Puddleglum Stomping: December 2011

It is not my intent to start a feud with Dr. Garlow. As I said the last time I responded to his statements, he is my brother in Christ and I embrace him as such. I have no personal dislike for him, and in fact I've never met him. And normally I try to avoid getting too political in this forum unless it's required by a sermon; there are plenty of other better (and worse) sources for political discourse these days. However, Dr. Garlow is a very public figure in both the secular media/political world and the Wesleyan Church, so his statements have a pretty direct impact on my little corner of the church. Specifically, he has come to articulate a political and theological position which, while it is hardly unique these days, is the exact opposite direction from the one I hope the Wesleyan Church will take. There are no shortage of churches making sacrifices at the altar of American 21st-century conservatism, but it is my fervent prayer that the Wesleyan Church will not join them any more than it already has. Our unique theological tradition puts us in a position to offer the world a desperately needed alternative to the civil religion championed by most Republicans on the national stage, and I hope that my denomination will choose this alternative rather than the course chosen by Dr. Garlow.

In case I have not been clear enough: the theology put forward by Dr. Garlow in his recent letter regarding his support of Newt Gingrich is, I believe, a direct threat to the work of the kingdom of God. This is not simply a difference of opinion, this is a matter that strikes at the heart of the gospel.

Dr. Garlow's letter is intended to articulate a defense of his endorsement of Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate, but it is not actually Newt Gingrich that I intend to discuss. Dr. Garlow is entitled to vote for whatever candidate he chooses. The beauty of the American voting system is that you get to vote for your candidate and I get to vote for mine, and we're each entitled to our politics. I hope that more people will vote for someone other than Gingrich than will vote for him, and clearly Dr. Garlow hopes the opposite. That's fine. The problem comes in how Dr. Garlow defends his choice: he rests on a dangerous, flawed, unbiblical ecclesiology (that is, theology of the church), an old and toxic lie that threatens to unravel the church in the United States.

Since the problem lies in the theology underlying Dr. Garlow's position rather than the specific points he makes, I will respond to only a couple of points from the letter that illustrate the theology itself.

The church and power

First, during a section in which Dr. Garlow discusses Mr. Gingrich's conversion to Catholicism:

But those reasons are not the most compelling reasons for his conversion, in my opinion. His conversion to the Catholic Church is based on his love of the “church militant,” to the fact that the church of the Middle Ages “got it.” They knew the enemies of the faith, and they went on the offensive. He sees – as did the church of the Middle Ages – that the enemies of the church, both then and now, was and is radical Islam. Islamicists threaten the entire globe. When he reads history, he sees a church that was willing to confront the most terrifying force of the time. That compels him, and well it should.

Mr. Gingrich is right when he sees the dual dangers of radical secularism and radical Islam. Few seem to grasp it. But he does. And so should the American church. The one church that seemed to “get it” (at least as it related to Islam) was the church of the Middle Ages.

He would never defend the excesses or sinful aspects of the Middle Age Church. Nor would I. For example, I would not defend the brutalities of the Crusades. Those are wrong.

Yet, I refuse to fall into the politically correct, historical revisionism that fails to see that Christians in the Middle Ages were forced to defend themselves against the onslaughts of Islam that came to kill in the name of Allah. And in that sense, there is a direct “connecting of the dots” that can be made between Christians fighting for their lives then, and those who do not want to succumb to radical Islamicists today.

I confess that I have never before seen a Protestant claim that the church of the Middle Ages was an example for us today of a time when we "got it." Yes, there are certainly many examples of the church serving as the witness to the kingdom of God during that time, and there are many examples of saints and communities of faith honoring Jesus Christ. But the church of the Middle Ages was institutionally corrupt in its compromises with the governments of Europe. It had appropriated power for itself in a way that was entirely contradictory to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Reformation happened for lots of reasons, but most of them came down to that issue of power.

I find it interesting that Dr. Garlow is politically correct enough to distance himself from the Crusades, yet the Crusades are absolutely critical to understanding how the church operated in that time period. You cannot claim that the church "got it" while rejecting its use of violence. The violence was a necessary result of the model the church accepted. The church had so compromised with the temporal powers in the world that she saw herself as one of them: the princes of Europe were blessed by the pope, the church held vast tracts of property, and it was assumed that God had chosen to act through the political-spiritual entity of the institution in Rome. The result was that a threat to the church was a threat to the state and vice versa, and the church thought it was appropriate to use the sword of the state to deal with those threats. This is why it was acceptable, in their eyes, to fight the Crusades, as well as burn dissidents at the stake.

Almost without exception, bad things have happened as a result of the church making an alliance with the state (or segments of the political establishment). Either the state begins using religious language to justify atrocities committed against an unwanted minority or large parts of the church are led astray from their genuine witness of Christ (as is happening and has happened in the United States). When the church begins to think that it can advance the agenda of the kingdom by wielding political power, the witness of Christ will inevitably be damaged.

This is why the Bible is almost universally suspicious of temporal governments. There are a few exceptions, but they are noteworthy only as exceptions. More often, the kingdom of God works against or in spite of human governments and wisdom. The judges were seen as ineffective at preventing "everyone doing what was right in their own eyes," the prophets regularly criticized the corruption of the monarchy, Jesus was opposed and executed by the corrupt powers-that-be, the Apostles expected persecution at the hands of the government, and John the Revelator saw governments as being in league with the Beast. When the people were saved through governments, it was because God was fighting to save them.

The compromise of the church with Republican politics that Dr. Garlow advocates is directly contradictory to the kingdom of God, in other words. The church of Jesus Christ does not go on the offensive against her enemies, as Dr. Garlow says, because Jesus explicitly forbade this:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

There's also this:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)

In other words, for the church to be a faithful witness to the kingdom of God, she must explicitly reject the power of coercion as Jesus did. If the church thinks she can wield political power as she did during the Middle Ages (and as Dr. Garlow advocates today), she will be an embarrassment to her Lord.

American Exceptionalism

Here's a second quote that illustrates Dr. Garlow's toxic ecclesiology, when he is listing the qualities he sees in Mr. Gingrich:

A superb grasp of the correct definition of American Exceptionalism. In short, there are nearly 200 nations with constitutions. A few of them mention God in the preamble. Only one nation has sacred documents that specifically state that our rights are given “by their (that is, our) Creator” (Declaration of Independence) to “We The People” (opening large font in the US Constitution) with us as “the People” temporarily loaning the power to elected officials. That is, based on all the constitutions of the other nations of the world, an “exception,” thus the appropriate phrase “American Exceptionalism.” Mr. Gingrich is able to articulate this considerably better than any elected official I have ever heard.

Let me be clear: no minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ should ever advocate American Exceptionalism. This view is not only historically and logically absurd, it is also repugnant to the gospel.

It is absurd because it is meaningless and patently untrue. What does it even mean? What does it imply about our history? Is American Exceptionalism suggesting that this socio-political entity is somehow favored by history? Because many empires throughout history have been wealthy and powerful. Is it suggesting that we are morally superior to other nations? Shall I list the atrocities in our history? Two will do, I think: remember that this nation was born through the systematic extermination of one people (First Nations) and the brutal enslavement of another (Africans). I need not mention the fact that we currently ignore our own supposedly sacrosanct principles at Guantanamo Bay.

It is also repugnant to the gospel to suggest that this nation is somehow accorded a higher status spiritually because of our founding documents. God does not favor the United States over other nations; to suggest otherwise is verging on blasphemy. The Apostle Paul had, shall we say, some strong words to say on the subject: the Epistle to the Galatians is written against those who would insist that certain groups are more "in" the kingdom than others. Ephesians and Philemon (and others) very clearly lay out the theology that all peoples are offered the opportunity to become co-heirs with Christ in Christ; God is building a new people out of all the nations founded on Jesus. No nation has privileged status, and Paul shouts that those who disagree with him should perform *ahem* radical surgery.

The fact that we have included some platitudes about God in our documents is as meaningless as insisting that the clerk at the grocery wish you a Merry Christmas. It does nothing to reflect or witness to the kingdom of God. Is there anything in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence that uniquely references the Sermon on the Mount? And these Republican candidates who proclaim their righteousness from the street corners by going to prayer conventions and reciting the line, "Jesus is my personal Lord and savior:" can they articulate how the Beatitudes will inform their public policy?

Dr. Garlow says this at one point: "We are in a war, a war that will determine whether America, as she was conceived, will survive." And why, exactly, should this concern the church? America as a political entity in no way overlaps with the kingdom of God. I certainly appreciate the privileges of American citizenship, but that citizenship does not dictate the terms of my citizenship in Christ's kingdom. The work of God will not be any more hindered by the collapse of America than it has been by the collapse of any other empire. If we are in Christ, we are citizens of His kingdom. All other kingdoms pass away.

What are the main things?

Dr. Garlow writes about many other things, most of which fall predictably in line with the platform of the Republican party. The three issues that seem foremost in his letter are gay marriage, abortion, and fiscal conservatism. These are indeed serious issues that need to be handled carefully, but I am confused at what biblical justification Dr. Garlow uses to single out these particular issues. I would wager that the Bible has at least as much to say about the evils of greed as it does in favor of personal industry and fiscal responsibility; in fact the Bible frequently assumes that the rich have gained their wealth on the backs of the poor. And I'm pretty sure that the Bible has far more to say about taking care of the poor than it does about the evils of homosexuality. And I know that the biblical instruction is to do good in response to evil and fight using only the armor of God; the weapons of the world are forbidden us. It is unacceptable to focus on those parts of the Bible that convict other people but agree with my politics while ignoring the clear commands of Christ that convict me, too.

If I have said some harsh things, it is out of love for the church of Christ and zeal for her future. I bear no ill will for Dr. Garlow, and I know that God has done many great things through him. I hope, however, that he will reevaluate his understanding of the church's role in the world to bring it more in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Pages

Friday, December 23, 2011

Two Sermons: "Lord, Save Us From Our Exile!" and "Lord, Save Us From Our Excess!"

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Another response to Dr. Jim Garlow, this time regarding Newt Gingrich. Sigh.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Lord, Save Us From Our Enemy!