Monday Morning Music Ministry

11- 12-12

The recent election sees half of America crowing in jubilation, and half disappointed. Nothing new, there. For once the media has it right, when headlines proclaim that we are a 50-50 nation. Generally, conservatives and many Christians populate the corps of those who despair. But everyone lives to fight another day – sometimes, they itch to fight; sometimes they grow weary of what democracy has become.

I have the feeling that once the dust settles – the debates, the analysis, the what-ifs, the recriminations, the second-guessing, and such – many people will recognize that 2012 was more of a “consequential” election than any of the prophets could have foreseen. Forget the negative ads, the “ground games,” the media bias. This was the year that America went off the cliff – not only a financial cliff, but a social one.

The resounding, and fateful, votes across America were on the “undercards.” State ballot initiatives OK’d homosexual marriage, legalized recreational marijuana, and censorship of political speech; i.e., contra Citizens United – two approvals of each matter, spread across various states.

No longer can traditional conservatives and Christian patriots direct their complaints at small court majorities or legislatures that might have been influenced in one way or another.

The people are speaking. The rejection of traditional values goes hand-in-hand with the dependency culture, a society that enables various form of vice. In the name of “welcome,” “acceptance,” and non-judgmentalism, we are calling evil good. America will never be the same: throughout history, societies that so self-destruct seldom hit the rewind button.

I try to reconcile the traditional concept of “the Divine Right of Kings” with the democratic age. God does not SEND leaders to peoples in every case; He “allows” leaders and situations and consequences. Which is to say, we get the leaders we deserve. This is axiomatic. What we do to deserve them, and how we cope with consequences, is neither axiomatic nor automatic.

Those whom I gather under the umbrellas of cultural traditionalists and Christian patriots with me would do well to stop complaining about media bias, cynical campaigning practices, and pandering to voting blocs, however true and pernicious those factors are. The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.

WE have let a generation slip away. WE have allowed churches to dilute the message of the gospel so they preach a feel-good, enablement gospel that leaves people without moral compasses. WE have allowed the entertainment media to pollute the sensibilities of audiences. WE have stood by while the educational-industrial complex has gutted schools of the Bible, traditional morality, and nationalism. WE have supported the news media while the commercialization of subversive concepts rolls along. WE have overseen the destruction of the traditional family, the spread of a drug culture, the erosion of personal responsibility.

It is almost ridiculous that, having watched, and often failed to resist, all these trends, that we regard an election whose results we regret and blame politicians or even other voters. Our actions – our inaction – has brought this to pass. How can it be otherwise?

What could we have done, what can we do? A lot. It involves “hurting other peoples’ feelings,” a cardinal sin these days. But Christians have come to the place where they don’t mind offending God, as long as our sinning and suffering neighbors are not offended. It involves yelling out our thoughts at more than our cats, our spouses, and our TV sets – getting in the face of those whom we see as negative influences, from school board candidates to presidents. It involves acting like we love the past, hate the present, and care about the future.

It involves doing what cultural traditionalists and Christian patriots have done through history. Work, sacrifice, fight. And pray, because this is a spiritual crisis more than an electoral contest.

On this Veterans day, with Election Day just behind us, we have a special set of role models before the eyes of our conscience. It always strikes me that many armies in history have been fueled by hatred, but the US military, invariably, suits up and reports for duty in order to liberate, aid, and serve.

“Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his fellow man.”

Lamenting the drift of our civil culture, and pausing to honor our veterans, reminds me of the old hymn, “Onward Christian Soldiers.” Its chorus does NOT say, “marching to war,” but “marching AS to war.” Traditionalists and Christian patriots should not necessarily make war, but march for biblical values as if girding for battle.

Abraham Lincoln once said that our concern should not be whether God is on our side, but that we are on God’s side. In the battles to come – and there will be many; there SHOULD be many! – this should be our concern too.

+ + +

A moving rendition of the classic hymn that can be an anthem of renewal for citizen-battlers in the fight to reclaim our culture:

Click: Onward, Christian Soldiers

Categories: Government, Patriotism, Service

11-5-12

In education we have – or we once had – the three Rs. In discussions of campaigns and elections, we can divide discussions into categories of the three Ps – Partisan, Political, and Patriotic. There should be no negative connotations to any of them, as long as understand the sources and purposes. Citizens might grow tired of partisanship, yet in such contentions policies are formulated and governance achieved. Even our founders quickly adopted party identification; and The Federalist Papers argued for the positive roles of lobbyists in policy debates.

Then there is Politics, which (apart from corruption and mean manipulations) is also a necessary ingredient in the recipes of civic management. Patriotism, is, of course… “the last refuge of scoundrels!” is the old phrase that leaps to many minds. And so it has been. But it must always be what is its essential component – the noble motivation of citizens and their representatives. If it is honored more in the breach, so be it. The efforts of patriots are still worth the troubles and the muck.

In the campaign just ending there are few among us who would wish that the infernal phone calls and competing polls and annoying television commercials and cards and letters would continue. Gee, can’t we have, please, another five or six months of all this? And, maybe, six or eight more debates? I don’t think so; nobody does.

So I have promised election predictions. A couple paragraphs to the south, here, I will issue a dead-certain prediction. But first, some observations from the “patriotic” point of view – not that I would consider contrary forecasts unpatriotic. I just mean that my thoughts are as dispassionate as I can make them, with national and broad interpretations, and not partisan or political.

They all have to do with religious considerations. And I am struck by the fact that very few polls and scarcely any commentary this cycle has confronted the role of the Christian voter. In several elections the so-called Evangelical Bloc determined outcomes of local and national elections. Christians were courted. And profiled. And polled. They accounted for Bush’s victory margins; they were relatively lukewarm to McCain. This year I have observed several significant currents. They have been largely neglected by pollsters and commentators. The little device known as the “blog archive” and the major tool known as Google will soon determine whether I have fine-honed instincts or a case of late-term election overload. Anyway:

1. The reluctance of Christians to support Romney on the basis of his Mormon religion has largely evaporated. Many of my friends, six months ago, were resigned to “staying home” on the presidential vote, voting for the undercard but not endorsing what many Christians regard as a cultist. There is probably more opposition to Obama than affection for Romney; but, anecdotally, I see a voting bloc showing up at the polls that has been relatively quiet about its intentions.

2. I had the feeling when the abortion-and-contraception mandates, even for Catholic hospitals and charities, were announced, that the president’s campaign reckoned they were appealing to their base and not about to jeopardize votes they never had. And divert a week or two from discussions of the economy. But a sleeping giant was awakened. Again, anecdotal evidence: I have many Catholic friends, some of them very liberal, devoted to traditional Catholic charity work. I have heard many of them, in various degrees of heartache, say that they are otherwise totally committed to candidates from president on down… except – finally – they feel they have to draw the line on the abortion issue. “Despite everything else,” a friend told me recently, “I simply cannot vote for someone who excuses murder.” Multiply these feelings by millions; add the unprecedented sermon and pamphlet appeals by Catholic clergy; and we have, once again scarcely polled and concentrated in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, a voting bloc that might seem to rise from nowhere.

3. The Black Church. Once again, to America’s shame, blacks are taken for granted. By their party of choice, always; by pollsters, this year. But I have not seen one poll of the black church community, which is indisputably a pillar of the large African-American population. Blacks are understandably proud of the first black president. But while white liberals ascribe racism to opponents of the president, some leaders of the black church itself have been mobilizing their own opposition to the president. Several organizations, representing hundreds of congregations, have been formed by leaders of the black church, upset with ineffective economic policies, bureaucratic patronization, drug policies, but most notably abortion stands and, especially, “their” president’s policy on homosexuality, “gay” marriage, and so forth. I think voters from inner-city churches in battleground states will surprise many analysts on the morning after.

So much for the under-the-radar predictions.

The certain, sure-fire, dead-certain, no-doubt prediction, however, is that whoever wins the popular and electoral votes on Tuesday night – or, if Hanging Chad makes a return engagement, a month from Tuesday night – whether Obama or Romney “win,” God is the victor. He cannot lose. He is in control. Our faith should be in Him, not candidates or platforms or campaigns.

Is this good news? Christians should rejoice over the truth of it. But truly, those who claim Jesus Christ and long for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven, might correctly wonder whether to dance in joy, or tremble in fear.

If God truly wins – that is, not just the truth of His Lordship, but the timing and application of His justice, for He cares little about evanescent campaigns and politics – America is in for a shock. How long can He withhold His hand? Are we about to exhaust His mercy?

I have often wondered whether soldiers, looking at the flag they defend, see something symbolized in each of those stars. We all can ask the same question. Count them off: does that star represent legal abortions of millions of babies? Does that star represent the shameful prevalence of drugs in our country? Does that star represent the nightmare of widespread of child abuse? Does that star represent the breakdown of the family unit, no less among Christians than the general public? Does that star represent the acceptance homosexuality and enshrinement of deviant lifestyles, in the law? Does that star represent a shallow failure to protect Christians around the world who are being persecuted? Does that star represent… God help us if the list reaches 50 stars. But I am afraid it could number more than 50 offenses to a righteous God.

What can committed Christians, in clarity and humility, do in a democracy? Well, we are all of us building blocks. Essentially, we can act, and vote, with integrity. We can affect our circle of friends and family. That might be enough… if there are enough of us. We can be little more than foundation stones, but with enough of us we can rebuild a mighty edifice that once stood for God.

Besides, Jesus was the “foundation-stone that the builders rejected.” And see what He won. Not an election, surely, but He won our salvation; and defeated sin and death and the fetters of the world-system.

My early projection is to call this election for God.

+ + +

As another, possibly more resonant, national anthem, “America the Beautiful” is just fine for millions of Christian patriots. And I will cast my vote for Ray Charles signing it. Here, with a slideshow of American scenes.

Click: America the Beautiful Sung by Ray Charles

10-8-12

A provocative blog this week by my friend Craig Bubeck on the site Internet Monk addressed the role of Christians in the political process. Drawing upon his own reassessments, he dealt especially with this season’s hot buttons: the role of morality in civic affairs; loyalty to nation and party; and the legitimacy of coerced charity as practiced by government.

He makes the point that too many Christians automatically reject state-mandated charity, when (recalling Jesus’ admonition to show love “to the least of these”) believers should applaud charity, no matter what the source; and that “values voters” tend to compartmentalize acts of love and charity. The church’s domain, many think.

Craig’s essay did provoke thoughts. I believe I have fairly stated his theses, and my own thoughts are based on his, not the second round of debating-points. I think that a lot of sincere citizens – sincere about their love and country and love of God, including therefore love of fellow men – do not often enough admire or support acts of charity when committed by government agencies.

However, the “other” side of the question (and it IS a foundational question facing Christians and all Americans) concerns how many governmental acts of charity are acts of love. That is to say that Jesus’ bedrock challenge, the element of love, should be the yardstick by which we formulate national policy and our own responses. Long-term, does the state’s co-option of charitable impulses – picking winners and losers, deciding between those in need, attaching strings to aid and comfort – assist the least of these amongst us solely? Or does it, ultimately, interfere with the prerogatives of churches and individuals? Is it a distinction with a difference?

The widow was praised for giving a mite, all she had. The rich man, in the parable, is not praised for, at least, giving something. There is nothing in Jesus’ story about mandating that the widow give, or setting her donation level, or rejecting the rich man’s donation. Love, in the heart, was the Lord’s determinant. Likewise it is evident, even to the extent of using a Roman coin in another of the Lord’s lessons, that “giving unto Caesar” meant the things of Caesar’s – first amongst them money and taxes. Surely the “things of God’s” meant the currency of love, deposited in the heart.

“The poor you will always have with you.” Many Christians do not dig deeply into yet another verse. It is not easy so to dig; my suspicion is that the parables and admonitions of Jesus seem to meet us less than halfway in order to oblige us to think a little harder than usual.

The statement about the poor is some times, at least subliminally, regarded as a reminder that “there are always those who are less fortunate than ourselves.” Perhaps a sanctified defeatism, that poverty will never be totally eradicated? Yet St. Augustine viewed Christ’s words not as a statement of fact or a statistical view of society, but a command, a challenge, a commission from God Almighty.

In the Augustinian view (in his “Confessions”) Christ was saying that no matter how severe the relative poverty — or, that is to say, also the relative comfort-level — of our neighbors, we must retain the spirit of charity. We believers, that is. In the original tongue, “charity” meant “love,” the act of Christian loving and compassion.

It would seems clear that such an impulse, a holy command rather than a feel-good, do-good suggestion, would find little fulfillment in the cultivation of systems that would transfer personal responsibility, and personal commitment, to others. In fact when governmental agencies assume the impulses and instincts toward charitable impulses – and sometimes virtually outlaw them, by sanctions against churches and faith-groups – we witness a war against religion.

A giant step in my political and ecclesial maturity was when relatives from Europe (where in many countries three per cent of citizens attend church, and where “state churches” are a matter of course) told me that many people attend church three times in their lives: baptism, marriage, and funeral. When the clergy is paid by the state, the Bible recedes to a book on the shelf among driver’s manuals and counselor’s handbooks; and the clergy is relegated to a list of state-supplied counselors you may call on, or not.

My own relatives in America, my grandparents, shared Great Depression era stories with me. A propos cheering “charity” when dispensed by the government, I recall that my grandmother, who sold cookies (not apples, as in the common images) on street corners, frequently confronted by “block captains” that government assistance for her family was tied to registering and voting with one of the two political parties. Render unto Caesar – Washington – indeed.

Simply: it is seems to me that if Christians perceive that there are problems in society, they ought to act more Christian than, perhaps, they previously have been acting; and should encourage fellow Christians and churches and faith-groups to respond better. That includes monetary gifts and it certainly includes physical involvement.

But when Washington says it can do such things better than Christians can – but moreover, and increasingly, attaches conditions regarding Christians’ freedom of conscience about things like abortion, homosexuality, reliance on the Bible’s instructions and God’s commands – we ought to reconsider the extent of “rendering unto Caesar.”

Surely Jesus did not categorize conscience and liberty, much less the charitable impulse, as things that are primarily the government’s domain.

+ + +

“Be Thou My Vision,” a beautiful Irish hymn of the fourth century, associated with St. Patrick, seems appropriate to hear in relation to this message. This version is by the trip Selah:

Click: Be Thou My Vision