The Gospel, Tolerance and Religious Freedom

It's generally agreed upon in our culture that religious freedom is a good thing. I don't know of many people walking around waving signs saying, "Down With Religious Freedom! Repeal the First Amendment!" Right or Left, we all recognize (at least in theory) that religious freedom is a noble principle that ought to be a part of our society

But it's not quite as simple as that. We all have a functional religion that governs our lives, whether we like to admit it or not. Some might prefer to call this a "worldview" or a "philosophy of life" but now we're just splitting hairs. We all have a set of values by which we operate. Likewise, as cultures were have a set of values that governs our nation. In short, there's no such thing as a value-neutral government. Religious freedom does not mean a religionless nation. They don't exist. All governments must operate from a certain value set - a certain religion, if you'll pardon my language.

So, if all governments are, at least in that sense, religious how then can we have religious freedom? Well, it depends on whether the religion governing the land is one that professes salvation through faith or salvation through works. Because works are external actions they can forced up the citizenry. But faith is, by it's very nature, a free, voluntary, internal act. If faith is forced is ceases to be faith.

So, when a works-based religion gains hold over a government, religious freedom dies. Islam, for example, is a works-based religion. You can force people to utter the words, "There is one God and Mohammad is his prophet". Men can be made through coercion to practice the five pillars. If works can be forced than salvation by works can be forced as well. Thus, it's only logical for Islamist governments to bring people into salvation, by the sword if necessary. The Arab Spring is proving that the Islamist mindset cannot produce freedom of religion.

But Biblical Christianity is a faith-based religion. Men cannot be forced into having their hearts changed. They cannot be made by the sword to put their faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, a truly Christian government will not force people to become Christians, for that would ruin the whole point. A biblical State will protect the rights of non-Christians to freely and publicly worship; not because all religions are equally valid but because the State is simply not qualified to make disciples. That is to be done by churches and individual Christians, not by men in dark suits. Thus, a society can only have religious freedom if it understands the Christian Gospel of salvation by grace through faith.

Now, this is the part where someone raises their hand and says, "Um, Josh, I think you need to take world history again. Many Christian governments persecuted unbelievers."

That's only too true. I've been to Lima, Peru, and seen the old Inquisition there, complete with grotesque wax statues of tortured "heretics". It's tragically true that elements of Christendom have opposed religious freedom. But just because a nation has a crucifix on their flag doesn't mean they understand the Gospel. Just like pilgrimages to Mecca can be imposed by the State, so can baptism and saying "hail Mary". Every "Christian" government that has opposed religious freedom was operating from a gospel that had been, in some way, perverted. But if a culture does understand the Gospel it will secure religious rights for all. Therefore, it is not in opposition to religious freedom, but in defense of it, that we must be bold to spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Right now, the United States is governed by the Cult of Tolerance. It's is a functional religion with a functional gospel. "Tolerate and be saved." Does this religion allow for religious freedom? Increasingly, we are discovering that the answer is "no". Pastor Louie Giglio was originally supposed to give the benediction at President Obama's inauguration yesterday. However, he was dismissed after a sermon he preached against homosexuality came to light. On the one hand, I don't have a problem with this. It's Obama's gig and he can have whoever he wants give the benediction.

But it does demonstrate that the New Tolerance doesn't really give tolerance to everyone, but only to those who agree with its postmodern presuppositions. How ironic it is when the president talks of equality for his gay brothers while excluding those who disagree with him. The tolerance gospel cannot tolerate anything that disagrees with it because tolerance, unlike faith in Christ, is a work. And works can be enforced by legislation and men with guns. The State can force people to be tolerant. Thus, a tolerance-obsessed culture cannot allow for religious freedom. In contrast, a Christian nation must allow for the freedom of disagreeing religions or it is in some way sub-Christian. That's the paradox. If you say all religions are valid, any religions that disagree with that assertion will be treated as invalid. But if you say that Jesus is the only Way, than all religions will be tolerated.

Thus, may we protect religious freedom for all by insisting on the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ.

An Optimist's Guide to the Election

I consider myself to be an optimist. Not a naive optimist who wallows in the bliss of ignorance. Nor a Pollyanna optimist who finds a needle of gladness in a haystack of misery. But rather I strive for a principled optimism that is based on objective reality. In fact is based on the most objectively real thing in existence - the nature and character of God. This isn't about glass half full but about cup runth over.

Like me, you may not be happy with the way the election turned out. However, I still think there are reasons to be glad.

1. We mustn't forget that the presidential race wasn't the only issue last night. I'm very delighted to now be constituent of Tom Latham. Boswell has been representing my district (mostly badly) since before I was born and it's high time we got him out of there. Also, I couldn't be more glad that Steve King beat Christie "Seven Layer Salad" Vilsack. I have no doubt that he'll continue to serve Iowa well.

2. Much to the utopian's dismay, politics is a pendulum. It always swings back and forth. Therefore, we shouldn't get too gloomy when it happens to be on the backswing. I doubt that someone as liberal as Obama could have been elected had we not had eight years of Bush. Likewise, I think we stand a fairly good chance of getting someone more conservative than Romney elected in four years. Sure the next four year will likely be rough, but it's not the final act.

3. And here's the big one. Jesus is still on the throne and the election didn't faze Him one bit. He's still directing the king's heart like channels of water (Proverbs 21:1). We already know how this story ends. Jesus wins and we with Him. The courts of heaven still judge the rulers of men and shall remove the tyrants from power and give dominion to the saints. (Daniel 7:26-27). Obama will rule for another four years. We shall rule with Christ forever.

So don't fret. Don't despair. Praise God that He is who He is.

Election in Perspective

My overall emotion concerning Tuesday's mid-term elections is enthusiasm. Granted, things didn't go just as I would have wanted them. I'm disappointed that Brenna Findley will not be our next attorney general and that we have to put up with Congressman Boswell for another two years.

However, by and large, I'm pleased with the election's outcome. Personally knowing some of the candidates has added a whole new dimension to this year's election. I'm very excited that young Josh Cockroft won his state house race in Oklahoma.

I'm also very glad that Kim Pearson won her race. I remember running into Mrs. Pearson shortly after she had announced her candidacy. Though she did express a great deal of enthusiasm, she also seemed reluctant to show too much optimism. I remember her commenting that at least she would make her opponent spend some of that Union money. Now she's going to the Iowa House!

And I couldn't be more thrilled for Kent Sorenson. His opponent played dirty and took some really low shots. But he came out the victor. I honestly can't help but think that he's invincible now. There's really no mud left to sling at him. They're already unleashed every piece of ammunition they had and it still couldn't bring him down.

I believe that this election, particularly the race of Iowa governor, illustrates a very interesting point. The day after the election I was riding around with one of my co-workers. Now, you have to understand that my co-worker is an unsaved, die-hard Democrat that practically worships the ground President Obama steps on (that really isn't much of an exaggeration.) However, when it was announced over the radio that Terry Branstad had soundly beaten Governor Chet Culver, he pumped his fist and said, "Good. That's what he gets."

Upon further questioning, I discovered that my co-worker, like a lot of people, was mad at Culver. Very mad. In fact, I can't help but wonder if the Republicans could have won that race even if they had nominated Joe Blow from Anywhere City.

However, that wasn't what I found so interesting. What I found interesting was that my co-worker wasn't mad at Governor Culver because of his decisions, but because of his indecision. He felt like his governor never took a stand or was wiling to make the really hard calls. To me, that was just a great remember of the need for leaders to take a stand and be decisive. No decision at all is almost worse than a bad one. I believe that the success of this new movement which was established this year will depend on their ability to not fall into the trap of limp-wristed indecision.

The issue on the Iowa ballot which probably carried the most long term weight was the judicial retention vote. I was very pleased to see that vote go in our favor. Iowa sent a very strong message that they will not stand for judicial tyranny or the obstruction of marriage. We the people did our job of keeping wickedness at bay. We should be excited about the way the vote turned out.

However, it is also important to remember that this is not the answer. Getting righteous people into office and keeping our laws pure of wickedness is very, very important. But at the same time we mustn't put too much stock in politics. Politicians, even the best among them, will fail. The real answer is a change of heart in our people. Real change will come only after we've seen a spiritual awakening in this land. While I'm very glad to see that the political sphere may be turning back in our favor (at least for the time being), I believe it is important that the ambassadors of Christ keep our eye on the ball and not become enchanted by the whimsical movements of this age.