About the Upcoming Presidential Election

As anyone who lives in the free world knows, a presidential race is upon us. I, as you should be, am very concerned about our nation’s direction. This country faces some of its most severe challenges at the outset of this young century. The fate of Iraq, as well as our American soldiers fighting over there, has been a hot topic in our country ever since the war began, as it should be. There is no question that the presidential candidate who has a clear and workable strategy for our role in Iraq will probably garner a lot of support. Nevertheless, there are many other issues that America faces now that I think are of immense importance, and I want to voice these at this time. These topics, as you will note, may not be the ones that line up with a specific political party. My thought with regards to this is that followers of Jesus should not be captive to the ideologies of any one political party. When our allegiance to one platform becomes so strong that it dims our prophetic voice within the society in which we live, then we have failed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Therefore, these issues are not pregnant with political candidates in mind, but rather what I, as well as many others see, as problems that need to be addressed in our society.

1. There must be a solution for the Iraq War. I am not suggesting that I know what it is; I am only lamenting the obvious. As has been stated before, “War is hell.” We cannot be unmoved in hearing of the countless stories of American soldiers being killed by car bombings, suicide strikes, and insurgent violence. There will always be casualties in wars, no question. That is what makes the situation in Iraq so egregious, however. It is a war that we entered with skewed intelligence and primarily unilateral involvement. Now that we have, no one would reasonably assert that Saddam Hussein was a good leader. In fact, he was a brutal dictator who was responsible for genocide on his own people. But his removal from power and our occupation of that country is dubious on many grounds. I do believe, as Solomon put it, that there is a “time for war”, but I think it has to be the last resort and I think that it needs to be done with the same principle of self defense. The Iraq War, I think, is probably not a text book reason to go to war justly.

The question before us now, however, is how do we finish this now that we are there? I don’t know. As the administration has already admitted, there have been many miscalculations on the numbers of troops needed for the conflict, but I do tend to agree that some form of troop withdrawal should begin taking place. I do not believe that the Iraqi’s will ever take the helm of independence while we are still giving them full support.

2. We must solve the problem of illegal immigration in our country. Let me offer a caveat to this. I do not ascribe to a one-size-fits-all approach to this, as some staunch republicans do. I think we need a plan that balances the need to protect our borders, as well as show some concern for those immigrants who have been working here in this country for years. Although I disagree with President Bush over many things, I do applaud his recent work, along with Senator Ted Kennedy, with respect to this issue. I think their strategy is the best plan I have seen so far, but it is not enough. There must be a leader to step forward with a comprehensive plan that deals with the many variegated problems of this sensitive issue, as well as strong enough to prevent terrorists from compromising our country’s safety.

3. There must be a solution for the health care system. This is one issue I think actually collects a general consensus from both parties: Our health care system in this country is broken. The astronomically rising cost of health care in our country is a rising problem that is not going to get better on its own. It would be nice if both parties stopped bickering with one another over platforms and power, and came together on this. Perhaps there needs to be a meshing of both ideologies in order to fix this. I have never been a proponent of large and unbridled government, but in this situation, I am not opposed to a government-regulated health care system of some kind. It seems to be working quite well in Europe, and I think it could work here, as well, with perhaps some modifications.

4. We must address the problem of poverty in our country. It is unmistakable that the poor has always been close to the heart of God, and it is also very true that our lives will, in large part, be graded on how we treat the poor during this life time. What is so unfortunate to me is that while many “Conservative Christians” have been so vocal in opposing abortion and gay marriage and promoting prayers in public schools, they have been virtually silent when it comes to the poverty in our nation. Some of the most extreme conservatives have even blasted the poor and homeless and welfare-dependent people of this country as being either lazy or stupid. In a number of studies about the problem of American poverty, this error has been exposed and shown to be counter to the actual, well-documented facts. Are there people who take advantage of this system? Of course, but therein lies the problem. As the old adage goes, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.” I have talked with various mission directors in Atlanta, and they stare this screaming problem in the eyes everyday. They are dealing with people who are now in the second and third generation of poverty, and they don’t know what to do to break the cycle, because they have always lived this way. The Republicans have been trying to stifle the charity and the Democrats have been trying to continue it without any plan to move people from dependence to self supporting, and both plans are altogether deficient. We need a complete overhaul of our welfare system, but we also need to rethink the issues that cause poverty, as well, in our society.

5. We must make strides to protect our environment. We cannot afford to ignore the majority of the international scientific community with regards to global warming. I am not saying that their claims should not be taken with a grain of salt, but the preponderance of data to substantiate their reports, even to a scant reader, has to be taken seriously at some point. Our environment is not a left-wing, liberal issue; it is a moral issue that all Christians should take seriously. This responsibility began for us when God gave us the job of taking care of the earth (or Garden) and to work it and protect it. Obviously sin has affected our environment to some degree, “because the whole creation groans for the day when it will be redeemed”, but our charge to keep it has not changed, and for some reason the reckless abandon with which many are destroying our environment, as well as entire species of animals, does not seem to hold a significantly high priority for most believers. We cannot be the servant of God and the presence of Christ in the world until we take seriously our vocation to preserve what God has given us. Not even a Tim LaHaye-like, escapist theology can abrogate that.

6. We must maintain the high sanctity of life in every area. What this means is that the issues of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and war should all be thoughtfully considered in our perspective of the world in which we live. For many conservative Christians, abortion has been the battle cry for so many years, but if we want to be taken seriously and have a fully biblical world view, then we must also address these other issues, as well. Life is precious, because God has created man and woman in his own image. Therefore, a proper view of the sanctity of life should guide all of our debates. Does this mean that I am proposing a scenario or view that opposes war under any circumstances? No, e.g. I think the Second World War was absolutely necessary, and it was the last resort, and it was, in my opinion, an act of self-defense. The sanctity of life was the reason that we did go to war, although it cost many lives. So, don’t misunderstand what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that we hold true to the sanctity of human life in our consideration of going to war after every other avenue of diplomacy has been exhausted, and that we count the cost with extreme deliberation before proceeding.

Furthermore, our view of the sanctity of human life should direct our opinions with regards to capital punishment and torture of prisoners. First of all, let me say that I am not against capital punishment. The biblical ground for capital punishment predates the institution of the Mosaic Law. What I am against is the reckless way it has been administered under our current judicial system. In other words, there have been many cases that are well-documented where innocent persons were executed erroneously, only to be exonerated by DNA or testimonial evidence years afterwards. This is a tragedy that we, as believers, cannot and should not ignore. Either we need to fix our system, or we need to abolish the administration of the death penalty altogether.

It is, also, disturbing to note how many people are willing to “look the other way” when it comes to the torturing of prisoners. Where are the bracelets for WWJD when we consider this debate? Could we really conceive of Christ, who said to “Love your enemies, do good to them who persecute you, pray for them which despitefully use you”, ever condoning our government to torture prisoners (even our terrorist enemies who have persecuted us) in order to achieve a pragmatic goal? I don’t think so.

Finally, I want to say that I am vehemently against abortion, but I also want to say that I think we need politicians who are actually willing to work on issues that lead to abortion, e.g. poverty and poor education. I think we need to oppose abortion, but I think we need to be clear that we are not against the women who are in that situation. I believe we need to find some common ground to try to decrease the number of abortions in our country. The politician who is savvy to how this will be accomplished will get the most attention in our country.


7. We need a politician who is willing to work on balancing the federal budget.
This is not just political rhetoric. This is a real need in our country that will have long-term implications for the generations to come. If we do not get a handle on our government’s deficit, it will ruin our ability to trade with other nations in the future years. We need a constitutional amendment that requires congress and the president to have to balance the budge and live within their means. We have to do so; why should this government not have to? I am convinced that this will affect many more issues, including how to solve our social security dilemma.

Conclusion: Let me state, in conclusion, that there are many more issues that are important to me, but these are some of the biggest that I see. I would love to hear some feedback on any of these, or if you think there are some other big issues that need to be addressed.

Musings about Open Communion

My blog today has to do with the particular element of worship called communion, or the Lord’s Supper. Let me say at the outset that my position has dramatically changed during the past few years from what it was while I was going to college. Therefore, this position, to me, is a fairly recent one, but is certainly in good company with many other believers throughout church history including Samuel Goddard, the grandfather of the more famous Jonathan Edwards, who by the way did not agree with me or his grandfather.

The position that I hold to now is the position of open communion, which is of the persuasion that all present at the worship gathering should be invited to participate in the communion. Now, for some this may sound rather strange, since they will immediately conclude that the Lord’s Supper is a time of worship for believers. Before I give my reasons for believing that this is the best and most Christ-honoring way to do communion, I would like to give a couple of clarifying remarks.

First of all, I do not believe as some Roman Catholics do, that there is justifying power in the elements of the communion, or that any work or deed we perform can make us righteous in the sight of God. The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus that it is “not by works of righteousness we have done, but according to his mercy, he has saved us…” He also said in his Ephesian letter, “For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” And Paul writes to the Roman Christians that believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement for our sin.

I am not opposed, however, to the use of the term “sacrament” to identify the communion, because of the fact that it does accurately represent what communion is and does for the believer. A sacrament is something that contains an element of saving efficacy in it. Now, as we have already stated, we are justified in the sight of God, i.e. made righteous and declared not guilty, through the death of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, our salvation is not complete, and we are not fully saved. God is still in the process of saving us. For those who are committed to the Baptist adage “once saved, always saved” this will not mean much. But for others who believe that salvation is secure, yes, but also believe that true believers will continue in the faith, and if they don’t, then they were not ever true believers, this will make sense. In other words, Christ is the one who saves us, but anyone who has ever struggled with his or her own wickedness knows that he must be saved, in a sense, every day. Does that mean that he loses his salvation? Again, we are not talking about deliverance from a final hell, but rather a deliverance from a spiritual hell on earth each and everyday. We must get up everyday and fall on our knees in fresh repentance and brokenness and cry out to Jesus to save us from ourselves, so that we can be involved in redeeming the world in which we live.

So, if we realize that we are BEING saved, then we must also realize that God uses various tools in our life to point us to Christ, who was, is, and shall be our salvation. Those tools are in our lives as the means of grace to us so that we will experience more of Jesus and his love, and it will cause us to renew our dying in him. There are many, the Scriptures, the community of Christ, baptism, giving, singing, fasting, praying, loving, and, of course, communion. Each of these things can be called sacraments if we understand them to be means of God’s grace in the process of our ongoing salvation from sin.

Secondly, I do not believe that the unleavened bread and the wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. I, also, do not believe that the presence of Christ is in the actual bread and wine, although I am not adamantly against this Lutheran concept altogether. I do believe that Christ’s presence is with us as we celebrate the communion, as the Bible clearly teaches. This subject is a blog in and of itself and does not fit my purpose here, other than to clarify what I do not believe, so criticism of my position might be more aptly directed to the core of my blog.

Now, why do I believe open communion is to be preferred over close or closed communion? As I see it, this answer is to be given in the context of the three basic reasons for communion. What that means is that Scripture gives some specific reasons for the giving of these elements, and those reasons are not contradicted by the practice of open communion. On the contrary, I find the practice of open communion very consistent with what the Scripture gives as its reasons for communion.

Firstly, Jesus explicitly states that the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine should be done “in remembrance” of him. In other words, this is an opportunity for us to worship Christ and revel in his person and his actions on our behalf. This reason may entail many components, including personal scrutiny whereby the believer examines himself. Paul wrote about this in the corrective portion of his first letter to the Corinthians: “A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Now this section is a rebuke for the professing believers who were abusing this worship element by indulging themselves. The punishment that is spoken of here is not in reference to unbelievers. I have heard others use this text before to refer to people who take the communion “unworthily”, and then say that unbelievers should, therefore, not be allowed to partake of the communion. This is the theological equivalent of comparing apples with oranges. Let’s look at the passage in question for just a moment.

First Corinthians 11:30-32 says, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (i.e. died). But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.” This whole discussion is obviously given to believers. That is why he contrasts the believers’ punishment with the unbelievers’ condemnation. The fact that unbelievers are condemned is an assumed fact that Paul contends for. Jesus said the same thing in John 3:18, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, if an unbeliever is already condemned to Hell, then how can he be more condemned if he takes the communion? The answer, of course, is that he cannot. It is like trying to distinguish between a dead person and “a really dead” person”. In other words, if a man is already condemned, he cannot become any more condemned than he already is.

What this is in reference to is the attitude that should be lived out in the way we take communion- a sacred remembrance of Jesus and a solemn, introspective examination in light of Him. The pertinent question for us is how does this relate to our taking open communion? The short answer is that our taking communion does not directly have any bearing on those who are unbelievers. All of the prescriptions that are given by Paul to the Corinthian Church are only applicable to believers and how their worship should be conducted. What is conspicuously missing from this is any reference to unbelievers whatsoever. In fact, when Paul speaks about the controversial subject of spiritual gifts just three chapters later, he addresses the issue of unbelievers who were assumed to be present during the worship setting. If Paul was so concerned there with the propriety of believers’ worship with regard to their speaking in tongues in the presence of unbelievers, why is he not equally concerned with whether or not unbelievers might take the elements of communion?

To be quite honest, there could be a number of assumptions made with different explanations in view, but the truth is we don’t know, and Paul didn’t address it. You could make the general assumption that they only served the communion elements to believers, but then why not make other assumptions that they only took offering monies from believers, or that only recognized Christians were allowed to share in the singing time, or perhaps they withheld fellowship or food from those who did not know Jesus Christ? Perhaps, you say, that I am being absurd or argumentative, but I think these are nonetheless fair questions, because even if you argue for inclusion in those other things because they are means by which we can proclaim the gospel, then how is it different when it comes to communion?

This brings me to the next reason given for communion, which is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. This doesn’t even seem necessary to defend, because the meaning of communion itself presents the elements of the gospel. This is one of the most powerful examples in Scripture of an object lesson of Jesus’ love for humanity- the shed blood and ravaged body of Jesus Christ given for the sins of the world and their forgiveness. What could be more compelling than that? If there is any doubt that this is in mind when we take communion, listen to Paul again elaborate: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Communion is such an awesome time of worship for me and it, as all authentic worship should be, is also an opportunity to spread the good news about Jesus Christ and his death and his forgiveness for sinners and his love to be experienced through the cross.

On the other hand, what if we keep an unbeliever from taking communion? Have we benefited them any? No. In fact, we may have done great harm to them by not welcoming them and asking them to participate with us in this experience of loving God? Now, if someone is to suggest that we teach people what communion means, then certainly I am in agreement with them. Nevertheless, I think often times we batter people with the banner “now this doesn’t save you” so much to the point that we may actually hinder them from getting saved through it, because, after all, it is the gospel- both preached and experienced. This is why I go back to the word sacrament in this discussion. If by sacrament you mean that taking the communion can save someone, then no, I don’t believe that. But, if you mean that this is one way through which Jesus Christ is seen and treasured and loved and surrendered to, then, yes, I do believe that this can, in the strictest sense of the word, be called a sacrament. As Samuel Goddard believed, I believe, also, that communion has a converting element to it.

For the record, I do believe that communion is also the New Covenant equivalent of the Jewish Passover, i.e. it is the New Passover. As for our discussion now, I think it is similar to what has already been said. Obviously only true believers will worship Christ and fully appreciate the meaning and experience of the communion. Nevertheless, I do think there is great value in sharing it with others who might be brought to Christ through its means.

Finally, let me say that this is the way we have chosen to practice communion, and I am not trying to suggest that everyone should do it this way. What it does mean is that we find this way the most biblically inclusive and the most Christ honoring way to practice communion. In other words, we find the fulfillment of Christ’s command for our lives in this, i.e. by practicing open communion we succeed in loving God and loving our neighbor as our self. I am hoping that this might open up some ideas and a healthy dialogue of disparate views that could hopefully deepen all of our communion experiences.