I have several more articles
just about ready to go, but tonight I wanted to comment on three things.
First....
Focus on the Family and John MacArthur
There was an interesting episode of Focus on the Family that aired on Monday. The guest was John
MacArthur. For those who don't know him, he's something of an anomaly being
both a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. I encountered him in the mid-90's not
long after my conversion by reading some of his writings regarding the Lordship
Controversy. It was well worth the read and helped me to better to understand
the theological underpinnings of a great error, the unbiblical doctrine of
Carnal Christianity....something that had personally affected my life. For
years I had believed myself to be a kind of 'bad' Christian. It was only in
1995 I realized I wasn't a Christian at all.
Politically speaking, MacArthur
is a conservative and because of his Dispensational orientation he's certainly
concerned with American policy toward Israel. But being a more consistent
Pre-Millennialist, he's not very optimistic about this world's present course.[i]
In addition he rightly believes that much of what the American Church is doing
in terms of the Culture War is actually harmful to the cause of the Gospel.
He's strongly condemned by
Dominionists and Theonomists. Just the other day I was reading a Coral Ridge
publication that specifically condemned his views and those of Cal Thomas.
Thomas and MacArthur are both conservatives, they don't have a problem with the
political and economic agenda of American Conservatism....they just think the
church has put too much stock in it.[ii]
MacArthur has always seemed a
bit more sound and he made an important point on the programme, that the
Culture War is making the unbeliever into an enemy that we demonize and act as
if we wish to destroy. This is not helping the cause of the gospel.[iii]
I would have added that the
'offense' of Christianity is today often due to political and social aggression....not
the offense of the Gospel. I know for example the Family Research Council
thinks they recently suffered persecution for the faith. I disagree. They're
not a Christian organization. They're a political lobby. They're trying to use
the force of law and the threat of violence that goes with it to support their
agenda.
While I certainly cannot
condone the actions of a sick and evil gunman...he was meeting the violence (as
he rightly perceives their actions)....with a more direct and immediate form of
violence. That doesn't make either party right in any way, but it also doesn't
mean that they quite qualify for what historically would be labeled Christian 'persecution'.
Listening to the Focus on the
Family programme I was also struck by a couple of things. One, the shift in
tone. A few years ago, this episode would not have happened. Focus on the
Family in 2012 has a different emphasis today than it did in the recent past.
The organization obviously ran
out their founder, James Dobson. No one is privy to the truth in
this...Christian organizations (including denominations) are always very
tight-lipped.[iv]
Nevertheless Dobson had been moving in a more
politically aggressive direction, especially after the Democrats took control
of Congress in 2006. This picked up tempo after the 2008 election.[v]
The shows seemed to regularly take up these themes in the last couple of years
he was on the show.
And then suddenly Dobson
decides to 'retire'...but then within a very short time he starts up a new
radio show, where he's basically doing the same thing? Don't most people call
that lying? I'm well aware of the fact that Focus on the Family financially
'helped' him out...getting started with the new programme etc... it was all
real warm and friendly. I don't think so.
Anyway, the new leadership at
Focus on the Family (Jim Daly providing the new face) seemed to want to
distance themselves from his political agenda and have definitely spent a lot
more time 'focusing' on family and relationship type issues. I will often just
flip the show on, listen for a minute to see what they're talking about and turn
it off. For a long time now, it's been stuff about weight-loss, self-esteem,
and all the usual extra-Biblical and un-Biblical fare that Focus has pushed for
a long time.
So by bringing MacArthur on...I
thought, this is interesting. But if you listen to the show it seems to me they
struggled quite a bit with what he was saying and in the end essentially
rejected it. They cited Colson once at the beginning and then certainly at the
end where the announcer seemed to just about dismiss everything MacArthur said.
It also seemed like they cut it short a little earlier than usual. It wasn't
hostile, but they definitely were not resonating with what he was saying.
I don't know if Daly and the
other Focus leaders are struggling, trying to find a balance or more likely...I
don't think they understand the issues. I think they found his ideas intriguing
because they're concerned about the almost violent spirit growing within the
American Church, but then when they actually talked to him... the implications
of what he was saying was just too much.
They were trying to somehow equate
MacArthur's ideas with Colson's when they couldn't be farther apart. Colson
regularly argued that the "Gospel is not enough..." and insisted on
the Culture War. Colson's ideas were not original[vi],
he was largely promoting the ideas of Francis Schaeffer and by extension
Abraham Kuyper.[vii]
These ideas are incompatible with MacArthur's theology and he seems well aware
of it.
Anyway it was a rare
interesting moment listening to Christian Radio.
I'm afraid MacArthur's lessons
and many unelaborated points concerning power etc... were missed by the hosts
of the programme. Sometimes these radio and television shows are so abbreviated
it's almost impossible to actually cover anything in depth.
Second....
I haven't had regular
television since early 1995. And for years we've lived in a rural area where
you cannot receive any channels via an antenna. We're not opposed to television
per se. We have the device, watch movies, and since getting high-speed
internet, we watch news programmes, movies, and sometimes even old television
shows from years ago....The Waltons, Columbo, etc...
Recently for the first time in
seventeen years, we briefly got television. We're not sports people but wanted
to watch the Olympics. I haven't watched a football game in almost twenty
years. We're not into any of the major sports, but we do like the Olympics, especially
the Winter games. The Olympics are different and it's interesting because of
its international flavour.
Actually we watched very
little, but recorded them and then over the next year or so we'll work our way
through the discs, watching them....and best of all...we can fast-forward
through the commercials.
The television is now turned
off, the cable disconnected. They're picking it up tomorrow. I was able to get
a special deal for one month. We'll probably turn it on again in 2014 when the
Winter Olympics are shown.
Good riddance. I have to say
after not having it all those years...that was nothing less than shocking.
There was no way we would have ever considered (even for a moment) leaving that
thing on and unattended with our children in the house. Wow.
Anyway, after spending years
digesting international media I was curious to see some domestic news. I have
watched some on the internet, so I wasn't too surprised...though a little....to
find....
There is no news on American
television.
Here I naively thought there
would be some good programmes on. But some of the old shows that we remembered
from years past like 20/20 and Dateline....they're just a joke. Entertainment
really. 60 minutes is probably the one exception.
The History Channel? There's no
history at all.
I could go on for quite awhile
about what we saw and learned. It was a fascinating sociological experiment to
turn that thing on after all these years. Maybe I'll get around to writing
about it at some point.
But the news is what really got
me. If that's all Americans are getting, then there's no way any kind of
Democracy could ever function. There was no reporting, it was just fluff, human
interest stories, silliness and often raunchy.
I think of all the years I've
watched and listened to international news and for these American television
personalities to call themselves journalists is nothing less than an insult.
I had heard that the new CBS
morning show was real serious, an in-depth news programme. So I watched it and
was left scratching my head and quite unimpressed. This is 'serious'?
So then I watched the Today
show and Good Morning America. Wow, it was almost like, anything BUT news.
Maybe it's always been that bad. The last time I watched Today was back when it
was still Bryant Gumbel and a young Katie Couric who had just replaced Deborah
Norville and Jane Pauley.
Again I was just struck by the
fact that the American news scene isn't liberal or conservative as much as it's
just dumb and entertainment oriented. FOX of course is very slanted, but even
then...if I was a hardcore Republican, I couldn't watch that. If you like that,
then there's something wrong with you.
A woman I've known and worked
for many years is a staunch conservative but not much of a television person.
She's been greatly affected by her friends via those good old political emails
that we're all so familiar with. Her friends are obviously very much into Glenn
Beck and the FOX news scene and it has had quite an influence on her. Anyway
she'd heard so much about FOX and so she decided to get cable. I was so pleased
when after a couple of months she had it disconnected again. Again, she about
as conservative as they come, but she found FOX to be pretty repugnant. She had
no interest in watching it.
Elsewhere I've told the story
about a friend of mine who has lived overseas for several years. At some point
he was at someone's house or something and saw FOX news. This was back around
2000 if I recall. We were talking on the phone and he mentioned it to me. He
rightly identified it as WWF (the fake wrestling federation) news. He couldn't
believe that people were actually watching O'Reilly and these others
programmes. He was even more shocked when I informed him that all the
Christians loved that station, it was the news source of choice. He's quite
conservative as well, but had no interest in watching anything on that station.
It is shocking and reveals much
about the mindset and heart of American Christianity. Several Christian leaders
(especially Reformed men like Lillback and Beisner) who have appeared on those
programmes should be ashamed of themselves and rebuked.
Generally speaking American
news is pro-Establishment, patriotic, and deliberately shallow. I've never been
a fan of Cronkite. I remember him being on television, but I was too young to
have formed an opinion of him. I knew my dad didn't like him. As a staunch
conservative he considered his Vietnam reporting to be treasonous. Strange for
a 'liberal' to have contributed to bringing down the president who authored The
Great Society.
Cronkite certainly had liberal
beliefs, but was still patriotic and establishment minded. As a longtime NPR
listener[viii],
for years, up until just shortly before his death, I had to endure his rather
lame commentaries. Considering the span of his life, the things he witnessed, I
do not think he gained a great deal of insight or wisdom.
These days, Ted Koppel often
appears on Talk of the Nation. Once again a supposed member of the 'liberal'
media who only wants American reporters to report our news and over the past
couple of years seems to push for military intervention in Pakistan and
arguably Iran. Oh and he's good friends with Henry Kissinger. Yeah, real
liberal. There's certainly nothing strange about being friends with someone you
disagree with, but his statements go beyond that.
I guess they're liberal because
they didn't properly 'hate' Carter, Clinton, and Obama. That seems to be the
criteria.
My whole point in this was that
once again tonight as I turned off the television for the last time, I was
struck by our media's utter failure and negligence.
Meles Zenawi just died, and if
you haven't heard of him, then you're either not paying attention or you're a
frequent viewer of American network and/or cable news.
He was the prime minister of
Ethiopia and his death is frankly a pretty big deal in terms of geopolitics.
The United States under both Bush and Obama have been pursuing a proxy foreign
policy in East Africa which involves Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and others.
There's a whole range of issues from Al-Shabaab, to Somalia (another incredibly
complicated mess made worse by the United States), to Sudan, South Sudan, the
Congo, Domestic policy in Uganda, the issues concerning piracy, Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula, and Yemen. There are wars, proxy wars, subterfuge, coup d'état
and much more.
If you watch the mainstream
news, then you probably know next to nothing about any of this. His death wasn't even mentioned. If you watch,
read, or listen to Christian media, then I guarantee you've received a carefully
crafted misguided and perhaps overtly deceptive, certainly reductionistic and
American biased narrative. The reporting in these circles on what's happening
in Africa is so bad as to be misleading.
For months I've wanted to write
about this, but it's complicated and I don't have the time to do it. I have
notes on two African articles. One on East Africa and the aforementioned issues
and the other dealing with Nigeria, Oil, Boko Haram, and the religious tensions
in West Africa. I've also have a partially completed article on Syria and all
its geopolitical implications. I hope to get back to that soon. It's been
sitting incomplete with notes for over a month.
I can't compete with CBN, World
Magazine, and the many other so-called Christian media outlets. I am unable to
serve as a news bureau, but one thing I can do is help Christians to understand
what's happening and try to put it into some perspective. God willing the time
and resources will be granted to me in order to do that.
If not, then all I can do (as
I'm doing here at the moment) is raise the issue.
There are large stories that
our media isn't covering. Tonight on CBS, apparently it was more important to
discuss PTSD-affected soldiers and their therapeutic dogs. Yesterday it was
Phyllis Diller. And in between the segments we watch commercials put out by
teams of professional liars trying to convince us that by voting for one or the
other of the two parties...something is going to change?
Rather than reflect on the
state of American news and reporting, it would seem the Church has decided to
go for the even more dumbed-down and biased. Rather than be challenged to
think, to actually try and learn something, they'd rather have their ears
tickled while getting to watch tacky women (who despite being dressed in
provocative manner, act and talk like men)[ix]
or thugs who shout down people and insult their audience by posting the text of
their commentary alongside of their editorial pontifications. Just in case you
missed it....[x]
And finally,
While I'm not going to wade
into the Todd Akin controversy and its political implications...because I'm not
really not all that interested....I do wish to point out that Mr. Akin appeared
in Kirk Cameron's Monumental, espoused opinions I found to be lacking,
ill-informed, and ignorant....
And he's a member of the
Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA), is Reformed in doctrine, heavily
influenced by the late Theonomist D James Kennedy, and in fact is a graduate of
Covenant Seminary.
Again much more could be said.
His statements reminded me of several issues related to a sub-set within
Reformed circles....a semi-cultic movement I might label Domesticism. I'm not
sure that's exactly where Akin is coming from but he certainly is associating
with some of those folks. There are a host of issues, but one of them is that
some of these folks have embraced some really bizarre ideas about medicine,
health, science etc...
For someone falling under this
umbrella to make a statement akin (no pun intended) to his statements regarding
rape and pregnancy....wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Someday I hope to elaborate on
the issues surrounding this non-official cluster of movements within the
Reformed world. A lot of it, especially the camps and ideas associated with
Bill Gothard qualifies not only as heretical but cultic.
I must say, that though we
presently attend a PCA I am appalled by many of the people who are associated
with the denomination. Not only do I not wish to affiliate myself with the
denomination,[xi]
in the case of someone like Akin, I actually celebrate his downfall.
Not because I'm vengeful. I
don't know the man.
Not because I support his
political opponents. I don't.
But because he's a heretic and
represents a theology which encourages the Church to embrace evil. I wish him
no ill. I hope he repents. But I'm also glad that the agenda he would promote
has by his actions and foolishness been hindered and I sincerely hope he loses
his election bid.
It's not about his victory or
defeat being some kind of victory for America. It has nothing to do with that. I'm
speaking strictly in terms of the Church and the fact that one false shepherd
(in a broad sense) has been exposed.
The Church of course has been
shamed, but his victory would be even worse.
Just some things to
consider........
[i] This is also consistent with Amillennialism, though
many Amillennialists are also Dominionists. These 'optimistic' Amillennialists
don't believe Christianity is going to conquer the earth, but they do believe
Christianity will have real cultural and political success. Practically
speaking they're little different from Postmillennialists who seek to (and
believe they will succeed in) transforming the earth and its institutions into redeemed
categories. In others words they believe the Kingdom will be manifest on earth
before the Parousia, the 2nd Coming of Christ.
[ii] Cal
Thomas is a regular feature in our local newspaper and used to be on the local
'christian' radio station. I disagree with him on just about every issue, in
fact to be clear how strongly I feel about him... I don't think I could bring
myself to sit in a congregation where he was present. He needs to repent. Some
of his views are completely contrary to and irreconcilable with Scripture.
Though on the surface he disavows his former ties with the
Christian Right, he still espouses all the same positions, the same sacralized economic
policies, political theories, the same militarism and bellicosity, the same
nationalistic pride and historical myths created by Christians. It's like he
reads his Bible and knows (somewhere deep down) that the Christian Right isn't
in accord with Scripture, so he distances himself...but then when confronted
with any particular issue he goes back to his default mode...
Christo-Americanism. He can't divorce himself from the idol he worships.
The aberrant and evil views of Cal Thomas and Charles Colson
played a large role in pushing me to start writing. Listening to them every day
drove me to want to start responding. I felt like someone, somewhere should
challenge their assumptions. It angered me that these men are looked to as
spokesmen and leaders within American Christianity.
And it irks me to no end that Thomas is erroneously tied to
somehow advocating a Two Kingdom theology or a position of 'disengagement'.
Anyone who is familiar with him would have to laugh at the assertion. He's a
political partisan...with a conscience? I don't think so. I think he's just
been around long enough to have a realistic view of what all this actually
accomplishes. He's not a Pollyanna when it comes to Christian political
activism. That is perhaps the sole accolade I would give him.
[iii] In Reformed circles, Kline offered a similar critique
directed specifically at Theonomic Reconstructionism. He argued their desire to
gain political power and to force Covenant-compliance on a society...their
application of the so-called Dominion Mandate was in direct contradiction to
the Great Commission. We can't disciple the nations if we're arresting them and
executing them.
[iv] Whether
this is due to the nature of institution, thinking in bureaucratic terms, or simply
due to concerns about losing income if too much is disclosed, I don't know.
Telling the truth in many of these instances would not qualify as gossip, which
is I think another very misunderstood concept. But that's for another time....
[v] I was often amazed listening to him. He criticized
Obama for wielding too much power in 2009-2010 when the Democrats held the
Congress. It was defeating the checks and balances the Founders had built into
the system, he insisted. One party shouldn't have that much power. His tone
could be described as livid.
Of course the
Republicans controlled both the House and Senate from 2002 until the 2006
mid-term election and not once did I ever hear Dobson complain about the
Republicans holding Congress and the Presidency. For four years the Republicans
held an almost unchallenged grip on power and due to the political climate
(post 11 September) they largely went along with Bush as he waged global war
and passed treasonous legislation like the Patriot Act. That name is like
something out of Orwell.
And Dobson also defended
Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Obviously he wasn't defending her
fornication, but he praised her for 'keeping' the baby etc... I too am glad she
didn't abort the baby, but that's not the point.
Can you even imagine what
he would have said during the 1990's if Chelsea Clinton had turned up pregnant?
Aside from calling her a tramp, he would have excoriated her parents and the
values they had passed on to her etc...and yet the Palin's are just fine
exemplars of the Christian family?
Sometimes I really and
truly wonder with these people....are they so blind that they cannot see their
own hypocrisy and inconsistency, or are they just plain opportunistic and
deceptive and somehow they've justified it in their minds?
[vi] In
fact listening to Colson (and I had for years) I was often struck by the
disconnected and jumbled way he spoke...leading me to wonder how much he actually
grasped what he proffered. He was all over the place, quoting all kinds of
people, but often the quotes....didn't support what he was saying. The people
he quoted were sometimes saying the opposite of what he was saying. I wouldn't
suggest he was unintelligent. I just don't know. He was incredibly cunning and
respected. People from the Bush White House tended to roll their eyes at people
like Dobson and DJ Kennedy. They didn't understand how the political machine
worked. But Colson, he knew it inside and out and played an important role in
the Evangelical political machine.
Considering that he didn't really write most of his books
and then listening to him speak on so many occasions I was left wondering if
the 'chief intellectual' of American Evangelicalism was actually something of a
fraud.
[vii] Two titanic figures in terms of 20th
Century Protestant Sacralistic and Dominionistic thought. Their influence (and
I would argue destructiveness) cannot be overemphasized.
[viii] NPR and perhaps PBS are about the only somewhat
laudable news agencies in the United States. But even then, I find both
organizations to be establishment minded. For years I've watched PBS
documentaries online and especially when it comes to American History....if
they're 'Leftist' then the Left died long before Nixon left office. The
reporting has more depth than the mainstream news, but they still largely
accept the government line and I'm amazed at how often they turn to
commentators from the Heritage Foundation and other such groups.
[ix] Another article awaiting composition deals with the
tendency among Conservative women to dress provocatively. I'm not a legalist
nor a prude, but there's an interesting pendulum swing at work. The reaction to
feminism in some sectors of conservatism has been to respond with celebrating
femininity. But our culture no longer understands the concept and has equated
sensuality with femininity. What used to be considered sluttish is now being
feminine, the distinction has been reduced to a nebulous line....two inches of
cleavage is okay....four is trashy. Three inch heels and a skirt 8 inches above
the knee is feminine....Four inch heels and a skirt 10 inches above the
knee...that's slutty.
Watching international
news, it's like we're left with the strange picture of secular, worldly,
European women looking....more often than not feminine and properly dressed.
Feminism there celebrates women for being women.
And the good Christian
women of FOX News (including PCA pastor Tim Keller's congregant Anne Coulter)
looking as one comedian put it.... like crack whores.
Both amazing and interesting
how feminism has played out in America. In the United States you get the whole
'empowerment' and 'self-esteem' impulse...which breeds the 'if you got it,
flaunt it' mindset, coupled with American feminism's need for women to act like
men in their speech and demeanour. In Secular or Leftist feminist circles this
has often driven women to be frumpy and unkempt (there are exceptions like
Naomi Wolf)...driving Conservative women to be 'feminine' in response. But the
problem is, American narcissism doesn't produce traditional feminine
attributes, but that's for another time....
[x] I'm sure the American television psyche equates news-box
text with facts and I'm sure many watchers confuse O'Reilly's pontifications
with actual news. A similar phenomena often occurs with the commentary in Study
Bibles. After they walk away, they confuse what was text with what was
commentary. That's why I generally consider them to be a bad idea.
[xi] And I cannot in good conscience verbalize their
membership oaths. This is for many reasons I've talked about elsewhere, but one
being that you're called on to pray for the peace and well-being of the
Church...by which they mean the PCA denomination. I made a point to have this
clarified.
I cannot in good
conscience affirm such a statement, let alone vow it. Truly many people like
Akin, Coulter, DeMint, and others I consider to be enemies of the Kingdom.