Last night a very sincere pastor and friend whom I’ve known since college posted a link on Facebook to the “Reclaiming Jesus” Confession of Faith issued by a prominent group of left-leaning Christian “leaders” (including a former General Superintendent of The Wesleyan Church). You should stop right now and read it.
My first reaction wasn’t a positive one, mostly because of the political (and decidedly Leftist) nature of the article. When I mentioned the political slant in my response to my friend’s post, I was asked by a young pastor if I had even read the article. He noted, “…the answers aren’t politically charged at all.” Really? I have a hard time understanding how anyone could see this Confession as not politically charged, especially when that was the stated intention of the statement. It is about “speaking truth to power” and calling the nation to repent for the hateful actions of our political leaders, including “the highest levels of leadership” (by which the authors mean our current president). It’s about “resisting” the policies of our government. Let’s not be fooled, this is just one more tantrum by Democrats because they believe the current president is unfit for office, and they find the policies of Republicans repugnant. These are political elitists who are trying to strong-arm Christians into accepting their positions (out of guilt) by twisting Scripture and ignoring verses that don’t support their limited cause. That is the only way to explain the unhinged, nearly apocalyptic tone of the Confession. These are “perilous times,” we’re in a “dangerous crisis of moral and political leadership at the highest levels of our government,” “the soul of our nation” is at stake.
I’m certainly glad our Christian “leaders” are waking up to the moral crisis in our country, but where have they been? There has been a moral crisis going on here since the 1960s. And where were they in the 1990s and the last decade?
Dr. Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, asks:
Now these leaders call for “truth”? Now they call for “integrity”? Now they call for morality? Now they call for principle rather than power? I applaud anyone who says they’re committed to the orthodoxy of our faith and the inerrancy of the Word but where were these leaders when Bill Clinton was staining blue dresses in the Oval Office? Where were they when Barak Obama was literally lighting up the White House in the colors of the rainbow? Where were they when justices Ginsberg and Kennedy legally sanctioned sodomy? Where were they when Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi? Where were they when Eric Holder orchestrated gun trafficking in Mexico and cost Americans their lives? Where were they when this same Attorney General and his president refused to prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation? Where were they when President Obama lied to all Americans by telling us “if you like your healthcare, you can keep it”? Where were they when Chai Feldblum said there is never a situation where religious freedom should prevail over LGBT “rights”? Where were they when I was fighting the Obama administration’s arrogant presumption of requiring my Christian university to violate the privacy and dignity of OKWU women by taking away their showers and bathrooms? Where were they when the elites of DC actually thought it made sense to force a bunch of nuns to buy contraception and abortifacients? I’m delighted to learn these Christian leaders care so deeply about the immutable biblical standards of right and wrong but I’m just wondering where they’ve been for the past couple decades.
Other church leaders and former denominational leaders shared similar opinions with me. How is it that our Wesleyan/holiness pastors can’t see that they are being manipulated into accepting a Leftist (pro-Socialist, pro-Marxist, pro-Revolution) political agenda? Let me walk you through the positions in the Confession and show you the political bias. I want you to see how it is possible to agree with the premise but disagree with the solution.
“WE BELIEVE each human being is made in God’s image and likeness.”
Yes! I absolutely agree with this statement, and I’m sure every Christian out there believes the same. I believe racial bigotry is wrong and that every person should be treated with dignity and worth. I also agree with this statement in the “THEREFORE, WE REJECT” section: “We reject the use of racial bigotry for political gain” and “any doctrines or political strategies that use racist resentments, fears or language must be named as public sin.” I do, too! I’m so tired of the Democrats calling people racists to stir up hatred and dissent in order to promote their political agenda. I’m grieved by the way the previous administration and even the last Democrat presidential candidate sought to disparage good people by claiming any political solution that didn’t agree with theirs was inherently racist.
And they have used “racist” as a slur to advance their own political strategies and agendas regardless of how untrue the accusation was. How shameful! And yet they continue to do it to this day, preying on minorities’ fears.
I agree that white supremacy is evil, just as I agree that black supremacy and black racism are also evil. Yeah, they left that out, because they believe (as all Leftists do) that only white people can be racist.
I REJECT their conclusion that we must commit ourselves to help “dismantle the systems and structures that perpetuate white preference and advantage.” What do they even mean by that statement? What systems and structures? What “white preference and advantage”? Don’t be fooled here. This is about a political agenda designed to specifically disadvantage the white male. They want to dismantle Capitalism, our political structures, the family, the church, and any other institution that they see as white-centered. I hate to break it to them, but in our history, only 12-15% of our population has been black. I understand how difficult it is to be a minority, but OF COURSE there are a large number of white people in various corporate positions and political positions and other leadership positions. That doesn’t make the systems themselves inherently racist. Dismantling systems isn’t the answer; changing hearts is. I thought these were Christian leaders! They, of all people, should know better than to seek an earthly, temporal solution to a spiritual problem. We need to change hearts. There is nothing inherently racist about our systems and structures, unless, of course, there’s a company out there that discriminates on the basis of color. Quite the opposite is usually true these days. [See my article, “Is Capitalism Really Anti-Biblical?” for a defense of capitalism from Scripture and a refutation of the Leftist use of Scripture to defend socialism.]
But let’s talk a little more about the “imago dei” they say they support. They believe we were made in the image of God. Well, so do I. But they neglect to mention that God made us male and female. These same people are the ones who champion gay rights, gay marriage, gender fluidity, and transgenderism, all of which violate God’s commands, His stated intent, and common sense. They left this out because they believe we were made in God’s image only to the extent that it advances their political agenda. A little consistency in the application of their beliefs would go a long way in helping the rest of us not to see this statement as little more than political propaganda.
“WE BELIEVE we are one body. In Christ, there is to be no oppression based on race, gender, identity, or class. (Galatians 3:28)”
And they go on to explain how they reject misogyny, mistreatment, abuse, sexual harassment, assault of women, etc. I do, too! I think women should be treated with dignity and respect, and that the sexualization of women should be condemned. But there are a couple things that bother me about this affirmation. First, the writers of this statement say, “We lament when such practices seem publicly ignored, and thus privately condoned, by those in high positions of leadership.” OK, here is another swipe at our leaders (i.e., President Trump). I think even our president would agree with this statement, as hard as it may be to believe. Whether or not the president has had inappropriate relationships in the past should not be the issue. Now, don’t shoot me for this statement. Hear me out.
Back in the 1990s, the Left went to great lengths to convince us that the president’s sex life was off limits and that his behavior was irrelevant to his ability to carry out his official duties. I was appalled at the time because the detestable abuse of a young intern by her superior IN THE OVAL OFFICE was being condoned. And the Left attempted to destroy any of the accusers who claimed Clinton had raped or assaulted them. He was impeached. He stayed in office. And we all learned that morality doesn’t matter, at least as a qualification for the presidency. So, that has been our national opinion, until President Trump. Now they care. There was no outrage on the Left about previous politicians. But now that the playboy is a Republican, they have suddenly found the moral high ground. Well, you all did a great job in the 1990s. I don’t really care anymore, and neither do a whole lot of other women who voted for Trump.
However, before I throw the President under the bus, I want to acknowledge that he has not been formally accused or found guilty in a court of law. We are living in an age of guilt by accusation. And the Left has been actively searching for anyone who would bring an accusation against him. If he’s guilty of committing a crime in his past, then that is another story. But consensual relationships don’t constitute crimes. I also wonder if the writers of this document are Bible-readers, because I seem to remember that King David committed adultery and murder but didn’t lose his kingship (although he did suffer some natural consequences). The Apostle Paul considered himself the “chief of sinners” for his persecution of the early church and his hand in the murder of innocent believers such as Stephen. His past didn’t disqualify him for ministry. Christians believe in forgiveness and restoration. I can’t vouch for the President’s religious experience, but many others who are close to him have noted his journey toward God. That doesn’t give him a pass for crimes in his past, but it should be met with a measure of grace on the part of the church. I’ll bet most of us have embarrassing behaviors from our pre-Christian past that we’re ashamed of. I know I do! Is he still rough around the edges? Sure, but if that offends you, maybe you should read a bit about Martin Luther, the 16th-century leader of the Protestant Reformation or some of our other presidents who were foul-mouthed and uncouth.
Before I leave this affirmation, I want to point out the words “identity” and “oppression.” By “oppression,” do they mean speaking our opinions? And by “identity,” do they mean gender identity (as in a male believing he is male one week and female the next, or identifying as non-gendered)? This foolishness should be called out for what it is. If saying there are only two genders based on anatomy (and Scripture) is considered “oppression,” then we don’t really understand what oppression is. It’s not “oppressive” just because someone doesn’t agree with you. It’s not “oppressive” to point out the obvious. This affirmation leaves open the possibility of declaring any non-politically correct statement or opinion as oppressive, thereby limiting the free speech and free thought of those who disagree. I don’t think that is a Christian stance at all! Galatians 3:28 says nothing about “identity.”
“WE BELIEVE how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner is how we treat Christ himself. (Matthew 25:31-46)”
I agree with this affirmation, too, as do all Christians. The impassioned affirmation says that we are to be in “solidarity with the most vulnerable.” Again, I agree wholeheartedly. But look at the “THEREFORE, WE REJECT” section. They say, “We reject the language and policies of political leaders who would debase and abandon the most vulnerable children of God.” What on earth could be more debase and more abandoning than tearing the limbs off unborn children while they’re still in their mothers’ wombs, of crushing their skulls even though their little bodies have already come through the birth canal? What could be more debase than poisoning the most helpless “children of God” with saline solution and watching them die. And all this with no anesthesia for the helpless baby. What could be more debase than selling their body parts and throwing them in the trash like they’re garbage? Oh, they don’t go there in the statement. That’s not debased enough. What is really debase to these writers is the plight of the “immigrants and refugees, who are being made into cultural and political targets.” “We will resist the repeated attempts to deny health care to those who most need it” (with the exception of the unborn, of course). Oh, and they had to throw in there this politically charged swipe: “while cutting taxes for the rich.” “Budgets are moral documents. We commit ourselves to opposing and reversing those policies….”
Um, does anyone else see the Leftist agenda and the duplicity here? I sure do! If you want to read my opinion about illegal immigration, you can find it in this article: Love vs. Law: Is There a “Right” Response to the Illegal Immigration Crisis? The problem isn’t with immigration, but with breaking our nation’s laws. Period. No one I know would ever deny food or water to anyone, but that doesn’t mean we should advocate for no borders and condone lawlessness. Or did the writers of this document not read all the Scripture verses about obeying civil authorities and submitting to the law? Did they not read about how even the nation of Israel (all 603,550 men and their families), when they had escaped from Egypt, asked permission just to pass through lands that were inhabited by others? I have compassion for the poor and for those who live in countries who don’t afford them all the opportunities we have in this country. But inviting them all to move to this country is just absurd. A country without borders isn’t a country at all! This is nothing more than misplaced compassion. When you take all the “best and brightest” (as the Left claims) out of a country, you are dooming that country to more of the same poverty for generations to come.
But illegal immigration aside, let me just point out that there is no person in this country who is ever denied health care. Too bad Obamacare was simply a scheme to enrich insurance companies by providing affordable health insurance instead of affordable health care. Why aren’t these Christian “leaders” promoting free clinics for the poor and free pharmaceuticals? Why aren’t they promoting Christian compassion by going to where they are and treating their diseases, like we often do on medical missions trips ministering in other countries? No, their solution is to raise taxes on the “rich” and to “reverse policies” (read: Republican policies that don’t mimic the failed Democrat policies of the previous administration). This is really the worst kind of political propaganda couched in religion.
“WE BELIEVE that truth is morally central to our personal and public lives.”
I agree again! The search for truth and speaking the truth in love is absolutely needed. I even agree with part of their “THEREFORE, WE REJECT” statement: “But when public lying becomes so persistent that it deliberately tries to change facts for ideological, political, or personal gain, the public accountability to truth is undermined.” Wow! I agree! How many times has the media falsely reported events, misrepresented “facts,” and later half-heartedly apologized? How many times have Democrats lied to the American people? Please take a moment to re-read Dr. Everett Piper’s quote at the beginning of this article. I remember back when Bill Clinton was president that he lied daily, and no one on the Left seemed to care. They snickered and cheered. But instead of calling their own party to account, this is where the Reclaiming Jesus statement landed: “The regular purveying of falsehoods and consistent lying by the nation’s highest leaders can change the moral expectations within a culture” [emphasis added]. Where were they when the American people were lied to (over and over again) about Obamacare? Or the deal with Iran? Or Benghazi? But, once again, this is a slur against our President, who has been accused by the Left of lying ad nauseum. Accusations of “lying” are always difficult to disprove. We all know that statistics can be used to say almost anything and that a different perspective isn’t a lie. But, again, the court of public opinion is swayed only by the accusation, with or without any tangible proof. Are you starting to see that there is a Leftist agenda in this document?
“WE BELIEVE that Christ’s way of leadership is servanthood, not domination.
Well…OK. That is certainly true. They go on…”We believe our elected officials are called to public service, not public tyranny, so we must protect the limits, checks, and balances of democracy….” So, I get it. They want our leaders to be like Jesus. I would like that, too. But that’s not exactly a qualification outlined in our Constitution. Or, are they saying only Christians can engage in public service? I’m happy to read about their concern for democracy, but our country is a Republic, not a true democracy. We vote for representatives who cast a vote for us. The majority doesn’t always get their way. That doesn’t mean it’s tyranny (cruel, oppressive, unreasonable or arbitrary use of power). It only feels like tyranny when we’re not getting our way.
We have leaders who are in charge and sometimes they make decisions that a large number of Americans don’t agree with. While the authors of this document say here that “the authority of government is instituted by God,” they reject “any moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule.” I’m sure I don’t have to remind you that the government God instituted in the Old Testament was a monarchy (albeit a theocratic monarchy). The kings answered to the prophets and to God, but they were otherwise pretty autocratic. But I agree that our form of government is inspired. I agree in the checks and balances set up by our nation’s founders that gave equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the government. And I wholeheartedly agree with the separation of powers.
That’s why I have been so opposed to a single, unelected federal judge overruling the President when he’s acting within his Constitutional authority. That’s why I was opposed to President Obama governing by executive order as a means of bypassing the legislative branch, subverting our country’s laws by directing the justice department to stop enforcing them. Now, that was an abuse of power. But no one saw that as a moral crisis. Or maybe they weren’t paying attention because it was coming from the Left and not the Right.
Since this document has already revealed itself as a political rant against the President, I think I can safely assume it’s talking about President Trump in these accusations: “replacing civility with dehumanizing hostility toward opponents,” “often characterized by offensive arrogance,” and “accompanied by false and unconstitutional notions of authority.” Let me just say that there’s plenty of that going around on both sides of the aisle. But I’m reasonably sure the accusation is toward only one side of the aisle. How easy it is to attribute “confidence” to people we like but “arrogance” to those we don’t. How easy it is to point out the “dehumanizing hostility” of those with whom we disagree all the while showing “dehumanizing hostility” toward that person. I didn’t realize these religious “leaders” were also experts on the interpretation of the Constitution. Given the fact that they didn’t notice the blatant overreach of our previous president, I’m going to disregard their attempt to define what is and isn’t Constitutional authority. Apparently, they care about the Constitution only when it might benefit their agenda.
WE BELIEVE Jesus when he tells us to go into all nations making disciples (Matthew 28:18).
I absolutely agree with this affirmation. Go. Make disciples! Jesus can change the world, and He’s the only hope for the world. Somehow, though, these authors think that missionary zeal and discipleship mean rejecting “America first” as a “theological heresy.” Wow. That’s a stretch! People who believe “America First” don’t mean by that that the entire world should worship at the feet of America. In America, we should do what is best for the citizens who live here. In France, we expect them to do what is best for the people who live there. In Spain, we expect their government to do what is best for their citizens. Every country should be doing what is in the best interest of their people. That doesn’t mean we don’t come to the aid of another country if they need us. We have always had allies and have banded together to protect one another and to support one another. That does not mean we have to subjugate ourselves in order to help another country. The authors point to “stewardship of the earth’s resources…global development…global poverty, environmental damage, violent conflict, weapons of mass destruction, and deadly diseases” as issues our political leaders should address. Most Christians would agree with these statements because they don’t recognize the underlying assumptions behind these phrases – assumptions that America is not good or generous, that America rapes the land and that our greed makes the rest of the world poor. They blame America for all the woes of the world. This is how the Left preys on American Christians. They want us to feel guilty for being more prosperous than the rest of the world (a prosperity that most hard-working Americans consider a blessing from God).
Can I ask one question? What does all this have to do with discipleship? I think their agenda was in search of a justifying Scripture verse! We are to make disciples. God didn’t tell us to go and make all nations equal or to solve national or global issues. He didn’t tell us to do anything about political structures, even though the political structures of the day were oppressive, to say the least. If the writers of this document were serious about their stance, they would call for condemnation of Christian persecution in Syria and elsewhere. They would call for a Christian missions movement unlike any we’ve ever seen before. They would call for an end to the bigotry toward Christians in this country and in Islamic countries. And if they really believed what they’ve stated, they would stop supporting Socialist and Communist ideologies that truly threaten the nations of the world and the freedoms of their people.
Let’s face it. The only issues brought up in this article are ones that directly contradict or call into question policies espoused by Republicans and President Trump. It is little more than Democrat propaganda. And it will probably work because most Christians (even pastors) don’t pay attention to politics. They hear a little truth mixed with a lot of error and don’t recognize the seduction.
Here are a few of my own “rejections” based on the moral crisis I see facing our country, a crisis the Democrat Party has helped foster:
I REJECT the perversion of human nature by normalizing transgenderism and gender fluidity.
I REJECT the exploitation of the poor by using them as political pawns, feigning compassion when the ultimate aim is to create a dependent underclass that will ensure political votes.
I REJECT the demonizing of political opponents when God calls us to pray for our nation’s leaders.
I REJECT the glorification of sin in the name of “freedom.”
I REJECT racism of every form, including making people who are “white” ashamed because of the color of their skin.
I REJECT the victimization mentality that attempts to blame all societal woes on one class of people (white males).
I REJECT the shaming of those who stand for biblical values.
I REJECT the abandonment of Israel, a country God commands us to bless and defend.
I REJECT the bullying culture that ostracizes and vilifies anyone who disagrees with politically correct viewpoints.
I REJECT the attempt to make “compassion” the ultimate virtue of the church to the exclusion of truth, righteousness, and obedience to the Word of God and the will of God.
The authors of the “Reclaiming Jesus” Confession of Faith wrote in their introduction, “It is often the duty of Christian leaders, especially elders, to speak the truth in love to our churches and to name and warn against temptations, racial and cultural captivities, false doctrines, and political idolatries—and even our complicity in them.” I agree. That’s why I wrote this article – to point out the truth about the political agenda behind their Confession and the attempt to seduce Christians and pastors to a Leftist agenda by cloaking their political views in religious terms. When a representative of the leadership of The Wesleyan Church signs such a document, aligning with people like Tony Campolo and others who support gay marriage and radical left-wing ideologies, I can’t stay quiet. If we are ever to reclaim the soul our nation and our culture, it won’t be through the acceptance of the perversions applauded by the Democrat Party. It won’t be through the Republican Party, either. [See my article, Is God a Democrat or a Republican?] Just opposing a particular administration or denigrating its leaders is not enough to bring revival or to restore civility. We need to get on our faces and repent of sin. Not the manufactured “sins” in this article, but sin in the heart of every individual. Until we address abortion, pornography, perverse sexuality, vulgarity, and the like, we’ll never be equipped to tackle national morality. Too bad these Christian “leaders” were too weak to get to the heart of the issue and squandered this opportunity by making deliberate and obvious political attacks because their party is not in power.
_____________________
[3/25/18 NOTE: The Confession uses the word “political” 22 times and “politics” another 5 times, yet the church pastors who commented on this article via Facebook contend there isn’t anything political about the Confession at all. They say I’ve made it all about politics. I used the word “agree” 24 times in this article, but I’m apparently being divisive and hostile and can’t see anything good in the Confession. The entire point of my article is to show the political bent of the Confession. Apparently, that’s offensive. Have the Democratic talking points become so mainstream in the church that pastors can’t tell what is political and what is not? This is a travesty.]
