I made a decision a couple of months ago to avoid musing about politics specifically on this Blog, however, this morning I need to make a few comments about local Toledo politics. This is essential at this time, because there are striking similarities between the local Democratic agenda and the issue of Evangelical Co-Belligerence that we have been discussing. Let me explain…
Toledo lawyer, and former City Councilman, Keith Wilkowski, a Democrat, has announced his bid to be Toledo’s next mayor. This shouldn’t be such interesting news. Toledo is, after all, dominated by the Democratic politicians, even in the midst of their own schism. In making his much expected announcement, Mr. Wilkowski said, “cannot stand by and watch this city continue to decline. It really is that straightforward. It's not about friendships or political alliances or which politicians support other politicians” “Why did Wilkowski have to mention friendships?” those of you lucky enough to not live in the Toledo area may ask. Well, let me give you a small insight into the local politics of Toledo. You see if there is an illustration of the current evangelical movement.
The local Democratic Party is experiencing a major schism (locally referred to as the “A Team” and “B Team”). Our mayor finds himself at the helm of the “A Team,” which is currently out of control of the Democratic Central Committee. Mr. Wilkowski was a member of the PAC that was created specifically to reelect Jack Ford as mayor of Toledo, in fact, he was the Treasurer. After multiple local polls indicated the Mr. Ford had virtually no chance to be reelected, Mr. Wilkowski announced his own bid. Wilkowski has been asked many times how he could be treasurer of a campaign for Jack Ford and now run against Mr. Ford. He is asked to comment on Mr. Ford’s record. What shortcomings of the Ford Administration led Mr. Wilkowski to run against him? Wilkowski is very nuanced in his answers. He refuses to be critical of Mayor Ford. Why? Because Mr. Wilkowski wants an A Team Democrat to be elected mayor, even if it is Jack Ford. Ford would be better than B Team Democrat, former Mayor Carty Finkbeiner, who appears poised to run again. And Ford would certainly be better, according to Mr. Wilkowski’s scheming, than stealth Republican candidate Rob Ludeman. If Mr. Ford somehow pulls out a victory over Mr. Wilkowski in the primaries (highly unlikely) than Mr. Wilkowski will have to throw his support BACK to Jack. He can’t offer any sound bites now that will be used against Jack in the general election later this fall.
If this is a bit confusing… welcome to Toledo politics! Let me sum up. Keith Wilkowski is not concerned about the best person to take Toledo forward. He is concerned solely about getting an A Team Democrat to occupy the Mayor’s chair. Therefore, he cannot say anything condemning his own primary opponent.
Do you see the connection yet to the confusion that is evangelicalism in America? Very well intentioned evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, even Albert Mohler, seek to create a political atmosphere that is conducive to conservative morality. While I greatly appreciate these efforts, I have a deep concern that in this effort, there is a lack of clarity on the gospel. Evangelicals are linking arms with Catholics, Mormons, and many others who deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Is the greater concern the declaration of the Gospel to a lost and dying world or creating a cultural context that is fits our biblical convictions? In other words, are we more concerned for the greater good of mankind (i.e. the proclamation of the gospel) or that our team wins (conservative judges and politicians)?
I have been doing much thinking, studying, praying about passages such as 2 Cor 6.14-18, which contextually is linked to 2 Cor 5.16-21, where Paul charges us that our greatest is distinguishing those who are “in Christ” and those who are “without Christ.” I am afraid that many evangelical leaders today are more concerned over dividing those who think like we do from those who are more liberal than we are. In doing so, we blur the lines that the Gospel so clearly draws between those “in Christ” and those “without Christ.”
Just some humble thoughts for you to muse on this week. What are your thoughts on 2 Cor 5-6? What does it mean to be “unequally yoked?” What do phrases like “be separate from them” and “touch no unclean thing” mean? Your thoughts…
Let the Word of Christ richly dwell in you today….
Grace to You!
5 comments:
Paul's instructions in Corinthians are to the church. If we are talking about doing church, separation from false teachers and the unsaved apply directly. It would be a stretch to apply those things to non-church or para-church orgs that do politics and things other than church. But, it's a free country - you can do it if you want to. I would just caution that my experience is that those who emphasize a far-reaching application of separation seem to have a hard time doing it graciously, and without a tone of harshness and superiority.
I appreciate the caution... I too have experienced the fighting fundamentalists. However, many of them have real concerns that are in fact worth fighting for.
And regarding your exegesis of 2 Cor 5-6... the context is not at all about "how to do church." Paul addressed that in his first letter. Paul also addresses that in both letters to Timothy (though much more specifically in the first). 2 Cor is more about Paul's personal testimony in the world. His integrity was under attack by false teachers in Corinth and he was establishing standards of personal Christian character. In fact the application is quite similar to the current evangelical context. Paul was telling the believers to come out from those false teachers and have nothing to do with them. Perhaps we should consider coming out from the false teachers of Rome and Salt Lake City to pure Gospel...
Any other thoughts anyone...
Point taken. 1:1 "to the church of God in Corinth..." And 6:11 addresses the Corinthian believers/church directly, and then he tells them how they are to act - with separation. The words can apply to their daily individual lives and to the church collectively. My main reason that I believe this applies contextually to the church is 6:16's reference to God's people - which applies to believers individually but would seem better to refer to the church. Perhaps we are splitting hairs here. The church is made of believers and believers are the church. The real issue here is how do you label someone or something as undesirable - that you must be separated from - and at the same time be loving and gracious to that same one or thing? I would suggest that people tend to go heavy in one direction or another, but if you have found that perfect balance, I am ready to hear it explained in detail. To be honest, you seem to me to be reactionary in the sense that you see too many people being loving and gracious to people and things that you see as dangerous, so you are making it a point to go the other end of it. Perhaps I am reading you wrong.
First off, I appreciat the dialogue (though I do not like the anonymity).
Secondly, I probably am being a bit reactionary. The truth is, all thought is reactionary. Each NT Epsitle is written as a reaction to certain events, situations, circumstances, etc...
You seem to indicate that you feel I am going "to the other end of it," namely "loving and gracious." I do not see how I am being unloving or ungracious... feel free to elaborate.
My immediate next door neighbor is a Mormon and I interact with Catholics on a regular basis. Sharing the love of Christ with an unbeliever is not only acceptable, but demanded of a Christian. However, that is altogether different than standing arm and arm with one who explicitly denies sola fide to accomplish some "common good."
I appreciate your interaction!
First, I do not believe that thought has to be reactionary. I believe that the truth stands on its own without having to contrast it with untruth. One can do that as a technique to illustrate the truth, but it is a matter of emphasis. In other words, you can tell us how the church should minister to people without having to emphasize how horrible those who are not doing it right are.
I have not said that you are unloving or ungracious. I am just warning you that your style and nature might give someone that idea. I like forceful ideas - I like your ideas. I would just like to see you express your heart in some proportion to how you express your mind. I'm guessing that I am about 20-25 years ahead of you, and I know from personal experience that not keeping the heart in balance with the mind can be destructive - real people can get hurt and your ministry can be hindered. Have you experienced that - you were correct in your understanding but wrong in your tone? I just want you to keep that in mind as you go forward.
I see a wonderful gift in you that God can use to do tremendous things. One suggestion: if you are being critical of someone or something, write with that entity in mind as your audience. How would you communicate the truth in a way that is most likely to be received and considered.
Finally, let me ask you a question. If there were a pro-life rally being held, would you march arm in arm with RC's or Mormons who support the sanctity of life? Would you do that for that "greater good". How would that be an endorsement of anything other than the sanctity of life? I would suggest that if you would march with them, you are being inconsistent in your separation, and if you wouldn't, you would be taking separation to a degree that goes beyond biblical bounds - which is OK as long as you express it as a conviction and not God's eternal truth for all.
Post a Comment