What are the weapons of our warfare?

Julie Neidlinger has a post from a week or so ago that begins this way:

It appears groups like "Focus on the Family" and other similar religious groups from the right are making an effort to prohibit Moore's latest film from being played in theaters. FotF has also given out his home address to their supporters, no doubt meaning he will face a deluge of angry mail that is anything but Christian. Lovely.

Julie is pretty non-plussed by this whole thing and I'm with her on this. At first I was a little concerned that she may have received some bad information, but I've confirmed that this is true - it went out in an e-mail. You can follow up on it here , here and here.)

Julie rightly worries about the deluge of angry hate mail Michael Moore may get from Christians in this matter, and another blogger whose name I forget worries that some lunatic who calls himself a Christian may do property damage or bodily harm to Michael Moore. Any of these things would hurt the cause of Christ terribly in our day.

I have no problem with Focus or any other group speaking their mind on a particular political matter. However, there are several problems here.

First of all, Focus seems to be calling on it's Christian base to support a particular political cause. I doubt that this movie is an attack on Christians per se. Maybe it is, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie and I don't plan to. From what I have heard it is a spiteful, vengeful, malicious, dishonest attack on George Bush and the war on terrorism. This is bad in and of itself and Moore deserves the criticism he has received from the right and the left.

But this is not an attack on Christians. Which makes me wonder if the folks at Focus haven't fully syncretized their faith with their political agenda. It makes me wonder if they haven't lost their ability to distinguish the cause of Christ from the cause of the Republican party, or the cause of George W. Bush, or the cause of the war on terrorism. To call Christians into battle on this, Focus or any group would have to demonstrate that this is an assault on the kingdom of God, but I don't think they can prove this. I could be wrong about this, I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to see it. It could have a particular anti-Christian agenda, but from what I heard it is an anti-Bush agenda and the two are not the same thing.

But even if it could be proved that there was an anti-Christian agenda here, this would still not justify Focus's tactics. The Bible gives some pretty clear instructions on how to respond to persecution and an anti-Christian agenda.

If Michael Moore were persecuting Christians we have a pretty standard playbook on how to respond.

Matthew 5:43-45 says:43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Acts 5:41 says: So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Hebrews 10:32-34 says: 32Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

I Peter 2:23 says:23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

So, if it could be proved that Michael Moore had a definite anti-Christian agenda in this film then it would be appropriate for Focus or any other Christian group to launch a massive campaign calling Christians to demonstrate the love of Christ to Michael Moore, to pray for him, to rejoice in being persecuted for the sake of Christ and to warn Christian against hurling insults or threats against Michael Moore. Somehow I doubt those things came across in the e-mail.

I would also say that if Michael Moore were attacking Christians these more passive responses I have listed here (although love, prayer and rejoicing are not passive) are not all that is required. In the great tradition of the Apostle Paul who appealed to Rome in order to present the gospel to them and in the great tradition of early Christian apologists it would be appropriate to mount a defense of the Christian faith in view of the attack. It would be incumbent upon us to defend the faith against lies that were told against it.

This week I had the opportunity to listen to Os Guinness at the Jonathan Edwards Institute conference. For years now Os has been saying (and he said it again) that Christians have made a terrible tactical error in positioning themselves as a persecuted minority in the culture wars. Christian culture warriors have played the victim card and have reacted badly when we have been maligned or persecuted. We need to respond to insult and persecution with good humor and blessings if and when we are misunderstood or persecuted.

I understand that in today's evangelical climate to disagree with Focus on the Family is often treated as the equivalent of hating your mother or spitting on the flag, and so I am setting myself up to receive some serious criticism here. However, I would beg my readers to consider the wisdom of II Corinthians 10:4-5

4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Are the things advocated in the Focus e-mail weapons of the world or divine weapons. Does anyone really think that Michael Moore won't get a barrage of hate mail from professing Christians on this?

Speaking of hate mail, I'll tell another Os Guinness story in closing. Os says that several years ago one of the big network news anchors whom we see on TV every night was seriously considering the claims of Christ. However, he finally decided to completely turn his back on the faith simply because of the volume of hate mail he received from evangelical Christians. The sad thing here is that in choosing to use the weapons of the world in these so-called "culture wars" groups like Focus on the Family are only shooting themselves, and Christians, in the foot.

Comments

[Ted Barlow]

Thank you for this post; it is greatly appreciated.

[Rong]

Years ago I used to drive tractor trailers locally out of Savage, MD which is just off of I95 between DC and Baltimore. Most mornings I'd head out to I95 and if I got out there between 7AM and 8AM I was sure to hear "the evil christian" (as I came to think of him) berating all us truckers on the CB. We (anyone within hearing distance) were all fornicators and idolaters, facing the fiery rath of a vengeful God. I tried on more than one occasion to try and discuss the virtues of attratcting bees with honey instead of vinegar only to be shouted off the airwaves. I hate to think of the damage this man did in the name of the Christ.

David I don't disagree with anything that you're saying. I'd have to challenge any Christian that feels otherwise.

What takes more humility and courage? Turning the other cheek or returning the jab with an upper-cut?

[Stacy L. Harp]

Hi Everyone,

I used to work for Focus on the Family years ago and I don't think what they did was wrong....so I guess I'm biased. :)

Even though I'm probably one of a million right wing Christian conservatives that actually saw Fahrenheit 911! Yes, I did, and I enjoyed it , even though it was full of lies. Personally, I don't think it will influence the election in anyway because I think most people who actually vote already have their minds made up.

However, when I posted to my daily newsletter that I saw the movie I did get a few emails yelling at me for wasting my money for seeing the movie. But here's where the cultural apologist in me is coming out - how are we supposed to speak intelligently about something we never saw?

Anyway, about Cal Thomas's book - personally, I would prefer it if you all read a book by Janet & Craig Parshall called The Light in the City: Why Christians Must Advance & Not Retreat - it's actually a response to Cal's book and worthy of your time to read.

In fact, why not check out my website and my blog. Just follow my link!

I'm glad I found this webpage!

[Terry]

A good post. I have made some comments of my own on my blog. I really do see that there was a problem with Christian political activism in the 1980's. People still talk in strident tones as if the Moral Majority still exists today. While I agree with Diane R. on many of her comments, I'm still trying to see how James Dobson should be spoken of as if he personally writes everything that comes out of the vast publishing ...should I say ministry or business.

[David]

I think Terry is correct that there was more Christian political activism in the 80's than now. I know I haven't been hounded by the Christian Coalition during the last couple of elections to pass out their voter guides. However, I don't think Diane is too far off in equating Dobson with what comes out of FotF. If its a book that is published by them, written by another author, then certainly he is not responsible beyond the need to generally read it and make sure it doesn't seriously conflict with his philosophy. However, the stuff in Citizen, Citizen-link and the like are fulfillments and applications of his vision so, though he can't be faulted for every misstep an employee takes, he should examine whether or not he has properly communicated the vision thing.
On the Dobson/Thomas book I read it when it first came out and pretty much embraced it. However, I have been slow to recommend it, only recommending it to folks who are discerning. I do think they react too far and advocate too far of a withdrawal from the public squre. But the main reason is that they argue on pragmatic grounds. Most of the stuff I hear coming out of FotF argues for involvement based on pragmatic grounds and so what we have here is Dobson/Thomas saying "this didn't work" and FotF saying "yeah-huh, it did too work." The winner of this debate depends on the tide of public opinion. I'm not sure if the book that Stacy recommends does this, but this is pretty much how I have seen the arguments go.
I'd much rather recommend Michael Scott Horton's "Beyond Culture Wars," because it deals with this issue from a theological perspective. Also, folks like Os Guinness reflect on these matters from a theological and philosophical perspective that furthers the debate in a way that the pragmatic arguments don't.

[Tim Plett]

Good post. And I agree with your thoughts on the issue. I would doubt James Dobson or Focus would endorse hate mail but hate mail will happen.
Christians obviously have responsibilities to get involved in the politics for the good of the country (I'm Canadian). However our countries will not be touched or changed in any significant way apart from the power of God. Our greater power lies in preaching and living and demonstrating the gospel.
Politics is alright and has a place but the gospel is better.
As a conservative I always hope the Bible informs my political philosophy. I would not want my understanding of the Bible and my faith to ever be based on my philosophy.

[William Meisheid]

>The sad thing here is that in choosing to use the weapons of the world in these so-called "culture wars" groups like Focus on the Family are only shooting themselves, and Christians, in the foot.

Jesus told us to be "wise as serpants but gentle as doves." That admonition alone should have been enough to forestall this bad decision since it was neither wise nor gentle.

[Diane R]

I think a lot of you have brought up a good point. It actually is a point I am currently wrestling with and I don't have a good answer yet.

The point is this:

How much of morality should we be legislating? Does it do any good? For example, since the Prohibition Amendment failed (and it was the only one that did), shouldn't we ask why? Can it teach us something?

Will a Marriage Amendment and an anti-Abortion Amendment really change society? What effect does displaying the Ten Commandments have on this particular society at this particular junction?

But on the other hand, should we dispense with all moral laws? In other words, do these laws accomplish anything? If so, what? And, should the state governments be passing them? Or the federal government? Or more local ones like county and city governments? Or none of these?

I am asking this question particularly in regard to drug laws which are a joke here in CA. But, I don't feel right about dispensing with these drug laws. But then isn't it kind of hypocritical and stupid to have anti-drug laws but NOT to have anti-alcoholic drinking laws?

So then I ask what their purpose is. Thus, my dilemma.

[Sozo]

I have no problem with voting for moral laws and for encouraging others to do the same. I think this belongs in the "good stewards" and "protect the weak" categories.

The problem lies in that we think if Americans are more moral then America is more Christian. This ignores the heart of the Gospel, which is about God-initiated change, not outward conformance to a moral code.

Our ultimate hope lies in Jesus Christ, not governments and laws.

[NancyP]

Publishing home addresses of controversial individuals is a bad idea, and FOTF did so with Moore. If you don't believe that there are nutcases reading FOTF, or any other site, looking to harass or bodily assault or kill people who offend them, well, you are naive. Nutcases may try to assassinate folks merely for being famous, so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine those who might attempt to assassinate people of opposing ideology. Prudence, folks! For those who consider publishing Moore's home address as an retaliatory equivalent to the movie publishing a congressman's phone number, the congressman's phone number was a direct line to the congressman's PUBLIC OFFICE, not his home. BIG DIFFERENCE.

FWIW, there are a lot of anti-war Christians out there who are glad that the true face of war got shown.

[Chad Robinson]

Thank you for writing this piece. I am not a christian (or am a severely lapsed one, however you wish to view that) and I must say that the Religious Right is the pre-emminant reason for this. I do believe in a God, but I can no longer believe in the god of FotF, and in America, at least, the Religious-Right-Arm of the GOP seems to be the modern view of that religion.

Forgive my long-windedness, but I'd like to share an anecdote: One day about a year ago I was on an airplane home from vacation and the seat next to was occupied by a very conservatively dressed man with an open Bible in front of him. I hate the FMA, and I hate the conflating of religious imperative with Republican agenda that has broken our country for the last 2 decades, and I was in no mood to spend the entire flight next to some "bible thumper" (as I thought of him then) getting lectured about how Dubya is the second coming, so I tried to change my seat. The flight was full so I couldn't.

After about 2 hours of him reading that Bible, making me angrier and angrier (I could just imagine him flying to some anti-gay rally to carry signs reading "God Hates Fags" or throw xeroxed photoes of fetuses at women outside the gynecologists office) I finally decided to hell with it - it's time to take this little jerk down a peg: so I made some comment about asking where GWB was mentioned in the Old Testament.

Funny thing: he was a really, really nice guy. A democrat, and had just come back from eastern Europe where he was on a mission helping to distribute food in a poor rural community someplace behind te remains of the Iron Curtain. After about an hours' pleasant conversation, I felt like a total heel for instantly thinking the worst of him just because he is a devout Christian. But I learned a few things that day, some of which were quite eye popping (in a conversation about terrible figures in history, he noted that he hoped and believed that - assuming they had repented - even the worst of history's tyrants had gone to Heaven. I was shocked by that assertion and said so, he responded "Remember, Christianity is not about justice, it's about mercy." Beautiful, eloquent statement, that), but the most important one is that for all the shouting and ballyhooing from the Moralistas in the GOP and FotF, most Americans are just innocent civilians in the Culture War.

For the most part I still cannot get around the belief that FotF is still representative of modern American religion, butIf I ever find it in myself to give Christianity another try, it will most definitely NOT be because of FotF and their ilk, it will be because of people like that fellow I met on the plane. A good man with a good heart.

[David]

Thanks for all of the comments everyone - these have been terrific. I wanted to specifically address the comments of Rong and Chad because I think they illustrate the law of unintended consequences. Well, actually in the story Rong tells I doubt the consequences were unintended - sounds like this guy really only wanted to voice condemnation, I doubt he was really very concerned about the "souls" of those he was preaching at.
Chad brings up a more troubling issue. I would quibble with him on some things - for instance I don't think there is necessarily some insidious motive behind the stuff that goes on at Focus on the Family, but I do think they are blind to the fact that they have conflated the gospel with their politics. So, Chad and the rest of the world begins to identify the Christian faith with a political opinion, not with the gospel. Chad really has got me thinking and I think he has said some things that those of us who are still "in the fold" need to hear. I think I am going to address some of his concerns in some posts this week so Chad if you are reading this, please tune in and comment, and thanks for your "long-winded" story.