Election 2020

    In the latter years of the Vietnam Conflict, the United States military unofficially adopted a controversial tactical strategy in a desperate attempt to halt the encroachments of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops into the villages of South Vietnam as they slowly but surely advanced toward the capital city of Saigon and capture of the entire country.  The United States in the late ‘60s had begun massive sweeps of the countryside outside Saigon using grandiose nomenclatures like “Operation Thunder” with the noble intent of clearing areas and villages of the dreaded Viet Cong and restoring order and peace to the allegedly loyal citizens of the target areas. By clearing areas of the enemy, the objective was to slowly recapture the countryside and save South Vietnam from a communist takeover.

    The United States soon learned that the task was comparable to holding back the tide with a mop.  Moving into a village, the US military would find a quaint, idyllic Vietnamese citizenry busy with all the duties of a township with nary a sign of the enemy…especially confusing when just a few hours earlier military intelligence had indicated that the place was a beehive of enemy activity.  Compounding the difficulty was trying to identify the enemy at all…many Viet Cong troops dressed in the standard clothing of the country villager and became part of the village populace simply by hiding any trace of weaponry.  The US military would search a village, and occasionally the enemy would make a mistake in unsuccessfully hiding their weapons.  Retribution quickly followed, but, more times than not, the US military was frustrated in its lack of engagement with the enemy.  This frustration led to a logical conclusion: if military intelligence had positive proof that a village was a haven for the enemy, and there seemed to be no evidence that the local citizens were being cooperative in identifying the enemy, the village was put to the torch and burned to the ground.  This military policy was bluntly explained one evening on national news when a military official was asked about the burning of a village, and he replied, “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it.”

    Much has been written in recent years of the general frustration of the United States citizenry with its government.  Though we pride ourselves with our democratic process and look with disdain at other not-freely elected governments around the globe, we are still disappointed at the seeming inability of the U.S. government to face the issues confronting our country today and come up with solutions to our problems.  It is not a problem which has surfaced only since Donald Trump became president; it has extended backward through several previous administrations, and the prognosis for the future is not encouraging.  In the richest country in the world we have one of the highest percentages in the world of children who nightly go to bed hungry, of citizens who cannot afford proper health care, and of elderly who have no place to go for security.

    Democracy, by its very name is…well…democratic.  While it is a form of government founded upon the concept of rule by the majority, it is also founded upon the principle that any governmental decision will be made with general welfare of the population in mind.  Democracy by its very modus operandi requires compromise, and every law and every decision is an amalgamation of the corporate minds which join together to make the decision.  The problem with democracy is that it occasionally clashes with individual principle.  Consider the hypothetical situation of an elected official who has sworn (remember George H. W. Bush?) to his constituents “No new taxes!” and then must consider a proposed bill which would take care of a serious problem in the country…but the final version of the bill as drawn up by his associates contains a tax increase.  Although it will ease a problem in the country, does he vote to pass the law and in doing so override his principles, or does he stand firm, waving his flag of unbent principle, and let the country suffer the consequences?  George Bush chose to compromise in the interests of the country…and lost the next presidential election to Jimmy Carter. In today’s political climate, we have many politicians who have adopted the strategy of “destroying the village in order to save it.”  Rather than reach a political compromise on an issue which would help ease the concern of the populace, many lawmakers would rather see the country suffer than renege on an unwise commitment or pledge made in the heat of political campaigning…a commitment or pledge which should have never been made in the first place.

    Unfortunately for our country, both major political parties have adopted the “destroy to save” philosophy, and it depends upon who is in power as to what role each party plays.  With the current Republican president, the Democrats have adopted the knee-jerk reflex of “No!” to anything President Trump remotely suggests.  Knowing that the 2020 elections were on the horizon and seeing the light at the end of the Trump presidential term, Democrats dug in their heels and threw out every possible stumbling block to any potential political success for the Republicans…and the country foundered with high unemployment, porous borders, a shaky economy, crumbling infrastructure, and rising crime.  Please understand…I am an independent and not a fan of President Trump.  He has done his fair share of uncompromising destruction.  During the Obama presidency, the tables were turned, and it was the Republicans who were stumbling blocks, and any legislation which may have benefited Obama or the Democratic Party was soundly squashed…in the name of “principle,” and Obama, being loyal to Democratic “principles” was not anxious to cooperate with the Republicans.

    If you ask any politician in the country about democracy, the instant response is “Democracy is the greatest form of government on the face of the planet.”  However, if you ask what the definition of democracy is, the response will be divided into two camps.  These two camps represent two versions of the same delusion.

    The believers of the first version of democracy can quote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution from memory.  They are for a government which is mostly kept at a distance, allowing the individual to soar like eagles to unlimited success with the least amount of restriction.  Everyone in this democracy contributes a fair share to the government for basic services such as national defense, but a person’s well-being is a personal responsibility.  In this democracy, every person is born healthy and disease free with a marketable talent which allows for the achievement of success.  Working hard and not abusing the rights of others, these believers live fruitful lives, leaving legacies of great influence.  The difficulty with this form of democracy is that it does not know how to handle those individuals who do not fit into the mold.  Forgive me for mentioning the Bible, but even Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.”  In this form of democracy, if one is “poor” it must be because he/she has not exerted adequate effort to reach the inborn potential which is in every person.  To offer alms to the poor is to deter their work initiative.   

    Along with the poor are the physically challenged be it through injury, birth, or disease.  Knowledgeable people have proposed that, to cut our health costs in this nation, committees should determine how expensive extending the life of a disabled person would be, and, if the cost is prohibitive, health care should be withheld.  I guess it would be the natural thing to do.  After all, in nature, there are many examples of infant creatures that are abandoned to die by their mothers for the good of the healthy ones.  So, a person’s health would be a personal responsibility and dependent upon the person’s ability to pay for services.  What I find fascinating about this group is that most believers are aggressively pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue, arguing about the sanctity of the unborn child, etc.  However, if that child is born with a defect, well, we hope mom has good insurance.  If the child is born to poor parents, it’s the parents’ fault…but the child suffers because the government will not offer any helping hand (hurts the budget, you know.)

    Lastly, those in this form of democracy have not learned the lessons of human greed.  One never has enough money, power, or prestige, and without restrictions or governmental regulations big businesses will stretch ethical boundaries far beyond the breaking point.  Competition, which is a concept hallowed in the annals of capitalism, is not restricted to obtaining the largest share of the market but also eliminating as many competitors as possible on the way to the top. Therefore the “pursuit of happiness” mentioned in the declaration may in fact require the deterrence of happiness in someone else.  But, hey, that’s competition.

     At the other end of the spectrum (other side of the aisle, as it were) is the second group of democratic proponents.  Interestingly enough, they, too, are familiar with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but at that point the similarities end.  Because the citizenry is united under the government’s guidance, a newborn child becomes in effect a ward of the state.  Every citizen has the right to the pursuit of happiness, but if another citizen cannot…or chooses not…to make that pursuit, it is the responsibility of all others to “carry those who cannot walk.”  An incredible fact of this group, however, is that the government’s concern for you only begins at birth.  Should a child be undesired prior to birth, an abortion is acceptable with no consequence; however, if that fetus can somehow survive to birth, the child is offered cradle to grave security.

    This group has a great distain for the natural competitiveness of man.  It is convinced of the innate greed of corporate America and therefore attempts to control business activities and restrict success, or at least force it to be spread around to more recipients.  The result is excessive restrictions causing hesitancy among businesses to invest and take risks.  Additionally, should some citizens exceed the “normal” levels of success, they should be taxed more heavily because they have more to spend.

     It is in the area of “liberty” where the two groups most contrast.  The second group interprets liberty to mean unbridled freedom.  When the constitution mentions freedom of speech, it means you can say anything you wish, no matter how offensive and no matter the consequences.  There is no decorum or standard of behavior because there is total freedom.  Freedom to choose is interpreted to mean the rights of one may infringe upon the rights of others.  Although a majority of the group may have an opinion in a particular matter, one objection can stop the discussion.  As an example, polls concerning prayer in schools have always shown a tremendous majority in favor, but due to the efforts of a scattered few, there now is no prayer.  It is due to the efforts of this group that we can now enjoy pornography in our homes and obnoxious behavior in our stores and schools.  It is through the efforts of this group that we are now enjoying the greatest federal deficits in the history of our nation with scant positive results. There is another word for unbridled, unlimited freedom…anarchy. 

     As we entered the election process of 2020, we saw the polarization of the two major parties into the two camps described above.  Most of the candidates offered to the electorate subscribed to one or the other of the two positions, and that was the tragedy of this election because both positions are disastrous for our country.  Forgive me for being biblical again, but many times in the scriptures, the word “moderation” pops up when discussing actions or behaviors.  It is not just a biblical philosophy but one that has been expounded by many, and it is a philosophy which works in government and politics, also.  The essential element to democracy which has become anathema to many in the political spectrum these days is moderation…a “give and take” in the halls of government which allows for solutions to national issues to be reached.  In truth, government must be friendly to business to encourage investment while at the same time monitoring corporate policies and operations.  A businessman will borrow money to expand his business, knowing that he will be able to repay the loan with increased sales and profits.  At times, a government may also borrow money to invest in people or infrastructure, but it should only be done when there is a good chance of a return on the investment and a repayment of the loan. It must offer help and assistance to those less fortunate while making it clear that effort must be made to stand on one’s own feet.  It must value life from conception to burial, and make it clear there are standards of speech and behavior which respect the privacy of others.  The interesting note here is that these positions are reflected by a majority of the citizens of the United States.  Was there a candidate who subscribed to these basic principles?  If so, he/she was probably vilified for lacking “principles.” Unfortunately, it seems that both those in power and those who are aspiring to power embrace only the two extreme positions.  The prognosis for the future does not bode well. The United States needs a healer, not a divider.

    

The Vanishing Pastor

 

     At the appointed time for the service to begin, the pastor approached the pulpit.  With a welcoming voice, he greeted the gathered congregation and exhorted them to stand and pray for God’s presence to be in the service and for God to anoint the singers, musicians, preachers, and congregation to join in one mind and one accord in worship to God.  Once the opening prayer was ended, the pastor invited the song leader to come to the pulpit and lead the congregation in a series of worship songs from a hymnal which contained musical worship, some of which had been written by dedicated song writers over one hundred years ago.  The songs themselves were testaments of the power of God and His promises to the church and were representative of the core values on which the church had been established.
      With the enthusiasm shown by the dedicated song leader and musicians, the congregation quickly began to rejoice in the songs of Zion, and soon a worshipful, praising spirit saturated the auditorium.  By the time the song leader sat down, there was a spirit of expectancy in the air concerning what other uplifting events were about to take place in the service.

     The pastor, returning to the pulpit, reinforced the spirit of worship and praise and after a few minutes asked the audience to stand.  He then gave them an opportunity to offer any prayer requests they may have had for which the church could pray.  After all requests were made know, the pastor led the church in community prayer for each request.  Once the prayers had subsided and the congregation had sat down, the pastor gave members of the congregation opportunities to give personal testimonies of what God had done for them.  Many times, a congregational member was invited to the pulpit to “lead the testimony service.”  After giving a personal testimony, he/she would invite others to testify who wished to stand and offer their own brief praise to God.

     After a few minutes of testimonies, the pastor returned to the pulpit and invited the singers who had been asked to sing a “special song” to come and present their music.  Sometimes it was a soloist, sometimes a duet, trio, or quartet.  Regardless, the song presented was a song of praise and worship, and many times the audience would respond with corresponding praise.  

    Afterward, the pastor again returned to the pulpit and generally offered any pertinent church announcements which may have been newsworthy for the congregation.  About this time, an offering was taken from the congregation, and tithes and donations were freely given by congregants who wished to support the church.  Additionally, if there were members in the audience who had special needs, be they in the areas of health, finances, or situations, they were invited to come forward to the front of the church, and the pastor along with elders of the church would anoint them with a touch of oil and pray God’s divine intervention on each particular need.

    Eventually, the time came for the sermon to be given.  The pastor took his Bible and opened to particular scriptures which he felt God had laid on his heart.  The congregation would stand, and the scriptures would be read.  Once read, the pastor admonished the congregation to join him in praying that God would give him the words to speak which would encourage, strengthen, and guide the spiritual flock for which he was the shepherd.  The sermon then went forth, sometimes encouraging, sometimes admonishing, sometimes condemning, but always with a pastoral love which was evident in his concern for his church family.

     After delivering the sermon he felt God had laid on his heart, the pastor gave an invitation for those who wished to pray to come forward either to make a commitment or to renew a consecration.  He circulated amongst the praying souls, admonishing, encouraging, and blessing.

    As the service dismissed, the pastor made an effort to greet each congregant as they were leaving, to continue a personal and spiritual relationship with each of his members, and in doing so, encourage each one to “keep the faith."

   

     What I have just described to you is a church service which is rarely seen in contemporary churches. Under normal circumstances, a church has someone designated as “pastor,” the person who is responsible for the spiritual welfare of the church members, and, because of his/her leadership, is financially supported by the members.  It is a symbiotic relationship; both congregation and pastor need the other to successfully maintain a spiritual relationship to God.  It is interesting that the term “pastor’ is only mentioned nine times in the Bible, and of those, eight appear in one chapter of Jeremiah and once in the New Testament in Ephesians 4:11.  

    In Jeremiah, the prophet establishes what a pastor should be.  He compares a pastor to a shepherd, and even refers in Jeremiah 23:2 to the people a pastor leads to a “flock.”  He describes a pastor as someone “…which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” Jeremiah 3:15.   Jeremiah was also to quickly condemn pastors who did not fulfill their pastoral obligation: “Ye have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not visited them.” Jeremiah 23:2   And in Jeremiah 23:1: “Woe to the pastors that destroy and scatter.” 

    If a pastor is to be like a shepherd, what are the requirements to serve as a competent keeper of the sheep (the congregation?)  It is noteworthy that a shepherd’s job is usually a lonely task.  Surrounded many times by predators who desire to destroy the sheep, the shepherd must be continually alert to surrounding dangers.  Once those dangers are realized, the shepherd moves swiftly to protect the sheep.  He keeps them in sight, closely grouped together, and attentive to his voice.  The sheep are comforted by his soothing voice and visual presence, and, should the sheep sense danger, they are magnetically attracted to the shepherd, expecting protection and encouragement.

   What the shepherd never does, however, is turn his responsibilities and job over to another person because the shepherd knows that no one else will have the dedication and commitment to protect and lead the sheep as he.

    We read in the scriptures of the Parable of the Lost Sheep how the shepherd searched diligently to find the lost lamb.  A shepherd watches for those lambs who may be about to stray and does everything in his power to bring them back into the flock. The competent shepherd is constantly monitoring his flock, ensuring that each lamb is within the circle of safety, well fed, and comfortable.  The good shepherd does not look at his position as a job, but he serves out of a love for his flock.

    Consider now the “contemporary” church service.  The pastor is nowhere to be seen.  As the appointed time draws near, musicians and singers take their places, and the lights of the church dim slightly.  Suddenly a cacophony of noise from drums, keyboards, stringed instruments begins to build until, amongst the singers, a voice begins to loudly proclaim that it’s a time of celebration.  For the next forty-five minutes, the thundering music and deafening voices work feverishly to get the audience worked up to a fever pitch.  The congregation is not expected to sing along; enthusiastic handclapping is the order of the day.  There is a display of words on a screen that lets the audience know what is being sung, but the singers and music drown each other out so that the words are indecipherable, anyway.  But at least there aren’t many words; most song phrases are repeated over and over.

  After the singers and musicians have exhausted themselves, an assistant to the pastor comes to the pulpit and leads the congregation in prayer for the sick or needy, but verbal request are not taken because all requests must be submitted in writing before the service.  They will not be read; just acknowledged.  Afterward, another assistant will come to the pulpit and call for the ushers to receive the offering, followed by the assistant reviewing any announcements which may be pertinent to the congregation.

   Finally, after the hour or so of preliminaries, the pastor takes the pulpit and delivers his sermon.  Following the sermon, there may be praying around the altars.  Once dismissal occurs, the pastor disappears to the confines of his office; there is very little mingling with the congregation.

    The two church services I have described give a clue as to why the spiritual footprint of the pastor of a church has become smaller, and his influence on his congregation weaker.  By the very fact that he was much more visible, the pastor in the first example was able to establish a rapport with his flock, not just as a pastor but also as friend who showed concern for a fellow member.  As a result, his church members were much more loyal to him and his church and far less likely to hop from church to church.  The pastor that you see for one hour per week at a distance of one hundred feet is hardly one with which you will feel any connection.

   I find it interesting that, beginning with Matthew 28:19 when Jesus admonished his disciples to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…” he was commissioning them to become preachers and spread the Gospel.  Every scripture which refers to evangelism and spreading the Word is aimed at the ministry, and yet in recent years the ministry has skillfully slid that responsibility off their backs to the common church member who is just trying to stay saved.  Those who should be leading the charge to spread the news of salvation are rather in the background admonishing the spiritual troops to advance.  There was a day when a church had just a pastor; only on rare situations was there an assistant pastor.  Today it is not uncommon for there to be several licensed ministers in a congregation, even in a church of modest size.

   I have to wonder; How can a person be “called to preach” and then have no desire to go preach?  We have churches in our area with no pastors, and yet we have “ministers” taking up offerings.  I know of many great ministers of the past who were called to preach at an early age and without training, without a seminary degree, and without monetary support started evangelizing and preaching because they had the burning desire to answer the call they had received.  The UPCI has seen a tremendous drop in the number of ministers willing to evangelize, while at the same time our churches are overstocked with preachers. Why?  No desire to “Go ye therefore…”

   The same thing, I believe, applies to pastoring.  We have pastors who like to have the honor of being a pastor, but do not care to fulfill the duties of a pastor.  Content to accept the respect a pastor deserves, they at the same time delegate as many pastoral duties to preacher wanna-bes as possible, and therefore reap the rewards without the hardships.  Content to preach…but not pastor, they show up at church for their grand entrances, then slip quietly away when the spotlight is turned off.  I am convinced after years of observation of this fact: to be a pastor you need to be a preacher, but many preachers are not qualified to be pastors.

    Does all this rambling get me off the hook as a common church member? Absolutely not.  The scriptures are very clear how we as church members should live and conduct ourselves.  We pray for guidance. We are faithful to church, both in attendance and offerings.  We honor our pastor and those in positions of responsibility.  We represent the church to our friends and loved ones and encourage them to seek out their salvation. We lift up and encourage one another.  If we see one of us straying, we gently try to nudge that person back into the fold.  Most of all, we stick together and follow our shepherd.  Someday we…and our shepherd…will answer for our deeds.