A Tale of Two Christianty's

"The best way to understand the cultural scenario is to realize that there are two different types of Christianity. One is a movement of people who want to live and be like Jesus. The other (and far more common, far more powerful) is a civil and political religion that is simply named Christianity. The civil political religion named Christianity is addicted to both political power and violence, and thus finds the message of Jesus offensive."

~Benjamin L. Corey

Mr. Corey makes an excellent point but I think he does not go far enough.

There are definitely two different types of Christianity in America - the authentic and the pseudo. I have tried to express this before, just using different terms. The "civil political religion named Christianity", as Mr. Corey puts it, is what I call the Ideological Christianity and it has two sides. Both sides will use politics, propaganda and even violence to gain power, just that they employ slightly different methods.

One side infuses the Christian Faith into national patriotism. The politics of this side will trend toward less government spending on social programs and more on industrial and military funding. It will favour more of the wrong kind of regulation and less of the right kind. When this side is in power long enough business and economy tends to be profitable but the poor suffer. The propaganda of this side will resonate with slogans of how America was founded as a Christian Nation and will champion a return to traditional moral values and Biblical principles. The violence of this side will usually take the form of political sanctions and or military action in foreign nations' affairs under the guise of promoting liberty & democracy and protecting America's interests and/or allies. It will also take the form of legislative action which results in the restriction of personal freedoms under the guise of providing for the domestic security of the American people. This ideology can be seen in many denominations and will use the Bible and the Church's Tradition to justify its ambitions and methods.

The other side of this "civil political religion named Christianity" infuses the Christian Faith into social democracy. The politics of this side will trend toward more government spending on social and environmental programs and less on military and industrial. It will favour more of the wrong kind of regulation and less of the right kind. When this side is in power long enough business and economy tends to be recessive and the poor still suffer. The propaganda of this side will resonate with slogans of social & economic equality & justice and will champion the cause of democracy and civil rights. The violence of this side will usually take the form of political sanctions and/or military actions in foreign nations' affairs under the guise of promoting liberty & democracy and the protection of human rights. It will also take the form of legislative action which results in the restriction of personal freedoms under the guise of serving the common good of the American people. This ideology is present in many denominations and will also use the Bible and the Church's Tradition to justify its ambitions and methods.

Infusing the Christian Faith into either of these ideologies/philosophies - or any permutation thereof - constitutes the same thing: a hijacking of the Classical Christian Faith and a distortion of what it means and looks like. There is no political/social ideology/philosophy that is compatible with the ancient and true Christian Faith; to try and make it so is to create a pseudo-Christianity. And in fact, the greater majority of what is perceived as Christianity by the modern culture is just that. 

There are, no doubt, many good-hearted, devout Christians who have been seduced by these ideologies through their sincere desire to set right what is wrong and make the world a better place. Certainly we have a responsibility to be good stewards of what has been given us and there are a lot of good things we can and should do. But we are not going to 'save the planet' or effect the outcome of history. 

If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do the builders labour (Psalm 127).

The other type of Christianity, as Mr. Corey describes it "is a movement of people who want to live and be like Jesus". But what does this mean? I think it means different things to different people, depending on how they perceive the Person of Jesus and how they understand His teachings. For some it means accepting everyone in whatever way they self-identify, in whatever kinds of relationships they choose and in whatever sort of lifestyle they live, regardless of whether this conflicts with the entirety of Scripture and the Tradition. For others it means being a kind of moral crusader, going around pointing out people's sins. The motivation for both these attitudes is said to be love. For the former, love = non-judgmentalism; for the latter, love = converting sinners. But both miss the mark, both mis-characterize the Person of Jesus, His teachings, and especially love. The defining character of love is that it is sacrificial. Jesus showed us what that looks like in His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross, and His teachings, rightly understood, reveal the same thing.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:5-8).

To "live and be like Jesus" means to sacrifice, to empty ourselves - of our will, our desires, our opinions, our feelings - and bear whatever crosses these bring to us, patiently, humbly, without complaining. Along with this is regarding all people as being worthy of love and salvation and forgive everyone, for everything, all the time. This must be our attitude and our actions must reflect it. Does this mean that we are to say nothing about anything? Of course not. But we must be very discerning in what we say and especially how we say it. Speaking the truth in love is only possible by grace.

None of this requires a political ideology or philosophy, nor can it be enhanced or improved by adopting one. Yes, we live in the world and we are constantly confronted with its issues and problems. But to become so caught up in it that our emotions are inflamed when we see something on television and we have to run to the social networks and talk about it, or even worse, run out into the streets and protest it, then we have given in to passion and allowed ourselves to be distracted from living and being like Jesus.

Jesus never told His disciples (and by extension, us as well) to solve the world's problems or to be social/political activists. He told them to watch and pray lest they fall into temptation. Allowing political ideologies/philosophies to influence and inform our Faith is a temptation of the Adversary. God does not need Conservative or Progressive Christians, Democrat, Republican or Libertarian Christians. He desires true disciples of Jesus Christ who hear the Word of God and keep it.

In political matters, I believe we should give only the necessary amount of attention to make a conscientious decision of how to vote - if we decide to vote - and if there is something we can actually, practically and personally do to help someone, do that. 

In all else watch and pray, 

work and pray, 

do what is right, 

love what is good, 

and walk humbly with God.

The Power to Tax

The following is taken from a recent essay by Mark Alexander, Editor of The Patriot Post.

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall

On December 16th, 1773, "radicals" from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.

This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.

Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townshend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, "No taxation without representation."

The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the colonists.

In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the "Intolerable Acts," in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown's countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia.

Near midnight on April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere departed Charlestown (near Boston) for Lexington and Concord in order to warn John Hancock, Samuel Adams and other Sons of Liberty that the British army was marching to arrest them and seize their weapons caches. While Revere was captured after reaching Lexington, his friend, Samuel Prescott, was able to evade the Red Coats and took word to the militiamen at Concord.

In the early dawn of that first Patriots' Day, April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the Lexington militia, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." That it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting British Regulars on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.

Thus, by the time the Second Continental Congress convened on May 10th, 1775, the young nation was in open war for liberty and independence, which would not be won until a full decade later.

Today, the tax burden borne by most Americans, even those who pay no direct federal taxes but at the least pay a great hidden cost in federal regulation, is far greater than that which incited our Founders to revolution.

Thus, some 221 years after the ratification of our Constitution, Americans are once again at a crossroads with oppressive centralized government -- a point at which we must choose to turn up toward liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy.

Those at the helm of the federal government, by way of generations of overreaching executive orders, legislative malfeasance and judicial diktat, have abandoned their sacred oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

Although our Constitution provides the People with an authentic means for amendment as prescribed in Article V, successive generations of leftists have, by way of legislation, regulation and activist courts, altered that august founding convention well beyond any semblance of its original intent.

Consequently, they have undermined constitutional Rule of Law, supplanting it with the rule of men.

They have done so in order to win the allegiance of special interest constituencies, which then ensure perpetual re-election of their sponsors in return for political and economic agendas structured on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.

How have leftist politicians succeeded in this assault?

They accomplished this through direct taxation on an ever-smaller number of Americans for the benefit of an ever-larger number of Americans -- "progressive taxation" and "social justice" as the Left so self-righteously calls it.

So, shouldn't those who have more give to those who have less?

Well, yes, in my humble opinion, but individuals should rightly be left to decide how best to use their resources for the benefit of others. And in this respect, Americans are the most generous people on earth and from any time of human history.

However, Barack Hussein Obama believes that government should be the ultimate arbiter for the redistribution of wealth. Indeed, he said as much on the campaign trail in 2008.

Obama claims our economy is "out of balance," and our tax policies "badly skewed."

To resolve this, he says we need a "tax policy making sure that everybody benefits, fair distribution, a restoration of balance in our tax code, money allocated fairly..."

"Fair distribution"?

By this, of course, he means "redistribution."

It's not enough that 20 percent of Americans are already forced to fund 80 percent of the cost of bloated government largess; if Obama can saddle them with 100 percent of this cost, then he could anoint himself king.

Never mind that progressive taxation constitutes, in effect, a "Bill of Attainder" as outlawed by Article I, Section 9, of our Constitution. Who in Washington these days pays that venerable old parchment any mind?

As devoted socialist George Bernard Shaw acknowledged, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," which is the template for a bloodless socialist revolution.

The current debacle of progressive taxation is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's class-warfare decree: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

We beg to differ. Roosevelt's "principle" was no more American than Obama's. Roosevelt was merely paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

At the time Marx was formulating his collectivist manifesto, classical liberal Claude Frederic Bastiat, a prominent 19th-century political economist, wrote, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ... Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another... Then abolish that law without delay; No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."

Now, according to Heritage Foundation's , The 2009 Index of Dependence on Government | The Heritage Foundation "Despite the famed 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the more recent welfare adjustments in 2006, 60.8 million Americans remain dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. Starting in 2016, Social Security will not collect enough in taxes to pay all of the promised benefits -- which is a problem for all workers, but especially for the roughly half of the American workforce that has no other retirement program. Add in spiraling academic grants, flat-out farm socialism, and the swelling ranks of Americans who believe themselves entitled to public-sector benefits for which they pay few or no taxes -- and Americans must ask themselves whether they are near a tipping point in the nature of their government." (See Tax Day or Payday? How the Tax Code Is Expanding Government and Dependency | The Heritage Foundation)

Perversely, almost half of all American workers pay no income tax per the current tax code scheme, though under the Obama plot many now qualify for a tax refund.

Once a majority of Americans can be "protected" from a tax burden, they will ignore the constitutional, moral and civic implications of "progressive taxation."

The fact is that the only way to ensure fiscal accountability at the federal level is to directly spread the cost of government to a much broader number of taxpayers so all Americans "feel the pain." Of course, the Left understands that in order to escape any fiscal accountability, they need only ensure that the cost of government is borne by a targeted minority of income earners.

Obama is now poised to propose the implementation of a supplemental value-added tax, a national sales tax. Though this would seemingly spread the cost of government to all Americans (precisely what liberals want to avoid), Obama's VAT coupled with the myriad proposed exempt products and "rebates" to the "poor," would most assuredly be yet another avenue for the central government to use the tax code to bludgeon a minority of consumers in order to expand its authority and constituencies.

Vladimir Lenin asserted, "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

And that is precisely Obama's political model.

But the problem with the socialist model is, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, "they always run out of other people's money."

If I could emphasize but one point, it would be this: The Left has bankrupted the nation and the bill for freeloading on others is coming due. It will most certainly be paid back in the currency of liberty.

The time is at hand when we must inquire with a unified voice: "If there is no constitutional authority for most laws and regulations enacted by Congress and enforced by the central government, then by what authority do those entities lay and collect taxes to fund such laws and regulations?" (See The Patriot Declaration - PatriotPost.US)

Further, as Alexander Hamilton made clear in Federalist No. 81, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...."

Much less so is there any provision for the Executive or Legislative branches to rely upon interpretation of such language as that in the "Commerce Clause" to justify all manner of government intrusion, such as the newly implemented nationalization of health care.

James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. ... There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore ... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market. ... [W]hen all government ... shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another. ... Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

So, to all my fellow Americans who have been blessed with work, success and wealth ... do please remember to pay your taxes so that all those on the government dole can continue to receive free food, free housing, free utilities, free phone service, free healthcare, and anything else that falls out of Big Brother's goodie bag. And when you inevitabley run out of money take comfort in the thought that we shall all be finally equal.

+++

Not So Far-Fetched Anymore

A good friend brought this great old gem to my attention.
More relevent now than it was sixty-odd years ago.

Challenging Enough and More

Pastor John Roop, whose sermon writing I admire and enjoy tremendously, has posted a most wonderful, inspiring and challenging piece on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord:

euangelion: Family Matters: Sermon on the Baptism of our Lord

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically agree with what he has said about the good folks at St. Demetrios! I love them dearly! They are themselves a Theophany in place and time.

I heartily recommend the reading of it in it's entirety.

Now some might think that I would disagree with certain points presented in Pastor Roop's post. I do not.


In fact, it stirs to mind some additional points I would like to offer, perhaps as challenging:


Can a Christian support government actions or policies that effectively results in the extortion of the property/possessions of another against their will, be they known to be a fellow Christian or not?


Can a member of the Family of God, knowingly and deliberately, vote for a political candidate who has by their own public admission and record demonstrated their support of and intent to implement policies that undermines the integrity and sanctity of marriage and erodes the foundation of the traditional family by granting special "rights" and/or priviledges to homosexuals?


Can any Christian with an informed conscience, knowingly and deliberately, vote for a political candidate who has by their own public admission and record demonstrated their support of and intent to implement policies that promote, sanction and allow greater access to abortion and the allocation of public funds for the use thereof?


Pastor Roop goes on to say,


The family of God doesn’t really acknowledge separation of church and state.


I am delighted at such a statement!
Because the current understanding of that small phrase is a contrived interpretation of Thomas Jefferson's usage, given legal import by those who would reduce the U.S. Constitution to some sort of "living" document that can be distorted by popular opinion instead of the foundation for Rule of Law that it was written to be.


The Second Century Letter to Diognetus states, "Christians dwell in the world but do not belong to the world."



I don't think it takes a theologian to understand what "dwell in the world" means; we do it every day, we are faced with the circumstances and stresses of it every day.
But to not "belong to the world" is a bit more vague. Or is it?
I think Pastor Roop used the best and right word - loyalty.



Are we loyal to Christian morals or political correctness?
Are we loyal to the Kingdom and Family of God or do we belong to the world of ideology?
I do not think we can be both at the same time. Not without something being compromised.

Our vocation is lived out in the world but let's make sure we take our shoes off before we step onto Holy Ground.

+++