Differences Among the Elect

A friend from blogdom sent me this article, and though I don't agree with most of it, it is an interesting read and one deserving of commentary. A quick disclaimer: This post is a critique of the article-in-question, and its author's assertions. It is not a criticism of anyone who frequents my blog. So please don't take my comments as a personal attack, since that's not how I intend them.

The Far Left and Far Right are essentially anti-establishment mentalities

I agree, as long as the term "Far Right" is limited to anarchists.

The Far Left, the intelligentsia asserted that the United States deserved these murderous attacks. After all, we are an unrighteous nation: we arrogantly and triumphalistically meddle in other nation's affairs; we employ military might with selfish motives; we rape the environment; we violate human rights by imposing the death penalty; we discriminate against homosexuals, women, and minorities; we exploit workers by keeping wages low; we bring religious views into the public square; we dismantle legal protection for "women's right to choose"; we act unilaterally in world affairs by spurning the opinions of other nations; we disseminate our materialistic decadence by means of large, multinational corporations; and on and on. To hear the Far Left tell it, at 9-11 we got our comeuppance from "freedom fighters" weary of America's exploitation of the rest of the world. Indeed, among the Far Left, there seems to be an insufficiently suppressed glee at America's tragedy.

Remarkably, the response on the Far Right was somewhat similar. Among some Christians, there was zealous, undisciplined talk of 9-11's being "God's judgment on America." For what? Well, let them count the ways: our "idolatry" in insufficiently opposing Islam and Orthodox Judaism; our butchering of unborn children; our relaxation of sexual standards culminating in the legalization of homosexual "marriage" in some quarters; our unjust laws of taxation; our laxity toward pornography, profanity, and violence in Hollywood on network and cable TV; our "free trade" legislation by which we allow cheap imports to subvert jobs of hard-working Americans; our socialistic government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; and so forth. The toppling of the World Trade Center and the incision of the Pentagon were patent acts of God's judgment against a rebellious and apostate nation, according to the denizens of the Far Right.

I don't see the views of the Left and Right as synonymous, as this author does. For one, the Left's agenda entails destroying everything this nation stands for and sowing its foundation with salt. Most of its hysteria is directed toward that end, and there is little or no merit in its condemnations. This cannot be said of most Right-wingers.

As for the Right's elucidation on why 9/11 happened, I think it is the height of arrogance to make many of these connections. No one knows the mind of God in totality, and suggesting that He is behind these atrocities is offering speculation dressed as fact. But I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there is at least a biblical basis--however tenuous--for these claims. Time and time again, scripture reveals that nations engaged in God's will were protected by His hedge of safety, and nations that laughed Him to scorn suffered the consequences of their mockery. Israel is the best example, but it is by no means the only one. And whereas the Left's assertions that we rape the environment and infringe upon a woman's right to murder her unborn child are baseless and morally putrid, concerns over homosexual marriage and its public acceptance, unrestricted abortion, and confiscatory taxes are legitimate areas of outrage.

The Founders were profound, experienced men (all influenced by the Bible and Christianity). . .They believed in the sin and corruption of the human heart and therefore resisted the consolidation of political power, creating checks and balances. They believed that God made men to be free, and thus held that government's rationale is to secure individual liberty. They believed that the government should be represented by a wide body of the populace, and consequently they established a form of democracy. . .In forming a national legislature, they gave equal weight to both population representation (House of Representatives) and states' representation (Senate). . .They were unflagging advocates of religious liberty.

This is a very accurate description of the Founders' efforts and intentions. But it's my thesis that all of these aspects of America which make her great are in grave danger of being annihilated. It is the efforts of those in government and other power bases to subvert every one of these cherished ideals that leads to criticism from Right-wingers, such as myself. Unfortunately, the piece doesn't address this facet of the situation, which I find strange.

In expressing a patriotic spirit, Christians are at the least acknowledging the basic soundness of our system of government.

True, as long as one is clear on his definition of patriotism. Patriotism is a love of one's country and people, and the ideals for which they stand. But it is not defined as slavish devotion to wrongheadedness, constitutional degradation, administrative expediency, or a political party.

Peter exhorts his readers that they pray for their civil magistrates, who should act in such a way that Christians can live quietly and peaceably (1 Tim. 2:2).

This is the most accurate statement in the article. All of us should pray for our leaders in positions of power--whether we like them or not, whether we agree with them or not. Though I've done so in the past, this is one of my great failings. I haven't spent nearly enough time on my knees, asking God to help our leaders and inspire them to do what is right. It's a valid point, and a good reminder for correcting my mistake.

Christians have been virtually unmolested in their efforts to evangelize unbelievers, build churches, and train their children in the Faith.

This, on the other hand, is patent nonsense. It may be true in relation to Communist China or Soviet Russia, but in terms of contemporary American life, it's willful blindness. Entire volumes have been written demonstrating the falsehood of this claim. Persecution, by David Limbaugh, is only one of numerous books entailing the encroaching tide against Christianity in this country, carried out or aided and abetted by the government. And the problem worsens, as we speak. Citing specifics in this area is a topic for another time.

libertarians can complain that it is not possible for a president to be elected until he has made his religious views plain, so important has religion (notably Christianity) become in the public realm.

Of course, this bears no relation to actual religious devotion or sincerity. Bill Clinton exemplifies this. Yes, he talked about God and attended church. He also was a rabid womanizer and committed adultery repeatedly and unrepentantly. Phony religious zeal has zero importance or relevance, to me. I'm interested in reality, not a facade.

Some of the leading books of the New York Times list are either explicitly Christian (The Purpose-Driven Life) or ardently conservative (Bill O'Reilly, etc.).

This is somewhat embarrassing. If the author can't get his facts straight in so small a matter, why should we accept his larger points and statistics? I might call Bill O'Reilly a lot of things (some of them in a whisper, in polite company), but an "ardent conservative" isn't among them. I wonder if the author watches Bill's show, or has read his books and columns. I have.

If God were willing to spare Sodom over simply a few faithful folks, an adversarial view by Christians toward the United States, with its widespread and burgeoning Christian testimony, is surely counterproductive.

Apples and oranges, I think. God spared these cities because Abraham--a man who was not a citizen of either city--begged him to do so. And how long did they last after Lot and his family left? There's little substance in this assumption.

Our nation suffers from deep spiritual problems, but those problems are just one portion of a rather diverse moral picture. Any responsible Christian evaluation must take into account all of these factors, not just some of them.

I agree, but apparently my acknowledgment of these problems makes me an anti-patriot, unless I recant and speak of them only in the most saccharine terms imaginable.

A family, a church, and a nation may be less than perfect--far less than perfect--and still deserve our respect and loyalty. Patriotism is allegiance to a country, its ideals, and its citizens.

And Christians here have not surrendered their allegiance to Jesus Christ when they maintain patriotism toward the United States.

True. But I want to reiterate my words in a slightly different way. It may be argued convincingly that someone who points out serious, abiding problems in his nation's governing bodies and rejects them is more of a patriot than someone who goes along with the government's smoke and mirrors, uncritically accepting every violation of all that we hold dear as a country and a people. Questioning the patriotism of someone in legitimate, genuine distress over the country's direction is a refuge of the intellectually lazy or obtuse.