This logic fails because if we had another Ronald Reagan we would be winning this election.

But an even greater flaw in this rationale resides in the reality that Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was well-intentioned but inept. Barack Obama is neither well-intentioned nor inept. Therefore, while Jimmy Carter opened the door for the election of Ronald Reagan, if elected Barak Obama will nail the door shut on elections of conservatives in the future.

How so?
First, he will seriously curtail free speech. Michael Barone documents this inclination of Barak Obama and today’s Democratic party in his article entitled “The Coming Liberal Thugocracy.”  I would urge you to read this entire article.

Barone’s observations drive home the reality that the new Democratic left is militant in its beliefs and tactics. If Barack is elected and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid remain in control of the Congress, we can expect to find the same political correctness currently existing on college campuses to be imposed on society as a whole.

The academic world uses their degree-granting power to force its will on our young people. Under a Barak presidency we can expect legislation that will empower our legal and judicial system to deal with those who do not adhere to the party line.

Banks have already experienced coercion of this nature in the imposition of Congressional social engineering on their loan policies, which has produced our present financial crisis. If Obama is elected we can expect such tactics to strike closer to the doors of our homes.

One such move already in the mill resides in the reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine.” This will effectively silence the voice of talk radio. That news outlet can be credited with conservative political success in recent years. Without it, conservative success at the polls will be very difficult.

Yet another initiative we can expect from a President Obama and an empowered Democratic Congress consist of extending free reign and added financial support to ACORN and similar organizations that have the objective of loading the ballot box toward the left.

Imagine an organization that receives millions from the federal government, which has the sole mission of registering Democrats, especially those with radical left leanings. That requires no imagination at all because this is what we have now. However, with greater freedom and support, the playing field will be tilted even more steeply against conservatives.

Make no mistake about it, even the current efforts of ACORN are bringing in many thousands of voters to the left side of the political spectrum, numbers sufficient to change election outcomes.

The combination of silencing talk radio and other aspects of free speech along with stuffing the ballot box will make it practically impossible for conservatives to win elections. These efforts will be aided and abetted by the mainstream media, making it almost impossible for the truth to be known and objections to be raised. This would mean that the left would become more entrenched and more empowered and more radical.

In other words, Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Carter brought us Reagan. Obama, if elected, will take us down a one-way dead-end street from which there will be no return. Pray fervently that God will spare us from that fate.

Why has truth fallen? Several forces in our society work hard to knock it down and prevent it from getting back up. One is communication by sound-bite. Whether a newscast or presidential debate, you only get at most a two minute treatment of any subject. In the Bill O’Reilly type format, you might get four minutes comprised of two people yelling over each other. We get no thoughtful, factual development of a topic. The Vice Presidential “debate” last night consisted largely of accusations being made and denied and countercharges being leveled. Just by listening you could learn practically nothing, and to make matters worse you would probably come away believing errors.

For this reason such an event has deteriorated into a “gotcha” game, the highest hope being to hurl a one-liner that will zap the opponent such as the memorable, “and you’re no John F. Kennedy.” Substance comprises a small part of the exercise. We all remember the downfall of Richard Nixon in one of the early television debates. His makeup was not done well. Then there is the issue of style over substance. I recall hearing an announcement at church indicating that the speaker for an upcoming men’s retreat was “one of the great communicators of our day.” It struck me at the time that the concern was not over his content by how well he could communicate it.

This preference for delivery over data hits at the heart of our current election. Barack Obama communicates well. The facts related to his background, platform, and tactics mean little to a majority of the American public. We would rather hear lies said well than truths said poorly. At the heart of the problem resides the difficulty in discovering truth. Truth does not come easy, especially in a world in which people profit from distorting and hiding it. Even in studying the Bible, a book containing pure truth, we have to work hard to grasp the truth. Many have drawn erroneous conclusions from Scripture.

Therefore, in a culture that implements strategies that serve to muddy the waters rather than expose the truth, we have little hope of finding it. Our culture reflects that of Isaiah’s day. “Justice is turned back, And righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” (Isaiah 59:14) Note the bitter byproducts that accompany the fall of truth.  The recovery of our society from its economic, political, moral, and other woes must begin with a thirst for truth that will lead us to adopt methodologies that will reveal it.

My purpose in this post is to express the following concerns related to this Christian response:

• “A Common Word between Us and You” keeps referring to a line from the Koran regarding God which asserts that “He has no associates.” That sounds very much like a repudiation of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Though this term is discussed, this discussion does little to assuage concerns that this language might constitute a rejection of Christ’s deity. We must have their assurance that this is not the intent of this language before we proceed. We must insist on that as a condition for working together.

• The “Loving God and Neighbor Together” response extends a groveling apology about the Crusades— a misguided attempt at humility. As we look over the history of Islam and Christianity, we have done substantially better than they have in conveying the love of God and neighbor. Had they begun by owning up to their shortcomings, perhaps this response might find warrant. They did not. Therefore, this apology leaves the impression that Christianity has failed in the area of love while Islam has succeeded. Though the church’s record is stained, it has done a far better job of manifesting love of God and neighbor than any other institution in history. Therefore, such an impression impugns the name of Jesus, the Lord of the church.

• This misrepresentation of the record leads to my third objection to the Christian response. “A Common Word between Us and You,” which recounts the commitment of Islam to love of God and neighbor, fails to address the deafening silence of the Islamic community in the face of atrocities committed in the name of their religion. If they believe in love of God and neighbor, where is their condemnation of their Islamic brothers who are murdering innocent people in cold blood, and continue to do so? Where is their disassociation from them and from their behavior? Though there has been some denunciation, it has been far too weak to be meaningful. I remember the memorial service convened in Washington, DC, after 9/11, which included a Muslim cleric. I waited for any repudiation at all of the horrendous deeds that have been perpetrated in the name of Allah. None were forthcoming. Nor does this document seem to notice the continuing atrocities. To write this letter to us without first addressing that issue, and without addressing it in the letter, represents the grossest form of insincerity, especially since the bloodletting in the name of Allah continues. And what of the Muslim nations that make becoming a Christian a crime or the inequities of sharia law or the widespread preaching of hate? This unloving behavior that seems to be an integral part of the practice of Islam in much of today’s Muslim world should have been addressed in any Christian response. Where was it? What is the point of dialogue about love if they are not willing to display love of neighbor by confronting the ongoing, widespread destruction of neighbor by their fellow Muslims? The failure of the Christians responding to their letter to address this issue constitutes a betrayal by them of brothers and sisters in Christ and others who suffer mercilessly at the hands of Muslims with no significant outcry from the Muslim community or its leadership.

It is my hope that stronger evangelical leadership will rise up to provide a better response to this offer to work together extended by Islamic clerics.

They are not the only ones dispersing your money. Congress and the President recently approved a plan to stimulate the economy by passing out money to selective groups of people. Financial experts almost universally agree that this free money program will not help the economy. However, it does serve to buy favor for those distributing it. It is redistribution of wealth to gain political favor.

This practice is problematic on several counts. First, at root it is dishonest. There is something essentially unethical about the government using its power to forcibly extract that which belongs to one person and give it to another. The so-called progressive income tax might be viewed as unethical for the same reason. However, the current practice of redistribution of wealth is even more egregious. It is one thing to force those who make more to pay disproportionately more in order to maintain highways and armies and make other expenditures that represent the legitimate role of government. However, it is quite another matter to take that which has been coerced from those who make more and hand it over to those whom the government deems worthy.

In addition to being unethical, this practice seems to be patently unconstitutional. Though a majority on today’s Supreme Court may not view it as such, one suspects that if the writers of that document could be resurrected, they might consigned to the stocks for robbery those implicated in this practice.

This practice is also problematic because it is destructive to our economy. It is the opposite of supply-side economics, taking wealth from those who create jobs, which leads to a decline in tax revenues, which leads to higher taxes to make up the difference, which leads to further decline in tax revenues, and so on.

Yet another problem with the redistribution of wealth for political gain is its tendency toward escalation to the point of ruination. This is evident in the Democratic primaries. We find candidates seeking to outdo each other in the amount of handouts that they promise. They have already passed totals that our economy can sustain. They are bankrupting us in order to gain office.

However, our greatest concern should not be with the problems of this practice but with its political effectiveness. The fact that it works tells us that many of the American people either can’t see the dishonesty and destructiveness of this political approach, or that they don’t care that it is dishonest and destructive.

If they can’t see its problems, we have finally become a nation too poorly educated to function as a democracy. If they don’t care, we have become a nation too perverse to function as a democracy. I would be interested in your perspective on which of these problems is making this political gimmick into an effective tool.

In our next blog our plan is to consider the cultural and spiritual roots of this problem.

Living in that environment would alter our demeanor. We would act with greater seriousness and intensity.

This sobriety and intensity is found especially in a leader, who has responsibility for the welfare of those under him. He must maintain an attitude that gets their attention, make them aware of danger, and that motivates them to carry out orders.

“Would you mind bringing some ammunition with you, that is, if its not too much of a burden,” is going to get people killed. Running out of ammo in the middle of the battle because in was inconvenient to carry would spell disaster.

Jesus lived in a combat environment. Scripture tells us that His enemies were looking for a way to kill Him, and they would succeed. More sobering yet was the fact that Jesus had to die to win.

The battle He was fighting was not with the Jewish leaders or the Roman soldiers, both of which would participate in His death. Rather, He was engaged in a cosmic struggle with Satan and the forces of darkness for the souls of human beings.

He asserted that He was meek (Matthew 11:29), but, as previously noted, meekness is not gentleness or mildness, nor was that His demeanor. Rather, He conveyed the intensity and directness of a leader in combat.

As such, He was no Mr. Rogers. His interaction with His disciples resembled that of a Marine Corps drill sergeant. He knew that the welfare of His disciples depended on their attentiveness and obedience.

Scripture often reminds us that we are also involved in warfare. Scripture refers to us as soldiers and calls us to fight. We, too, are also dealing with matters of eternal life and death.

This being the case, living in a combat zone as we do, it would be dangerous to think that gentleness and mildness should be our normal operating mode, as many evangelicals do. Mr. Rogers cannot be our model. This demeanor does not convey the seriousness of the situation. It does not get people to stop deadly behavior. They does not motivate people to life-saving action.

For example, gentleness does not get done the job of discipleship. “I know that for the last three weeks have talked about the need for you to be in Scripture, and you have not made it yet. Don’t let that discourage you. Maybe you will get to it this week.”

How about, “Friend, do you know that the Devil is out to destroy you. You have failed to get to your Bible for two weeks, now. You had better get to it this week or you could be in real trouble. You are wondering around the battlefield without your steel helmet and your weapon. You are going to get yourself killed. Tell me what is so much more important.”

Sure, there are occasions for gentleness, and we see Jesus convey that quality at times. But most of the time He was tough, and we need to be as well if we are going to develop a mature, effective army of Christian soldiers.

Gentleness and mildness are producing spiritual wimps that are losing the battle with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. We could use an evangelical reformation that will replace gentleness with gumption.

This is a valid observation, especially in regard to our morphing Jesus into the image of our culture. This is true even of evangelicals, who pride themselves in their adherence to Scripture.

In the previous post, we noted that one means of deforming Jesus so that He fits nicely into contemporary society is by defining meekness to mean mildness and gentleness. By so doing, we have transformed Jesus into Mr. Rogers, thus making Him comfortable to have around—accepting, non-threatening.

Recently, I read through the gospel of Matthew in several sittings. In so doing, a person is hard-pressed to find a Jesus in the image of Mr. Rogers. I challenge you to read it for yourself and see if that is not the case. Pay special attention to the dialogue—what Jesus actually said.

Many evangelicals let their imaginations run wild in order to re-create Jesus into their image. They imagine Jesus chuckling to Himself as He uses the illustrations of the person with a beam in his eye seeking to remove the speck from the eye of another.

However, if we are at all sensitive to the attitude conveyed by Jesus throughout the gospel, there is every indication that He is not chuckling, but rather that He is deadly serious. The chuckle is a figment of the reader’s imagination—an attempt to make Jesus like us.

What, then, is this meekness that according to Jesus characterized His personality?

The essence of the meaning is to be oriented toward service. It is to set aside one’s own agenda in order to minister to others. Blessed are the meek means blessed are those who desire to provide service to others rather than demanding service from them.

Though Jesus could rightly demand service, instead, as He asserts in several places in Scripture, He came to serve. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45 NIVUS). Jesus calls us to maintain a similar attitude of service.

This definition of meekness also can be misleading if we do not understand the nature of Jesus’ service, which is the type of service He has called us to render.

Jesus came primarily to serve His Father. His service to us is a byproduct of His service to his Father. That should be the nature of our service as well.

This arrangement fits the biblical teaching regarding the first and second commandments, that is, to love God and neighbor. The first commandment is first because love of God must be preeminent, and love of neighbor an outflow of it.

If we misconstrue this order—allow love of neighbor to be first, we end up with humanism. Our approach to life becomes dominated by the horizontal rather than the vertical dimension.

Making our service to God priority one has some serious practical implications. If service to our neighbor were priority one, we should serve them on their terms. “I exist to serve you, to support your agenda. What can I do for you?” Based on this arrangement, meekness would consist of living our lives according to other people’s terms.

This is not biblical or practical. Imagine trying to meet everybody’s terms.

However, because service to God is preeminent, we are not called to serve others on their terms, but on God’s terms. This arrangement is abundantly evident in the life of Christ. Though he came to serve, He was clearly in charge. He displayed meekness first and foremost through His attitude of submission to His Father, not to human beings.

Consequently, He could be meek and still deal with His disciples and others like a Marine drill sergeant. This is how His Father called him to serve them. In addition, this attitude represented the greatest service He could render to them. For the most part, they didn’t need mildness and gentleness. They needed confrontation and exhortations.

The same is true in our service to others. Sometimes they need gentleness, but often they need to be challenged and exhorted.

Such ministry fits into the biblical understanding of meekness, but our Mr. Rogers definition of meekness excludes it. Therefore, by deforming Jesus, we have also deformed our own approach to Christian living, forcing ourselves to comply with a definition of meekness that is not biblical.

This deformation of character has serious implications. That is our next topic.

But what is it? A correct understanding will guide us toward the blessings Scripture promises. A wrong definition will lead to confusion and failure to realize those blessing, even when our intentions are sincere.

Common definitions of meekness include mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit.

The contemporary person who seems to flesh out these qualities most vividly is Mr. Rogers. He would seem to be the very embodiment of meekness.

The problem with this definition is that Jesus was no Mr. Rogers. Or at least the Jesus of the Bible was not. Contemporary evangelicals tend to frame Him as such, but this is a Jesus of our own making; not the one found in Scripture.

I am not suggesting that most of the time the Jesus of the Bible was mild of disposition and gentle of spirit, but on rare occasions he departed from that orientation, such as when he cleansed the Temple. The reality is that for most of his ministry, Jesus was just the opposite of this Mr. Rogers caricature. In fact, moments of mildness represent the exception—not the rule.

Read the Gospels again, and see for yourself. Note how Jesus was frequently in the face of the Pharisees. But beyond that, He often dealt with his disciples with an attitude that bordered on harshness.

Notice Jesus’ teaching style in Mark 8:17-18 when his disciples failed to grasp a lesson. “Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18  Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?’” This conjures up the picture of the old schoolmaster wielding a cane, warning his students that they better pay attention.

And when Jesus, coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration,  encountered a demon possessed boy that His disciples were unable to help, He chided, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?.” (Mt 17:17 NAS95). Imagine Mr. Rogers saying that!

Or think of Jesus’ Easter greeting to his fellow travelers on the road to Emmaus. “He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!’” (Lu 24:25 NIVUS). In the selection of Easter texts, this has been the road less traveled.

His Easter greeting to the eleven disciples conveyed the same gentleness and mildness. “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen” (Mark 16:14 NIVUS).

It is little wonder that when the disciples did not understand Jesus’ comments about His coming crucifixion, that “they were afraid to ask Him about this saying” (Luke 9:45). Imagine, even the closest followers of this gentle and mild teacher were so intimidated by him that they feared to ask a question. This is a Jesus that makes few appearances on contemporary evangelical radio and television programs.

This list of instances displaying a Jesus that contrasts sharply from Mr. Rogers is far from comprehensive. If meekness really means gentleness and mildness, Jesus wasn’t meek.

However, Jesus made the claim that He was meek in Matthew 11:29: “For I am meek and lowly in heart.” Therefore, meekness must not mean gentleness and mildness. It must not be a Mr. Rogers-like quality.

What then? Next week.

In my previous post, I compared contemporary evangelical Christianity to a nanny state. A majority segment of evangelical radio, television, and books describes a relationship between the believer and God in which God accepts us unconditionally. Therefore, as with a governmental nanny state, we get all the benefits and have no responsibilities.

I further described this arrangement as virtual Christianity, since it finds no reality in Scripture or in real life. Hundreds of passages expose its error. Many of my previous posts demonstrate the error of this perspective.

This virtual Christianity is problematic on any number of counts. One of its major faults is its inability to produce strong Christians, strong men, strong fathers, strong leaders.

Europe provides a graphic display of the inability of nanny states to produce strong leadership. They stand idly by as Muslims take over their countries, either feeling impotent to do anything about it or not caring. Both are signs of weakness.

Feeling impotent is an evident indication of weakness. Standing by, wringing one’s hands, while others invade and take over their supposedly sovereign states, is not a picture of strength.

Not caring represents an even greater weakness. It reflects the deterioration of the soul described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, which leaves the inner person caring for nothing by self-gratification. Socialistic Europe is willing to have Islam take over in the future if it can have its state supported short workweek and long vacations in the present.

We find the evangelical church in America, with its nanny state, producing the same weakness of character. It is reflected in our President’s lack of resolve in protecting our borders. It is reflected in the fact that of the strongest leaders on the horizon, most are Catholics or Mormons, and few are evangelicals. It is reflected in many of the characteristics of the evangelical church uncovered by Barna.

Several days ago on a Christian radio program, a man who had been converted from Islam was asked why Christian women marry Muslim men, a good question, especially in light of the many serious downsides of doing so. His answer was that these women view Christian men as wimps, while they find a strength in Muslim men.

Why does a nanny state, be it political or spiritual, produce wimps? The answer is simply this: the stronger ones cause, the stronger ones personality.

Muslims may be misguided, but they believe that they have a cause worth dying for. This gives them a strength lacking in the West, both in secular and evangelical circles. While they are blowing themselves up for their cause, we (both secular Americans and evangelicals) are preoccupied with the latest movie—another expedition into our world of virtual reality.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently pronounced that the United States is a sunset civilization whereas Iran is a sunrise civilization. Judging from the strengths of personality of each, I tend to agree with him.

Many of the experts predict that catastrophe will soon fall on the United States—another 9/11, or even worse. We are like the population in Brave New World, living in virtual reality, both spiritual and otherwise, unaware and unconcerned that the enemy is about to burst our virtual bubble.

The solution must begin with the church trading in the comforts of its nanny state, it’s virtual reality, for biblical reality, for the recognition that God demands righteousness from his people and will judge them if they do not produce it.

I believe that the church in America ultimately will break out of its bubble of virtual reality. The question is what that will take. Will the preaching and teaching of the Word of God bring us to reality, or will it take a horrible disaster?

9/11 woke us up—for about a week. Apparently it will take something far worse than that. That leads to the follow-up question. By the time something sufficiently terrible to get our attention comes along, will it be too late to salvage life in America as we know it?

What is the appeal? In short, the nanny state provides maximum care with minimum responsibility.

Food, clothing, shelter, and health care for me and my family are no longer my responsibility. In fact, I have no responsibility. All of that rests on the shoulders of the state. More kids? No problem. The government has them covered.

One challenge is that the government must find funds to support the system. However, the answer is simple enough. They can get all they need from those rich people.

All they ask from me in return is my vote. I keep them in power. They keep me in goodies. Since there are more of us than there are rich people, we can keep them in power and vote ourselves more benefits. It’s a great system.

Evangelicals have discovered an even better version of the nanny state—a form of spiritual socialism. God provides everything for me unconditionally. He does not expect me to perform. He promises me all His blessings with no responsibility on my part.

That is what grace is all about. He takes all of the responsibility. I get all of the blessings.

This is the ultimate big government. It possesses an endless source of riches to draw from through the sacrifice of Christ. He earned it all on the cross. When God looks on us, He does not see our performance, but only the righteousness of Christ, the fount of endless resources.

In return, God only asks for my vote. That is, He only asks that I pray the prayer, invite Jesus into my heart, and acknowledge Him as my savior, all of which I am glad to do. Just think of the benefits, and they are only the earthly ones. The best are yet to come in heaven.

No responsibilities. Total care. It’s a great system. It is the ultimate nanny state.

The problem with this nanny state, and it is a significant one, is that it only exists in the minds of American evangelicals. It does not exist in reality nor is it described in the Bible. It is a state of our own creation.

Unfortunately, we do not have the creative capacity to give it actual substance. Therefore, we are forced to live in a fantasy world—a state of virtual Christianity.

I concluded my previous post by asking why American evangelicals would embrace a system that violated virtually hundreds of passages of Scripture. We view ourselves as the ultimate people of the book. We pride ourselves on our commitment to Scripture. Why, then, would we adopt a perspective so obviously contrary to Scripture?

We have just seen the answer. This system makes an offer too good to refuse. The evangelical nanny state is too comfortable, and it attracts too many adherents. No one wants to burst the bubble.

And if some killjoy attempts to do so, his voice will be ignored by the evangelical community. He is as welcome as a teetotaler at a beer bust, as an abstinence advocate at an orgy. The nanny state has so many voters supporting it that no alternative has a chance.

However, as with any form of virtual reality, this one can only work for so long before genuine reality catches up with it, before the bubble is burst by real-life forces. Our next post will deal with forces that are about burst the evangelical bubble.