Christian Postmodernism Run Amok: "That's Unchristlike."

Christian #1 speaks the truth on a difficult topic. Christian #2 does not like what Christian #1 has said and/or it makes him feel uncomfortable. Christian #2 either knows that Christian #1 speaks the truth, does not know whether or not Christian #1 speaks the truth, or does not care whether or not Christian #1 speaks the truth. Christian #2 says to Christian #1, "You're being unchristlike."

Wham! The trump card has been played! Game, set, and match to Christian #2.

The above scenario happened to me recently on social media. I said something against homosexuality or some other prized topic of the Progressives. A Christian brother soon informed me that I was being "unchristlike." Since it was social media, I think I just let the conversation drop. I figured there was no point in pursuing it.

This a prime example of the postmodern poison that has crept into the church. Postmodernism is so dangerous because it not only attacks truth claims, but it also attacks the concept of truth itself. It calls the very essence of truth into question. In that regard, it (ironically) makes a most staggering of truth claims by asserting that objective truth does not exist.

Christianity is a belief system founded in truth. God truly exists as Father, Son, and Spirit. God truly made the world and everything in it. The Son of God truly came to earth as the God-Man. He truly lived a perfect life and died a perfect death. He truly rose from the grave on the third day. I could go on, and on, and on. Christianity is real in space and time. It is both truth and fact.

To borrow a term from Christian theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer, Christianity is "true truth."

Apart from truth, Christianity simply falls into the waste bin of man's false religions.

It is a sad thing that many in the church today are embarrassed by some of the truth claims of Christianity. Some are embarrassed by the creation account in Genesis. Some are embarrassed by the virgin birth. Still others are embarrassed by the resurrection of Christ. However, my guess is that the most are embarrassed by what the bible has to say regarding moral/ethical issues.

When we speak the truth about issues of this sort, in particular homosexuality, we are flying in the face of all sorts of increasing social pressures. Christians, and I use that term loosely here, who do not like these sorts of statements simply fall back on their trump card: the claim of unchristlikeness. Since they do not want to deal with the issue of truth at all, they resort to postmodernistic claims that focus on feelings.

At the same time, they may say something like, "Remember to speak the truth in love." What they really mean is, "Stop speaking the truth at all you bigot. You are being mean."

In the postmodern world the only love is one that accepts all behaviors as valid (as long as they fit inside the Progressive, liberal, socialistic narrative). For the postmodern Christian, the label of "unchristlike" is their ace in the hole. Since it is not well defined, they can throw it around willy-nilly. It's sort of like another ridiculous term that the left wing loves to use: white privilege.

Back to "unchristlike." The term heavily implies that the person speaking the truth is not being like Jesus. Of course, to the Progressive person Jesus was simply a guy who walked around healing people and loving on them, but who never said anything about nasty topics such as holiness and repentance. However, we know that Jesus actually said lots about those things.

Jesus also spoke some fairly harsh words from time to time. They were also true. Read Matthew chapter 23. Jesus referred to the scribes and Pharisees as children of Hell, blind guides, blind fools, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, and brood of vipers among other things. According to the postmodernists, Jesus Christ sounds "unchristlike"!

The fact is that we, the body of Christ, must indeed speak the truth in love. But we must speak the truth.

We are not of Pilate who asked in John 18:38, "What is truth?" Rather, we are of the one who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6a). Truth is loving because it is ultimately from God, and He is the source of all truth. Political correctness and postmodernism are evil because they aim to suppress the truth. Postmodernism would have us believe that everything is relative. Jesus tells us otherwise.

Sometimes it is difficult to listen to the truth because it exposes sinfulness in our own lives. However, it's far better that we hear it and act upon it than never hear it at all. It can at other times be difficult to speak the truth. This is especially the case when confronting someone we love with their sin. We must show tact and grace, but we must speak the truth no matter what the cost.

It is never unchristlike to speak the truth.

A Republic, Not a Democracy

I don't generally post about politics, but the above graphic is too good to pass up. With religious liberty in this country increasingly under attack, we need to know the difference between a republic and a democracy. My guess is that most Americans don't have a clue. That said, our hope ultimately rests in Christ as opposed to man. Therefore, even if our religious liberty is completely stripped away God will remain faithful. Life will just become much more uncomfortable.

The Danger of Separating Romans 13 from Romans 12

Each Sunday morning our family gathers with some fellow believers in our home. As part of these meetings we've recently been studying through the book of Romans. It has been a joy.

As we looked at Romans chapter 12 and then chapter 13 I was struck by the importance of not separating the two in our minds. Of course, it is all too easy to do this since most bibles make a fairly big deal out of the man-made chapter divisions. Even we, as a small group of Christians, tend to study chapter-by-chapter each week. For example, one week we read through and discussed Romans 12 and the following week Romans 13. It would have been simple to miss the relationship between the two if we didn't pay active attention.

The beginning of Romans 12 is a well-known transition point in the book. The previous eleven chapters focused mostly on what God has done in His grand plan of redemption. Romans 12-16 looks primarily at what man's response should be in light of what God has accomplished. Paul sums this up well in Romans 12:1-2, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

Paul expects us to be "living sacrifices" to God. But what does this look like? The apostle teases this out through the remainder of the epistle. In chapter 12 Paul lists various expectations of the Christian life. Toward the end of the chapter he tells the Roman Christians to "repay no one evil for evil" and "never avenge yourselves." His language is clear. The chapter ends at this point.

This is where the danger comes into play.

In chapter 13 Paul discusses the importance of being subject to governing authorities. Verses 13:3-4 say, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

The danger to the church, if we separate chapters 12 and 13, is that we might fall into the trap of over applying 13:3-4. I've seen this again and again as Christians point to these verses to support our government's nasty habit of invading other countries whenever we feel it is in America's best interests. I've also heard these verses used to defend self-defense to the point of vigilantism.

We cannot ignore what Paul said at the end of chapter 12. As Christ's followers, we are not to avenge ourselves. We are not to repay evil for evil. This hearkens back to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies." When we keep these things in mind, we are forced to see that Romans 13 has a much smaller application than what has been popular in modern evangelicalism. In Romans 13 Paul is simply saying that government uses its power to discipline those who would break the law. The apostle is discussing how a nation state functions within its own borders. It has nothing to do with invading other countries. It's got even less to do with any sort of self-defense.

For whatever reason the church in the USA has a tendency to support the military almost no matter what it does (at least as long as there's a Republican in the White House at the time). Romans 13 is frequently used as biblical justification for doing so. This is extremely poor interpretation of scripture.

We do much better to keep chapters 12 and 13 linked (which is what Paul intended). While the beginning of chapter 12 serves as a significant transition point in the letter, the beginning of chapter 13 does not. Paul's thought flows directly from 12 into 13. Therefore, everything in 13 must be read in the context of us being living sacrifices, repaying no one evil for evil, and us not avenging ourselves.

Avoid the danger of misinterpretation. Keep 12 and 13 linked.

When You Have No Good Options...

My Choice for President in November

He'd certainly be better than most of the real candidates out there!

In Case You Missed It...

A few days ago Russell Moore penned an excellent piece entitled 2 Chronicles 7:14 Isn’t About American Politics. It is one of the best articles I've read in quite a while on both American politics and biblical interpretation. This is a must read - especially for all culture warriors.

Partisan Civil Liberties Disorder

Meme Sunday

Linking: The Coming of the Age of Gibberish

Carl Trueman nails it with this excellent article.

Christians Shouldn't Fly the Rainbow Flag Either

I've never seen or heard so much talk of flags. Why are flags even important? Do they matter?

They do, in fact, matter because they represent ideas. And as the saying goes, "Ideas have consequences."

As many of you know, I live in the American South. Thus, I see my share of confederate flags. They mostly fly at private residences. Over the past month or so the confederate flag has been all over the news. Opinions about this flag are wide ranging. Emotions run high almost whenever the topic is brought up. A few years ago I put my opinion about the confederate flag on this blog. The post is entitled Christians Should Not Fly This Flag.

There's another increasingly popular flag that also stirs the emotions: the rainbow flag. Generally speaking, this flag represents the homosexual community. If you fly the rainbow flag it means that you are supporting the homosexual lifestyle. I'm not surprised that secular society is now rallying around this flag. However, what bothers me is just how many self-professing Christians support homosexuality. It's as if they've never read the bible (maybe they haven't) or just don't care what it says.

Despite what some revisionist interpreters would like us to think, the scriptures are clear on the issue of homosexuality. The words penned in the bible actually mean what they mean. It is instructive that the entire church was in agreement that homosexuality is sin until just recently. To think that all Christians everywhere were wrong about this for 1900 years is very arrogant.

Because the bible is abundantly clear on this topic, followers of Jesus Christ ought not in any way support homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. Part of this is not flying the rainbow flag.

As a reminder:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Rom. 1:26-27

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I Cor. 6:9-10

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." I Tim. 1:8-11

Additionally, below is everything positive the bible says about homosexuality:

If you follow Jesus Christ, don't fly the rainbow flag.

Questions and Answers

I've been gradually answering a series of questions that I raised back in May in the post entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions. We've made it to July, and I'm still answering them. This is dragging on too long. Therefore, I'm going to finish the final six questions right now.

Why do so many simple church folks have poorly-defined doctrine?

Having swum in the simple church waters for a while now, I realize that a significant number of these Christians have fairly poor or at least poorly-defined doctrine. I'm referring to significant issues such as the gospel itself (obviously the most important), the reality of Hell, homosexuality, women's roles, etc. Why has this happened? While I'm sure many different reasons exist, the primary one may be that many simple church people tend to "go it alone" when coming to their own beliefs. They pick and choose whatever they feel comfortable with, not bothering to compare those beliefs to historic Christianity. I'm all for studying the scriptures to find what is true; however, this ought to be done in primarily in community as opposed to isolation.

One further thought: plenty of institutional Christians have poor doctrine. This stems from drinking the Kool-Aid of bad teaching from the pulpit. Denomination after denomination in this country has stated beliefs and practices that have little to nothing to do with the bible. Just take a quick look, for example, at the Episcopalian Church. They hardly resemble Christianity at all.

The truth is that poor doctrine exists everywhere. We must let the bible drive what we believe and come to those beliefs within the setting that is the body of Christ.

Why do churches spend so much money on themselves?

This is an easy one to answer. The institutionalized church has one great, often unstated goal: self-preservation. This is why it spends almost all of its tithes and offerings on paying its own bills. After paying the pastoral salaries and building expenses there is little left over to give to anyone in need. An additional factor is that American Christians like comfort; the buildings must be nice.

Why do churches deny any Christians access to the Lord's table?

I believe this is done with good but ignorant intentions. It also occurs not within the New Testament's model of a full meal, but rather during the ceremonial Lord's Suppers that feel like funerals.

Some pastors are afraid that non-believers will partake of the small cup of juice and the stale cracker. Therefore, they only allow "local church members" to eat it. In doing so, they are denying access to the table. What a mockery this is! Who is the pastor to deny access to the Lord's table to any believer? It is the Lord's after all.

Within institutional Christianity the entire Lord's Supper has become a big mess. It does not even remotely resemble the joyful family meals we read about in the New Testament. It needs an entire reformation.

Why do many Christians invest so much in secular politics?

The answer is that many believe that the USA is some sort of second Israel. "God is going to change the world through the red, white, and blue!" Wrong! God has never made any promises to America. Also, these Christians simply do not understand (or refuse to) that the church should function outside of politics. The church is a spiritual reality. It operates according to God's principles. To mesh with politics always brings harm and disappointment to the church.

Why do we divide over so many inconsequential issues?

We divide because we want to be right. We do not believe that we can stand united with other Christians who believe differently than we do on doctrines of secondary importance. Division is the easy thing to do; it's a much more challenging task to live peaceably with those who disagree with us. Also, we don't take God's commands for unity seriously; we act as if they are optional.

Why do we expect secularists to care about Christian principles?

I'm always amused when I hear Christians bemoan the state of our society. I cannot figure out why Christians think that a secular culture would care at all about what God has to say about anything. Frankly, what amazes me is that the USA is not worse off morally and ethically than it is. The fact is that man's heart is cold to the things of God until God works the miracle of regeneration. We ought to expect a lot less from society and a lot more from the church. The church alone can see with spiritual eyes. We alone should be caring for what God wants. We tend to hold society to too high a standard while we give the church a free pass. The church ought to be the beacon God intends it to be. Let's hold each other to a higher standard.

A Word About the Confederate Battle Flag from an American Christian Living in the South

Politics in a vacuum has little interest for me. However, when politics intersects with Christianity I take note.

Lately the Confederate Battle Flag has been one of the top stories in the news. I'm a transplanted northerner living in the American South. I love much about residing in Savannah, Georgia. One of the few things I do not like is the Confederate Battle Flag. I wrote about this almost two years ago, and I feel the same way about it today as I did back then. Click here to read my post. Agree or disagree?

A Million Times NO to This Picture!

On July 4th I feel compelled to remind the church that our hope is not in politics. The last thing the people of Christ need is the cross wrapped in the American flag. Even less do we need to place hope in the Republican Party (or any other political party for that matter).

Our hope is in Jesus Christ and him alone. As Paul tells us in Philippians 3:20, "Our citizenship is in heaven." Peter reminds us in the first verse of I Peter that we are "exiles." This is not our home.

To place any hope in politics is to play the fool. It is pointless. Even worse is to somehow try to combine the church with secular politics. The two do not mesh. Whenever the church and state come together, it is well-known that the church becomes the whore of the state. The church does not purify the state; rather, the state contaminates the church.

I say a million times NO! to the above picture. Nations, including the good ole' USA, rise and fall. America is no different. It is the Kingdom of God that will last forever. It is there that we are citizens. It is also there where we must place our trust.

Linking: 12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars

I don't link too often to articles that mostly focus on politics, but this one is too good to pass by without sharing:

12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars

(Thanks to Arthur Sido for pointing this out.)

Why Do We Largely Ignore the Poor and Needy?

This question stems from my prior post "Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions."

This question is also one that many of us, including myself, do not want to deal with. It is inconvenient. It causes us at least a little guilt. We know the biblical writers said quite a bit about caring for the poor and needy, but we just wish the issue would go away. Why is this?

I believe three primary reasons exist for our general attitude. First, we've been raised in a culture that tells us to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps." We may think of the poor as just a bunch of lazy people who need to get a job. The close relationship between the Republican Party and the church in America only perpetuates this stereotype. Second, we are busy. We just don't want to deal with it. Third, we are selfish and want to hold on to "our money."

We do well to remember passages such as Galatians 2:9-10. We read the following, "...and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

We cannot ignore the poor and needy. Jesus Christ won't allow it.

Set Apart for a Different Kingdom

In Luke 4:43 Jesus Christ says, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose." This is a fascinating verse because we see Jesus give a purpose statement for why he was sent to earth. He came to preach the good news of God's kingdom.

This kingdom is far different from the kingdoms of men. While one emphasizes things above, the earthly kingdoms strive after the things below. As members of Christ's church, our citizenship is in the kingdom of God. It is in heaven. Paul tells us in Philippians 3:20, "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Even though we reside for a time here on earth, our true loyalty is to the kingdom above. God expects us to live holy lives, edify the church, preach the gospel to the lost, and care for the poor and needy. While doing this we must always remember that our allegiance is to God and his reign. We are here, but at the same time we are set apart for something better.

I no longer have a desire to be a part of man's systems any more than I have to. For example, man tries to make things better through government. Occasionally this can be helpful, but usually it fails. This is because most of the people involved in this are not part of God's kingdom. Count me out.

I'll continue to obey the laws of the land and pay my taxes. However, my involvement in government ends there. I'm done with voting. I will never seek any sort of public office. I will not join the military under any circumstances (I'm too old anyway). I'm not going to be involved in any sort of man-created governmental activity. I'm done with it.

My motivation in this stems from three places. First and foremost, Jesus gave much instruction to his followers. Trying to change the world through politics was not one of them. Second, the early church did much good but none of it was through political means. Third, I hold much in common with the Anabaptists. They shunned political involvement. Of course, this got many of them killed, but that was a price they were willing to pay.

I desire to live out a life as a member of the kingdom who does not look to man's kingdom processes to make a difference. Count me in when it comes to doing good through God's means. Count me out of secular politics.

Excellent Response to Those Trying to Redefine Marriage

This short video offers an excellent response to secular culture's attempt to redefine marriage. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in the political and financial aspects. Rather, what I'm concerned about is the theological. I appreciate Ryan Anderson's statements about the clarity of the definition of marriage: one man and one woman in a permanent union. Also, note that the questioner has no clue how to answer Anderson's question.

Why Would Any Follower of Christ Serve in the Military?

I've recently come to the conclusion that I could no longer consider serving in the military. Not that I'm being asked to sign up, but if I was asked I would not do so. I can no longer reconcile loving my enemy with possibly being asked to shoot him.

This conclusion has led me fairly quickly to a related question: Why would any follower of Christ serve in the military?

Uh-oh. Them's fightin' words.

I realize that thousands of Christians are currently part of the U.S. military. Many thousands more support them in this. However, numbers do not equal correctness. Look at the following verses from the book of Matthew:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." Matthew 5:9

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is 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

In 5:9 and 5:43-45 Jesus says that "sons of God" and "sons of your Father" are those who are peacemakers and love their enemies. Christ himself makes a connection between how we treat others and whether or not we know God. Remember that both love and peace are aspects of the fruit of the Spirit. Evidence of our being in Christ is loving and peaceful attitudes toward even those who hate us.

I've heard some Christians speak of a difference between how we are to act individually toward others and how we are to act as part of the military. The idea is that while it's not acceptable to harm someone as we go about our daily lives, it is all right to harm them as part of the Army, Navy, etc. I find this argument convenient but not biblically defensible.

Jesus made it clear what he thought of the use of violence. During his arrest we see the following:

"While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, 'The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.' And he came up to Jesus at once and said, 'Greetings, Rabbi!' And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, 'Friend, do what you came to do.' Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" Matthew 26:47-52

Jesus says, "All who take the sword will perish by the sword." This is a strong warning to those who would act out in violence toward other people.

God's Kingdom is not of this world. Its values are upside-down compared to the world's standards. What might make sense to us is often not what Jesus wants.

Jesus commands to love enemies. The military commands (sometimes) killing enemies. These aren't just different; they are opposite.

In light of Jesus' counter-cultural statements and demands, how can any Christian serve in the military?

No Longer Could I Serve in the Military

I have never served in the military. However, I've always thought in a positive manner about being a part of the United States' armed forced. It seemed natural to want to support and defend our country. For much of my life it was something I never questioned. I had seen, and still see, many Christians in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. Frankly, it wasn't an issue.

My thoughts have changed radically over the past few years. No longer could I serve in the military at any level or in any position. I realize this is somewhat theoretical in nature; it's not as if recruiters are knocking down my door to get to a 43-year-old. Regardless, I couldn't and wouldn't ever be part of the military. Even if the USA was invaded by another country as part of total war I would not join the military.

I've come to this conclusion after thinking long and hard about Jesus' teachings. Specifically, I've been pondering both what he said about and how he acted toward his enemies. Jesus teaches us much in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:9 Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." Some Christians limit the meaning of this verse to only the helping of people reach spiritual peace with God through the gospel; however, in light of what Jesus says later in Matthew 5 this seems like too narrow of an interpretation.

In Matthew 5:38-47 Jesus expands on what he said in 5:9. Our Lord says, "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is 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. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus says a lot in those verses. Much of it can be summed up in the startling phrase, "Love your enemies." I believe this is one of Christ's most counter-cultural and counter-world statements. It gives us a view of how radically different the Kingdom of God is from the kingdoms of this world.

One of the primary things the military does is fight against enemies. In light of what Jesus says here, how could I take up arms against enemies of the USA? Can I love someone and shoot him at the same time? I don't see how the two can possibly fit together. Furthermore, I don't understand how I could be part of the support network behind the soldiers. If I'm assisting them in doing their job, which involves killing others, then I'm at least partially responsible for any deaths caused.

Did Jesus actually live out what he said? How did he treat his enemies? Did he even defend himself? The answer is a resounding "No!" Read any of the trial and crucifixion passages from the gospels to see this. For example, Matthew 27:27-31 says, "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor's headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him."

Jesus was living out what was written of him many years before as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53:7, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth."

In the end my conclusion regarding military service is quite simple. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. How could I possibly serve in the military when I might be ordered to kill someone in the name of the USA? Killing and loving do not mix. Therefore, I could no longer serve in the military in any capacity whatsoever.

What If Conservatives Actually Won the Culture War?

Many Christians today are busily fighting the American culture war in support of the conservative agenda. Just watch Fox News for a little while and you will see this to be the case. It's all about the cross of Christ wrapped in the American flag. It's about achieving some sort of "Christian America" through political means.

But what would happen if the conservatives actually won the culture war?

What if gay marriage was completely outlawed?

What if the Ten Commandments were restored to governmental offices?

What if prayer was reintroduced to public schools?

What if everyone started saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays"?

What if Republicans won back the presidency and both houses of congress?

What if the Tea Party became even more influential?

What if crosses were restored to government properties?

What if the military continued to get bigger and bigger?

What if Obamacare were repealed?

What if alcohol and cigarettes were prohibited?

What if more and more people began "going to church" again?

What if most Americans truly began to consider this a "Christian nation"?


What would happen if conservatives actually won the culture war? The answer: NOTHING.

Nothing would happen because all the things listed above are simply outward acts. They reveal nothing about a change of heart. They stem from a political agenda. Jesus Christ had no earthly political agenda. He certainly wasn't a Republican or Democrat. He wouldn't fit either party.

Jesus Christ came to change the hearts of men and women. Heart change leads to behavioral change, but it leads to a heart of love. It leads to caring for others. It changes society through one loving act at a time. It doesn't change it through some sort of conservative political agenda.

Let me say it again: if the conservatives won the culture war nothing would really change. At least nothing pertaining to the Kingdom of God would change (which is the only Kingdom that really matters). Some things might look different on the outside, but in the end nothing would change our greatest problem: the wickedness of the human heart.

I implore my brothers and sisters in Christ to love others sacrificially for the cause of Christ. Let's show Jesus' love through acts of selfless service. This is how society is truly changed. Let's stop wasting our time on conservative politics and the culture war. It amounts to nothing.


(Addendum: It's quite clear that I left abortion off the above culture war list. Abortion, I believe, supersedes the conservative political agenda because it deals with life and death issues and is an utter abomination. It is the one issue where I believe political means should be used to change, if possible, governmental policies. If some say I am being inconsistent for focusing on this one issue, then so be it.)