Archive of May 2006
The consensus today seems to be that the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree is folk lore. If so, its longevity might be explained by its correspondence to George Washington’s character.
You may recall that the punch line of the story comes when little George is asked if he chopped down the cherry tree. He prefaced his answer with, “I cannot tell a lie.”
As a Republican, it grieves me to state that our current Republican leadership has been cured of George’s inhibitions. I am convinced that the President and Senate have no intentions of actually doing something about illegal immigration. Their goal, rather, is to deceive the American people into thinking that they will.
The American people overwhelmingly support stopping the flow of illegal immigration. Therefore, it is of special interest to me that those in the House, all of which are up for reelection, have gotten tough on the issue, as has Sen. Santorum, who is in a challenging reelection campaign. Sen. Santorum has a good record, and I hope that his rejection of the Senate bill is not prompted by his close race, but we do find a strong correlation between reelection and the position of Republicans on this issue.
I predict, and I hope I am wrong, that as the House and Senate negotiate on the final draft of the bill that the House will cave. That way they can tell their constituents that they drafted a tough bill, while supporting the do-nothing approach of the party.
I further predict that the giveaways contained in the bill will be implemented with all haste, while the elements intended to hamper illegal immigration will take forever to see the light of day. It will take at least until President Bush leaves office to start construction on the 370-mile fence. These things take time, you know.
The fact is that we already have all of the laws necessary to stop illegal immigration, and we are not enforcing them. What, then, will more laws achieve? They will, it is hoped, fool the American people for a while longer.
It has often been said that a democracy can only function effectively when the people possess the character produced by Christianity. The validity of this assertion can be seen in many nations around the world—and in Washington, D.C. As our nation drifts away from its Christian roots, it moves closer to a third world approach to politics.
The weakness of the church in the United States prevents it from functioning effectively as salt and light. When is the last time you heard a sermon on honesty on Christian radio?
For the sake of our nation, we desperately need an evangelical reformation.
If liberalism is zany, why do some evangelicals try to emulate it?
Michael Savage wrote a book entitled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. Though I have not read the book, the thesis is undeniable.
The Intelligent Design movement demonstrates that the evolutionary hypothesis is not fit to survive. Socialism and communism have manifested their bankruptcy. The field of psychology reveals a Freudian slip. And the list could go on. Liberal ideas fail in virtually every area.
Not only do we know that liberal ideas are untenable from the results. A cursory glance at the ideas themselves would lead us to that conclusion. What is the probability that a DNA molecule could happen by chance? Will the fallen human being really work hard if he has nothing to gain personally? Is there any serious support for the preposterous Oedipus Complex?
Yet, some evangelicals worship at the shrine of liberalism, recognizing that ultimately they can’t be liberals, but wanting to get as close as possible and still hold on to enough evangelical theology to get into church if they are carded.
In so doing they appear as zany as liberals and beyond. At least liberals are consistent, though consistently wrong. Pandering evangelicals, trying to keep a foot in both worlds, look much sillier.
In last week’s post, I cited an article from the May edition of Christianity Today that conveyed that “longing to be liberal” craving. The article is a position statement by the periodical, placed under its “Where We Stand” column. It sought to give direction to our immigration policy by embodying the prototype of the illegal immigrant in the person of Maria. Their description of Maria would qualify her as the patron saint of the movement—so spiritual that being illegal became irreverent.
The last two sentences of the article demonstrate how silly evangelicals can look when they pose as closet liberals. “Any policy that makes it harder for Maria to come here, temporarily or permanently, is a policy that says that courage, industry, and faith no longer matter. Let’s figure out some way, please, to let Maria and others like her sojourn among us.”
I would assume that the editors of Christian Today would not discriminate against men who displayed the same courage, industry, and faith as Maria. Nor would they exclude people on the basis of age or race or nationality.
That being the case, just how many Marias do they think are out there? No doubt there are many millions in China alone and many millions more in India. These for the most part are likely coming from more difficult circumstances than Maria, who is from Guatemala, especially in light of persecution against Christians in those countries, making an even more compelling case for their admittance. What of those believers still alive in Sudan and Burma? Then there are the multiplied millions in other nations around the globe.
Yes, we would all love to see them all living in circumstances that afford them the freedoms and prosperity that we enjoy. But to call on our government to find a way, please, to accommodate them all is somewhat like liberal educators wanting to give every student all “A’s.” Such a request makes evangelical Christianity look naïve and foolish.
It is scary to think that this is the most influential periodical among evangelicals. Is it any wonder that we need an evangelical reformation.
For many decades, Christianity Today has been recognized as the most prominent and influential magazine of the evangelical community. Therefore, it is surprising to find an article in the May edition entitled “Blessed are the Courageous,” which suggests that courage is one of the beatitudes, when it is not.
In fact, we need not look far to find unsavory characters that were courageous. Hitler, Stalin, and Moa Tse Tung, though all mass murderers, were courageous in that they embarked on endeavors that if lost, as in the case of Hitler, would cost their lives. Therefore, courage is not in and of itself blessed by God.
The central character in the Christianity Today story is portrayed as showing courage in a far more noble endeavor. Maria is a Guatemalan girl whose benign desire was to “work in the United States for only two years, then return home to her family.” In her attempts to cross the Mexican border, she suffered greatly, as the story describes in detail, to include mugging by bandito gangs, running out of food and water in the desert, apprehension by U.S. Border Patrol, and attempted rape.
The writer conveys that it is especially tragic that such hardship would fall on Maria since she is a very spiritual young lady. Asked what she would tell God if she could spend fifteen minutes with Him, she responds that she is not limited to fifteen minutes because God is with her all the time. However, if restricted to fifteen minutes, her interview would overflow with gratitude. We are put to shame by the spiritual depth of this young woman who has suffered so much and yet is so grateful.
The objective of the story is to frame Maria as a heroine for her efforts to enter the United States illegally. This explains the title: “Blessed are the Courageous,” which draws the reader to focus on Maria’s courage so that we might be distracted from one of the genuinely biblical beatitudes, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
The article never mentions that Maria suffered because she was attempting to commit a crime, cross the border illegally. And somehow her spirituality, her close walk with God, does not include this issue of a righteousness that would prevent her from breaking the law.
This brings us to a deeper reason why Christianity Today bent Scripture. Their tendency is toward exaggerating the biblical role of grace and ignoring the biblical teaching on righteousness. For them the fact that Maria’s actions were unrighteous matters not at all. Consequently, they have rewritten the beatitudes to fit their theology.
However, an even deeper motive is at work here. Christianity Today has a passion for presenting itself as respectable to the secular liberal intellectual community. Therefore, it must constantly distance itself from conservative causes.
Emphasizing grace at the expense of righteousness is one manifestation of this. Taking a liberal slant toward illegal immigration is another. Another article in the May edition is entitled, “The ACLU Is Not Evil.” The liberal intellectual community will be proud.
If Christianity Today would make its ultimate objectives to please God and to be biblical, this might begin an evangelical reformation.
Next Page »