Downfall: The desire to be respected in the halls of power

Louie Giglio

Concerning the recent dust-up involving Louie  Giglio's withdrawal from the Obama inauguration ceremony, Gary DeMar asks the question I've been hoping someone would ask before I had to ask it myself. Namely, why would a Christian pastor want to speak a "good word" (i.e. benediction) over an event celebrating a godless political agenda?

Christians are riled up that Louie Giglio, pastor of the Passion City Church in Roswell, Georgia, was dumped by Obama’s people to give the benediction at the President’s inauguration ceremony. I’m shocked that more Christians aren’t riled up that Louie Giglio agreed to do it in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe Giglio has a great ministry. This year’s Passion event turned out 60,000 young people who donated more than $3 million to help in the effort to abolish the pernicious sin and crime of slavery.

Why was Giglio dumped? I love this from the Washington Post:

“An evangelical pastor from Atlanta announced Thursday [January 10] that he would not give the benediction at President Obama’s swearing-in ceremony after a sermon he gave on homosexuality in the mid-1990s resurfaced earlier this week.

“In that sermon, the Rev. Louie Giglio called for Christians to ‘firmly respond to the aggressive agenda’ of some in the gay community and warns that widespread gay marriage ‘would run the risk of absolutely undermining the whole order of our society.’”

Resurfaced? Did it come ashore in a bottle? It didn’t “resurface.” Homosexual activists went looking for whatever they could find on Giglio to get him ousted. They knew that if they could find anything he said about homosexuality, he would be gone.

President Obama supports homosexual marriage. He’s pushing for a state-wide acceptance of homosexual marriage in his home state of Illinois.

How can a Christian offer a Christian benediction for a man who represents a worldview that is antithetical to the Christian faith he claims to be a part of and implements policies that could result in divine judgment?

Would the apostle Paul have given a benediction for Nero? Would Peter have done it for Herod? Would Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) have given a benediction for Adolf Hitler?! Niemöller used his pulpit to expose Adolf Hitler’s radical politics even though “[h]e knew every word spoken was reported by Nazi spies and secret agents.”

We are to obey the civil authorities. We are to pray for civil rulers to do the right thing (Rom. 13:4; 1 Pet. 2:13). But we are not required to stand up with them and grace their governments with a benediction. How can a “good word” be given for a civil ruler who supports so many

John the Baptist didn’t attend government functions with Herod and sanction his behavior with a benediction. He spoke out against his sin. He paid a heavy price (Mark 6:14-29).

We shouldn’t be surprised at the way Christians and Christian beliefs are dealt with by this administration. We’ve seen four years of it. Early Christians suffered under the religious oppression, first, of Judaism, and second, Imperial Rome. Ours is a prophetic task not an enabling one.

Nathan didn’t stand with King David and offer a benediction. David would have loved for him to do it. It would have given him religious cover for his sins. Instead, Nathan confronted the powerful king about his sin. Keep in mind that David was an accomplice to murder. Nathan put his life on the line in his prophetic word to the king.

The same is true of the priests who confronted King Uzziah (2 Chron. 26:16–23). The king had just “warred against the Philistines, and broke down the wall of Gath and the wall of Jabneh and the wall of Ashdod; and he built cities in the area of Ashdod and among the Philistines” (v. 6). The priests were defenseless, and yet they still confronted the king.

Overstated comparisons with Nero, Hitler, et al. aside, DeMar's point is well taken. The actions of Obama and his administration over the last four years, most notably the suppression of religious freedom through mandates imposed on religious groups via his healthcare law, suggest that the president is, at best, a person of wavering faith more urgently in need of the church's rebuke and correction than its blessing.

Cardinal Dolan

That being said, however, it is possible for a Christian leader to be salt and light while carrying out ceremonial duties at political gatherings. Delivering the benediction at both party conventions this past summer, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, with meticulous pastoral skill, asked God's blessing on the nation and its political process while simultaneously reminding both Democrats and Republicans of the great national sins in which partisans on both sides have been complicit.

Religious celebrities (forgive me for my cynicism) cozying up to presidents is nothing new. Obama has had his share of moderate to left-leaning clerics on the White House guest list, and they have generally served as court theologians for his political agenda. Conversely, the list of "right wing" evangelical clerics who have frequented the White House during the tenures of Republican presidents is infinite, and one would be hard pressed to find any instance of them rebuking their nation's leader in even the mildest tone, much less that of a Nathan or a John the Baptist. The desire to be respected in the halls of power has been, and will continue to be, the downfall of many a Christian leader, regardless of political affiliation, who forgets his first allegiance is to Christ and his kingdom.

Bob Hyatt: Just Church Enough to Be Dangerous

Via Out of Ur:

In the early 1950s when Robert Schuller and others across the nation combined a growing car culture with “Church,” they believed they were reaching a segment of the population traditional church wouldn’t or couldn’t. “Drive-In Church” allowed parishioners to hear a sermon, sing some songs, even receive communion and give—all without the fuss and muss of face-to-face interaction. Except for a through-the-window handshake from the pastor as they rolled away.

And while they may have been able to point to a number of folks who “attended” that otherwise might not have, the question of what was being formed in these car congregations through limited interaction, a completely passive experience, and a consumer-oriented “Come as you want/Have it your way” message, meant that (thankfully) after a brief period of vogue, “Drive-In Church” has remained a niche curiosity.

The problem with the drive-in church model isn’t that it isn’t church—it’s that it is just “church” enough to be dangerous. What this almost-church does is park people in a cul-de-sac where they have access to the easiest and most instantly satisfying parts of church while exempting them from the harder and more demanding parts of community.

And while I’m glad such an absurdity has remained on the fringe, as I watch the discussion about “internet campuses” I can’t shake a certain feeling of deja vu.

Following close on the heels of the video venue push is that of the internet campus: real-time streaming of a church service, but with the added features of “live interactive features like lobby chat room, message notes, communication card, raise a hand, say a prayer, and even online giving.” At least 35 churches in America are doing internet campuses, with more jumping on board all the time. By one estimate, 10 percent of Americans will rely solely on the internet for their “religious experience” as early as 2010.

Is this a problem? Something we should be concerned about or resist? Absolutely. Because it’s malforming for those involved (whether they know it or not) and because it’s sub-biblical.

The problem, in my mind, with virtual community and internet campuses isn’t that it’s not church... it’s that it is just church enough to be dangerous. Because it has all the easiest and most instantly gratifying parts of community without the harder parts, it ends up misshaping us.

In an internet campus, for example, I never need to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see no needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me in a good way.

A Better Vision of Christianity

Greg Goebel has hit on something that needs to be implanted in the DNA of the new Anglican Church in North America from its inception: a vision of Christianity which goes beyond the shallow theology and thin ecclesiology of American Protestantism (what I have referred to as Ecclesia Americana) and begins at the beginning, rather than picking up in the middle of the story.

We need a better vision of Christianity than we have. Most of our understanding is exclusively legal and moral. That is, we understand our faith this way:

1. We broke God's law
2. Jesus died in our place, thereby earning God's pardon
3. We respond to his work by living differently in his power

There is no problem with these points at all (except for #3's implied semi-pelagianism) and they are a kind of legal and moral framework.

But they are not that exciting, comprehensive, or explanatory.

Why?

I think it is because we are starting in the middle of the story and not the beginning. We need a vision of our Faith that is Trinitarian, Church-centered, and Explanatory.

Allow me to explain (or stop here and enjoy the rest of your day...)

Read the rest here.

In a similar vein, here is my previous article on the need to outgrow spiritual adolescence.

We who will be a part of the new province will do well to develop and implement this vision. If we don't have a sound theology and high ecclesiology which draws deeply from the well of Christian antiquity (Patristics), we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes and bequeath to future generations the same problems we sought to correct.

The Curious Phenomenon of Ecclesia Americana

From its inception, the church has grown and thrived under persecution. Beginning with the dispersion from Jerusalem following the stoning of Stephen, the spread of the Gospel has been concurrent with the intense persecution of its messengers. From Jerusalem onward, every historic expression of the church has owed its origin, its growth, and its vitality to persecution. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," one of the early Fathers observed.

The one glaring exception is the phenomenon I refer to as Ecclesia Americana. The church in America is an historical anomaly, born not out of persecution, but out of the desire to avoid persecution. The New World promised a paradise on earth for the various bands of dissenters who fled the Established Church of their homeland. But with this desire for religious freedom came an accompanying disdain for ecclesiastical authority which took root early on and quickly trickled down to the parish level.

The bitter fruit of this poisonous seed is seen today in the chaotic state of mainline American churches. The autonomy of the individual is an error most often associated with the churches of Anglican descent. However, this contrary spirit appears to have taken hold quite early among churches of Continental origin, as well. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg (1711-1787), a pastor in colonial Pennsylvania who is celebrated as "the Patriarch of American Lutheranism," gives this account in his Journals of his reception by one curious parishioner soon after his arrival in America.

When I preached my first sermon in the country upon my arrival in Pennsylvania, an aged man came up to me and said with amazed wonder on his face, "Dear Pastor, I felt just as though I was listening to the dear God in heaven Himself." In the meantime I learned a little more about his life, and when, after the second service, he again declared to my face that it had been like hearing an angel from heaven, I took him aside and urgently besought him to leave off his sinful, disorderly life and surrender with his whole heart to the Lord Jesus, the true friend of repentant sinners, and thus find peace for his soul. I had hardly given him this advice when he burst out, "Who is this devil's priest to give me advice? This is a free country!"

The seeds of rebellion in Ecclesia Americana were planted early and have sprouted often.