to be simpletons. He does not ask us to turn lumps in the ground into mountains and then die on them. These things – anti-intellectualism and harsh stances on small issues – are often the unfortunate destinations when traveling the fundamentalist road.

Another is the sloppy interpretation and misapplication of God’s word.

I’ve come across several articles recently that take titles belonging to Christ – prophet, priest and king – and transfer them to husbands. (I won’t link to any – save one – of the articles here because this is a definite instance of not wanting to drive traffic to the sites. You can locate them via a simple Google search).

I have a problem with that.

A real problem.

This piece has been under my skin for days. I realize that the author makes it a point to quote Paul’s admonition that husband’s are love their wives as Christ loved the church (sacrificially, even to the point of death; Ephesians 5:25) and I’ll give him credit for that. Still there are problems:

It has been widely accepted that Christ’s activity on behalf of the church can be summarized in these three functional titles: Prophet, Priest and King. A brief look at each will give us keen insight into our role as husbands.

Christ as Prophet: A prophet is someone who brings forth the Word of God to mankind. He is responsible for accurately discerning what God is saying and communicating that to others. Christ performed this prophetic role perfectly in two ways. First, He accurately spoke and taught the Word and words of God to others. Second, He was the actual expression of God and the Word made flesh.

The Husband as Prophet: We have the amazing privilege of bringing forth the Word of God to our wives. While this might involve some actual Bible-teaching time, we need to see the various other forms this should take. We can proclaim His Word and His will as we counsel our wives, as we make family decisions and as we plan for our family’s future. The common ingredient in all of its forms is God’s Word. Without the Word of God, a prophet has nothing to say; his words are empty and meaningless.

In addition to bringing forth the Word in our actions, we too must personify the Word made flesh in us. We must model the truth we are teaching. We must personify what we desire our wives and our marriages to become. Without personally living the truth we proclaim, we can expect no higher praise from Christ than the Pharisees received. (Matthew 23:2-4)

Christ as Priest: A priest is an intercessor: someone who seeks God on behalf of someone else. As Priest, Jesus is constantly seeking God on our behalf. Through Him, we are made holy, righteous, and acceptable to God. Yet, this Priest is different from all others in that He did not sacrifice a lamb, dove, or bull. This Priest sacrificed Himself on our behalf.

The Husband as Priest: As we love our wives, we must serve as priest. Our wives and marriages need prayer. We have the privilege and duty of petitioning God on their behalf. We should pray for their purity, their protection, their joy, their faith, and their burdens. We should pray for their success as a wife, as a mother, and as a woman of God.

We must again follow Christ’s example and allow our priestly sacrifice to be our very selves. Hebrews 12 tells us that Jesus looked past His own sacrifice to the joy that would occur on the other side. With that in mind, look at all that your wife could become. Consider what God might want to do with her, in her, and through her. And, for that joy set before you, willingly endure when you are called to sacrifice yourself. In so doing, you will love your wife as Christ loves His church.

Christ as King: A king is someone who is supreme or preeminent. As our King, Christ deserves our honor, our praise, our obedience, and our servitude. He is in charge … the undisputed leader of the church. Paul speaks many times of Jesus as the head of the church. Yet, while this King rules and reigns, He also serves and ministers to His people. His rule is peculiar in that He models leadership by serving. He says that the greatest among His people will be those who serve. He also is an accessible King. In many courts throughout history, subjects were never permitted to be in the presence of their king. King Jesus invites us in; He leaves open the door to His throne room.

The Husband as King: Ephesians 5:23 makes it clear; the husband is the head of the wife. In essence, kingship undeniably belongs to the husband. As we embrace that, we as husbands must lead. We must lead clearly and boldly. We must be out there on the edge looking to the provision and the protection of our kingdom. To do less is to fall short of our calling to headship. The privilege is ours to rule our home.

However, we are not called simply to take our crowns and dominate our wives. We must rule as Christ rules … with humility. He modeled precisely how He wants us to love our wives. As our King, Christ knelt and washed the feet of His disciples. We must follow His example and serve. Lead boldly, yet serve. Never let the brawn of your leadership outweigh the sacrifice of your leadership. Christ kept them in perfect balance; that is our calling as well.

There’s a lot wrong here.

I make no secret of the fact that I’m not a complementarian. While I do believe that men and women complement each other, I do not believe that there are strictly defined gender roles. I don’t believe that men have one set of gifts and callings while women have another (all of 1 Corinthians 12, but especially verse 11; there is no mention here that the Spirit gives “x” only to men and “y” only to women). I don’t believe that women have to stay home and wait for the men to bring home the bacon.

Neither to I deny the innerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, so I know and accept what it says about the marital relationship. A lot of people like to skip over the whole “submit to one another” part of Ephesians 5, though (vs. 21). They gloss over the fact that a man who loves his wife sacrificially will do all he can to support her, and she in turn will have no trouble supporting and respecting him.

A lot of people read a whole lot of stuff into that passage. (And 1 Peter 3). They miss the mutuality of marriage. They forget that the two become one (Genesis 2:24).

Neither Paul nor Peter equate the husband with Christ. They never grant him an authority or position on par with Christ. None of the inspired authors of any book of the Bible ever say that a husband functions as a prophet, priest or a king for his wife.

The only way to draw such a conclusion is to read a preconceived notion of “headship” into the passages. Within this system, the Ephesians 5 verses are interpreted with the understanding that “head” means “authority.” However, the Greek kephale is not used to connote authority. It means “source” or “origin.” Consider:

1 Corinthians 11:3: “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Once again, Paul is dealing not with creational hierarchies but with creational sources. As we already saw, if this passage taught hierarchies it would teach the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, which was a central teaching of the Arian heresy. Thus, God being the head of Christ must refer to Christ’s source as the eternally begotten Son. And since all three pairings are compared and parallel, the other two cannot mean “authority” either. In the Greek there are not two separate words for “man/husband” and “woman/wife.” The same word is used for both English terms. Thus, the best rendering is not “husband” and “wife” here, but “the man” and “the woman.” Adam and Eve. Paul’s point in this verse is that the “source” of Adam was Christ since Christ made all things and Adam was made in the Image of Christ. And Adam is the “source” of Eve since she was drawn from his side. – Against Patriarchy, Part 6: Concerning Headship

But what about Eden? What about life before the Fall? Didn’t God set up a hierarchy? No:

Using basic principles of interpretation, one comes up with a very simple explanation of the consequence of God’s curse on Adam and Eve – a consequence that has infiltrated every home since the beginning of time. Simply put, the woman will desire to dominate or control the man, but the man, perhaps even with superior strength, will fight hard to rule over and dominate the woman. Where the curse is present there is a constant battle for control. This is how things are because of sin, not how things in the home ought to be. – God Calls Patriarchial Headship a Sinful Desire

The struggle in marriage isn’t because wives just need to put up (and out) and shut up. It’s because men and women both have a sinful desire to control and dominate. Neither was ever meant to be in authority over the other.

This teaching that men are somehow prophets, priests and kings in marriage strays dangerously close to Mormon ideas about the role of men. (I don’t have time to get into this right now, but please do some digging of your own). It also strays dangerously close to the Catholic idea of an alter Christus, or “another Christ.” Further, this teaching conveniently forgets that women are part of the “chosen generation, the royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). It is a direct appeal to the male ego. Sadly, it sets women up for abuse. (I do not claim that every marriage within a fundamentalist framework is abusive. I’m simply saying that it’s not a long leap from the ideas to the abuse).

I love my husband. I love him dearly. I respect him. But there is no way, no how, he is my prophet, priest or king. Those are functions and offices specifically and clearly filled by Christ. I cannot subscribe to any system that promotes, even unknowingly, the usurpation of His rightly exalted position.

My journey to faith. (15)

Advertisements

It’s Not About the Clothes

Modesty (5)

Gentle Reader,

In my post Sex and the Christian Family I touched on the need to discuss modesty of dress with children of both genders. As “modesty” is a buzzword with varying interpretations, I’d like to share with you exactly what I mean when I use it.

First, there is a huge difference between endorsing sensible modesty of dress and endorsing what is sometimes called “purity culture,” a culture that often goes hand-in-hand with Christian fundamentalism. While I do think that there are fundamentals of faith, things that must be believed in order to be a Christian (the literal death and Resurrection of Christ; the hypostatic union; the virgin birth; the inerrancy of Scripture, for example), I’m not a fundamentalist. I don’t believe in strict gender roles. I don’t think that the Genesis account of creation has to be interpreted as six literal days (though I also don’t accept naturalistic evolution, so basically I make nobody happy). I don’t think God has a problem with women preachers. (I wrote about this in the series Not the Fundamentals if you want more).

Purity balls skeeve me out. Frankly, they give off an incestuous vibe. I have no problem with fathers taking their daughters out for a special day as they near dating age and sharing with them how a young man should treat them (with respect, as an equal), but the whole idea of a father pledging to protect his daughter’s virginity and the language so often used at these events that reduces her to a piece of property…no thanks. I’m also not wild about purity jewelry; it’s meant to serve as a reminder, but I imagine it only impacts the sense of shame if a bad decision is made.

I don’t think that women should only wear skirts/dresses and never expose their shoulders. I don’t think that women need to have long hair. I don’t think that women should never wear make-up or jewelry. I don’t think that women need to cover their hair, as 1 Corinthians 11 needs to be understood within it’s context and the timeless principles removed from the static principles of time and place.(This is the practice of good interpretation and application).

Neither do I think that modesty of dress for women is all about men. (Sorry, guys). The “men as visual creatures” argument has been hyped to the point of ridiculousness. Yes, there is truth to it, but all too often this is used as a way of placing the responsibility for male sexual purity on the shoulders of women. I can’t get behind that. I won’t get behind that. Nothing in Scripture supports the idea. Men need to take responsibility for themselves.

So, why do I think that women should dress modestly? And what does that even mean?

The way a woman dresses reflects her sense of self. Every woman chooses what she wears, whether she claims to care about it or not. (In fact, “not caring” conveys a message about identity through dress). Clothes don’t just fall onto us haphazardly. We aren’t at their mercy. We make deliberate, even if occasionally hurried, even if sometimes detached, decisions. Pants. Skirt. Shorts. Heels. Flats. Flip-flops. T-shirt. Blouse.

My desire is that women see themselves as Christ sees them. I want to see myself through His eyes. From all that I have learned from Scripture and the impressions of the Spirit upon my soul, God sees women as beautiful, dignified and worthy. He desires that we navigate life in the knowledge of our royal status as His daughters.

And princesses? They don’t dress trashy.

Someone is going to object to my use of the word, but that’s my basic rule of modesty: Is it trashy? When women walk around with their breasts hanging out or their butt cheeks peeking out or their underwear making an appearance when it shouldn’t (intentionally; we’ve all had our moments when something slips), that says a lot. I’m not talking about what other people say about it. I’m talking about what she says about herself through her clothes.

Does a woman respect herself? Does she understand that she is more than a body? Is she so desperate for attention and affirmation that she’s putting herself on display? Those are the questions that matter, and they are answered less in words, more in actions. And the action of what clothes we choose shares our answers.

I love fashion. My closet is packed with clothes and shoes (almost exclusively from thrift stores, thank you very much). Modesty has nothing to do with eschewing color, cut and style. It has nothing to do with rejecting trends and being deliberately out of touch. It is not about being covered from the neck to the ankle.

Modesty is about understanding who we are. It is thanking God for every curve, every inch of skin, and recognizing when, where and how to share those curves and that skin. There are no hard and fast rules. A scoop-neck tank can be flattering on one woman while it causes another to share more information than is necessary. A pencil skirt can be great when paired with a drapey top. It becomes something else when paired with a cleavage-highlighting blouse.

This is because modesty isn’t really about the clothes, but how and why we wear them. Modesty is ultimately an attitude. One of its synonyms, interestingly, is unpretentious, which is defined as “not attempting to impress others with an appearance of greater importance, talent, or culture than is actually possessed.” If we really think about that definition, any system or understanding that deliberately rejects fashion and insists upon women being clad exclusively in long skirts and loose tops, or dresses, can actually be the opposite of modest. (It’s also legalism).

As I said before, there are no hard and fast rules. I have friends who dress very conservatively, and they do so out of personal conviction, which they don’t attempt to force on anyone else. I have friends who dress very fashionably, but this doesn’t mean they are lesser Christians than those who dress conservatively. Modesty is about the heart. It is about identity.

Modesty. It’s an attitude.

My journey to faith. (15)

Addendum: I don’t want men to think they’re off the hook, because they aren’t. Just as men cannot blame women for their sexual struggles, neither should they be (or claim to be) utterly clueless about what they wear or how they present themselves. It’s possible for men to wear trashy clothes. It’s also possible for men to get wrapped up in rules about what they wear. Everything that applies to women in terms of modesty applies to men.

Also, clothing and style are things that we cannot, repeat cannot, be judgmental about. We have no right to think less of someone because of her clothes. We don’t know what’s going on in her heart and mind, what motivates her choices. Everyone, regardless of how they dress, is made by God and bears His image. They deserve to be treated as such. No matter what. This means that nobody ever “asks for” any kind of abuse. Nobody ever “invites” or “wants” rape. Such claims are baseless and disgusting.

Sex and the Christian Family

Along the Way @ mlsgregg.com

Gentle Reader,

The continued mishandling of sex in the Christian community…

It’s not working.

The Bible is clear. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only legitimate context for sex. I don’t deny that at all. I just don’t think the conversation can stop there. The Bible also speaks of men and women falling in love. An entire book celebrates the physical expression of love in sex (Song of Solomon). Prostitutes are redeemed, Jesus saves an adulteress from stoning, Paul enjoys the single life. There’s more to sex in the Bible than “just don’t.”

We’re falling down on the job in a major way. We tell people “don’t, don’t, don’t” and they “do, do, do,” sometimes with awful and twisted consequences. Parents are on the front lines here. They are the ones teaching the next generation. They need to move beyond “don’t.” Now, someone out there is going to say, “You’re not a parent, so what do you know?” I know enough. I know plenty of people who have been abused. I know people who maintained every shred of their purity before marriage and I know people, myself included, who didn’t. I know that kids have questions and we need to get better at answering them, in age-appropriate ways.

In no particular order:

Move beyond “don’t” and into “why.” It’s not enough to tell anyone not to do something without explaining why. God Himself doesn’t even do that. He either spells it out clearly or reveals the reasons through events. So it must be in our conversations about sex. Kids need to know why saving sex for marriage is the right thing to do, especially as they get into those years of raging hormones. They need to know about more than STDs and abortion. They need to know about emotional attachments, spiritual dulling and baggage. They need to know about long-term consequences.

Kids need to be told that they are normal. It’s normal to be curious about the body, both your own and others. It’s normal, as we age, to develop crushes and have desires. There is no shame in that. God designed us this way.

Boundaries. In telling kids that they are normal, the importance of boundaries must be emphasized. They need to know that their curiosity doesn’t give them license to do whatever they want. They also need to know that their “no” means something and it’s not right for their “no” to be ignored.

– An explanation of boundaries must begin at an early age. Kids need to be told that it is NEVER okay for anyone to touch them anywhere in any way that they don’t like, and certainly never okay for anyone to touch their intimate places. They need to know that they should and can IMMEDIATELY tell their parents or other trusted adults if something inappropriate has happened.

– If your kid comes to you and tells you that she has been violated, you need to take action. Not tomorrow. Not later. NOW. If you don’t, you communicate to him devastating things: You don’t believe what he says. You don’t value her. You think that it’s fine for him to be abused.

– If the perpetrator is your own kid, he or she needs to receive immediate help. (He/she should also be removed from the house if he/she is abusing the other child/ren). You cannot deal with this on your own. You need the services of a professional therapist or a pastor with extensive counseling training.

– Boundaries within dating should be discussed. I don’t believe that God frowns when a kiss or a hug is exchanged, but those kisses and hugs can escalate quickly. Again, that’s normal. We are sexual beings. What safeguards will dating children have in place? The point is not to be legalistic, but to develop a realistic standard based on God’s word and the maturity of the child.

Teach them the correct words. Vagina. Penis. Breasts. Testicles. Uterus. Ovaries. Orgasm. And my computer isn’t bursting into flames!

Responsibility. This is one area in which I think we fail most consistently, in several ways:

– Kids need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that it is NOT their fault if someone chooses to abuse them. All the blame must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator.

– Young ladies need to be told that they are not responsible for the actions of men. I do believe that women should dress with dignity, understanding that they are beautiful, intricately designed daughters of the King. We should dress in a way that honors the Lord by honoring our bodies, not putting every inch of skin on display. There aren’t hard-and-fast rules, though. What one woman is comfortable with another may not be. Bottom line: even the loosest turtleneck made of the heaviest fabric will not keep a man from lusting if he has a mind to do so, and this is not the fault of any woman.

– Young men need to be told that Jesus never advocated lust management or blame-shifting. Marriage was not meant to be simply an outlet for a man’s sexual desire. It is not fine for a man to indulge his lust with his wife. Sex is meant to be an expression of love and an avenue for deepest connection. If a man struggles with lust, he must recognize that as his struggle. His struggle is not made easier by the availability and increasing mainstream acceptance of pornography, nor is it made easier by a woman’s lack of understanding her own dignity in the way she dresses. Nevertheless, his struggle is not to be blamed on any woman. His choices and thoughts are his own.

The conversation must be on-going. Too many parents stop at an explanation of how babies are made. That’s not enough. Kids need to know that they can come to their parents with any questions, any confusion. They need to know that their parents are safe and won’t drag them over the coals.

Your story. Kids need to know how and why you struggled. They need to know why you feel so strongly about this. They need to know when you failed and when you succeeded. They need to know your regrets and what you’re thankful for.

Jesus. From the earliest age, like within the womb, kids need to hear about Jesus. They need to be told about God. They need to hear how wonderful and awesome and holy and perfect and loving He is. They need to know that they can talk to Him about anything. That they can pour their hearts out. They need to be told, in clear and simple terms, about sin and the cross and the Resurrection. They need to know how important it is that they ask Him for forgiveness and ask Him to be the Lord of their lives.

Grace. It must be explained, emphasized and given. Because even the best Bible study, the most comprehensive conversation, the best explanations as to “why,” the most authentic sharing of story cannot keep people from making choices. Kids are sinners, just like their parents. They need to know that stones will not be hurled at their heads. They need to know that the wonderful Jesus you’ve told them about can and will forgive them of anything they’ve done. They need to know that you’ll forgive them. They need to know that they can forgive themselves.

This is far too important an issue. We cannot keep bungling it. Kids cannot keep suffering because we’re too uncomfortable to say the word “penis” or too ashamed to tell them that we had sex before we got married. We, the adults, need to grow up and step up. We’ve got to stop wringing our hands and screaming “no!” We’ve got to stop shaming the next generation because they have the same questions, struggles, longings and desires we do.

We need to do better.

We must.

My journey to faith. (15)

May 23, 2015: After reading this post, a friend of mine pointed out that pornography isn’t just a “man’s issue” and modesty isn’t just a “woman’s issue.” She is entirely correct. Increasing numbers of women turn to pornography (though it may be labeled “erotica”). Women enjoy looking at attractive men just as much as men enjoy looking at attractive women; there’s a reason Mark Wahlberg’s Calvin Klein ad has never faded away.

So, the conversation about pornography and modesty must include both girls and boys. They all need to be taught how to present themselves in a way that honors both God and the body. And while kids should be told that it’s normal to notice and appreciate physical beauty, they must also be taught that people are not objects.

Photo credit: Shelby Deeter

Not the Fundamentals: Politics

20738_29522_5

Gentle Reader,

A search for the word “government” in the NKJV yields 6 results. The first, 2 Samuel 20:23, contains a list of King David’s governmental officers. Isaiah 9:1, 6-7 speak of the everlasting Kingdom of the Messiah. Romans 13:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 each admonish the reader to be subject to the government. The same search in the NIV yields 4 results, Isaiah 9:6-7 included. 1 Kings 9:22 records that King Solomon did not enslave any Israelite, but made them leaders. Daniel 6:4 shares how officials in Darius’ government worked to entrap Daniel.

No results in either translation come up when searching for “politics” or “political.” The term “faction” or “factions” occurs twice in both the NKJV and the NIV, all occurrences negative. I Kings 16:21 tells a story of yet more unrest in Israel. Psalm 106:17 recalls how Dathan was swallowed up by the earth after incurring the Lord’s wrath. 1 Corinthians 11:19, taken in context, finds Paul condemning the factions and divisions among the people. Lastly, Galatians 5:20, also taken in context, lists factionalism as a work of the flesh (i.e., sin).

A search for “division” gets you 65  results in the NKJV, 97 in the NIV. Some references use the word interchangeably with “tribe.” Some refer to military units, others to the partitioning of the Promised Land. The Gospel passages record Jesus saying that He will bring division into families and communities. The rest of the New Testament portions warn against those who cause divisions (Romans 16:17) and urge unity in the Church.

Strangely, I can’t find the word “Democrat” or the word “Republican” anywhere.

In the Unites States, political affiliation has become increasingly intertwined with a profession of faith. It’s no stretch to say that significant numbers of Christians believe that this faith should plant one firmly in one party or the other. (In my bleeding-red home state, it’s Christian = Republican). Needless to say, there are major problems with this line of reasoning.

For one, insisting upon the faith = political party equation causes us to become one-issue people. Millions believe that life is created by God and therefore precious, and so hold that abortion is wrong. Since the Republican party has set itself up on an anti-abortion platform, many of these millions vote a straight ticket. They do so seemingly without realizing that the GOP is also pro-military, pro-death penalty and pro-big, deregulated business. Each of these stances can and do lead to the taking of life, whether through the barrel of a gun, the pinch of a needle or lack of health-care options. Is life outside the womb not created by God and therefore precious?

On the flip side, those who vote a straight Democratic ticket often do not seem to realize that a large governmental system with fingers in every pie can and does erode personal and community responsibility. Considering again the issue of the sanctity of life, if it is true that a woman has the right to end the life of her child, what does that say about choice and consequence in a Christian culture that is to be based on an understanding of sin and forgiveness? There are other questions. Has the great health care “solution” really solved anything, or has the government simply become a player in the current, broken insurance system?

The point: Our faith should be the foundation of our politics, but we have got to face the fact that neither the GOP or the Democrats have a monopoly on Jesus. The Lord is not the recognized head of either party. We who function as parts of Christ’s Body do live with Him as our Leader, our Master, and so must wrestle with living out His commands. Sometimes that means voting one way. Sometimes that means voting the other. Sometimes that means some combination of the two.

What it always means is that we honor our governmental leaders. Commenting on 1 Peter 2:17, Matthew Henry wrote:

Christians must endeavour, in all relations, to behave aright, that they do not make their liberty a cloak or covering for any wickedness, or for the neglect of duty; but they must remember that they are servants of God.

How does a Christian honor leaders when those leaders are clearly evil, as with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc? This is a question that each person must struggle with, but my conclusion is that a Christian stands against evil while accepting the consequences for that stand. For example, if it became illegal in the United States to read the Bible, I would have to disobey that law. I would also have to go to jail. If a public profession of faith meant execution, I would be executed. I may be a citizen of the United States, but I am, over and above all things, a citizen of the Kingdom of God. I will obey all laws insofar as they do not conflict with Scripture and the Spirit. If disobedience becomes inevitable, I will still honor the governmental authority by accepting the punishment doled out and praying for the salvation of those involved. (This is something that I think Christians need to decide on before the situation arises. My process started with Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego, excellent examples of necessary disobedience and submission to consequences).

There is nothing in Scripture that grants license to attack governmental leaders either verbally (which I have been guilty of) or physically. In fact, we are to pray for them, as Paul writes, “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Timothy 2:1-2, NKJV). And if one truly believes that anyone in government is an enemy, there are the words of Christ Himself:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”  – Matthew 5:43-45 (NKJV)

This command of our Lord is crystal clear, but there are some who claim to follow Him that say otherwise. Mr. Steven Anderson has this to say about President Obama (warning – the content of this “sermon” is incredibly vitriolic. The portion about the President begins at 5:49). Mr. Anderson has never met the President, but states anyway, “I hate the person. . .I hate him. . .God wants me to hate Barack Obama.” (And yet he also says, “I love all of God’s creatures.”) At :58 in this video, Anderson goes on to say that the President’s children should be fatherless and his wife a widow because of his stance on abortion.

I have never met Mr. Anderson, but I find in his words a fair warning about enmeshing politics with faith. A warning about being one-issue voters. Most definitely a warning about ignoring the parts of Scripture we don’t like. Try as he might, Mr. Anderson simply cannot make a case for praying for or working toward the death of the President or any other leader.

So, my friend, vote. Be active in politics if you enjoy it. Seek to bring about justice and godly change. But be careful to seek out God’s perspective. This world isn’t perfect and perfection will not be brought about by one party being in power over the other. Paradise will come only with the arrival of King Jesus.

“At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. . .

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.” – Philippians 2:10-11, Revelation 21:1-5 (NKJV)

My journey to faith. (15)

 For all the posts in the Not the Fundamentals series, go here.