Ota Benga in 1906

The Andaman islands are small pockets of land that exist in the Indian Ocean, southeast of India’s mainland.  They are the home to a tribe of several hundred “primitive” people called the Jarawa.  This unique people group is making news this week because video footage has surfaced of native Jarawa women dancing naked for tourists in exchange for food, after a local policeman apparently accepted a bribe to produce them.

India’s Tribal Affairs Minister V. Kishore Chandra Deo has commented on the footage, saying “It’s deplorable. You cannot treat human beings like beasts for the sake of money.  Whatever kind of tourism is that, I totally disapprove of that and it is being banned also.”

This behavior – the subordination of perceived “primitive” people – is  nothing new and almost seems primitive itself in a very sensitive, very liberated 2012.  But let me share with you a similar story that’s really not that ancient of history.

In 1906, a Congolese Mbuti pygmy by the name of Ota Benga was featured in the Monkey House of the Bronx Zoo.  If you’re unfamiliar with what a “pygmy” is, its breed is…..human.  The zoo exhibit’s intention was to evidence the contemporary evolutionary belief of a “Missing Link” who bridged the gap between humans and ape ancestors.  Bottom Line: they put a human on display in a zoo.  One can only imagine what kind of psychological damage this would inflict upon the African man.  In fact, you don’t really have to imagine.  Benga committed suicide in 1916 at the age of 32, shooting himself in the heart with a stolen pistol.

While I’d certainly agree that there should be laws against treating humans like beasts, I’d suggest that no legislation is ever really going to stop the problem of the human heart that perceives others, especially those whom we struggle to understand, to be inferior to us.  And, let’s be honest – a belief in macro-evolution, still the current paradigm taught in public schools for the origin of mankind, is not only not helping, but in reality, it creates a justification for the mistreatment of certain people groups.

The simple logic that Darwinian evolution helps contribute to modern racism is as follows: If humans have evolved from apes, then different ape groups likely would have evolved into humans at different rates, depending on a variety of factors.  Consequently, some of us would be closer to modern man, while others of us would be closer to lesser evolved animals.  Understandably, we treat animals very differently than we do humans.  Therefore, according to Darwinian logic, there’s nothing wrong with putting “less-developed” humans on display in cages as a result of their color, language, and culture.  Sound offensive?  It should be.

It’s important to see that the Bible teaches something so very different and so much more beautiful and true.  The Bible consistently speaks in language that sees mankind as one race, which has divided into two races – believers (offspring of the woman) and unbelievers (offspring of the serpent) as referenced in Genesis 3:15.  Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.  The Bible indicates that from our common ancestors, Adam and Eve, all of us descendants inherited a sinful nature.  Therefore, in our natural state, we’re not only more genetically alike than we assume, but we’re more spiritually alike than we realize as well.  We’re all in the same boat; we’re all in dire need of outside help. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.  And finally, just as we all have the common problem of sin which leads to death, we also similarly require the same medicine for healing – Jesus Christ.  1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam (i.e. Jesus), a life-giving spirit.

Racism existed long before the theory of evolution.  For example, we see it clearly in Numbers 12 when Moses’ siblings, Miriam and Aaron, speak out against Moses because of his marriage to a dark-skinned Cushite woman (to see God’s ironic rebuke, check out the chapter).  It’s important to understand that Darwinian evolution is not the root cause of racism.  Sin is.  There are plenty of people who believe in evolution who do not necessarily practice racism.  However, what Darwinian evolution does is it provides people with a very, very convenient rationalization for perceiving certain people groups as inferior and blaming them for the problems of the world, i.e. racism.  In other words, if I believe that another people group, whom I don’t understand, is truly more like animals than me, then it becomes easy to treat them like animals.

Harvard Professor and prominent evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, in his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny, wrote, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”  Do you see what he’s saying?  One of the foremost minds in recent evolutionary thought is freely admitting that belief in Darwinian evolution lends itself towards human prejudice.  It’s a painful reality that you simply will not find in any high school biology texts.

But what about Jesus?  He’s so much different and so much better than all of this.  The Bible does not teach “survival of the fittest.”  Instead, it teaches that the “fittest” (God in human form, i.e. Jesus) came down to earth to rescue the unfit (fallen mankind).  It teaches that we all are essentially family as common ancestors of Adam and Eve, and Jesus came to save our family to make us part of God’s family.

You see, if you have an evolutionary paradigm, you will not condescend to love and rescue those who are “less than” you.  You probably wouldn’t give your life for a random animal, whereas you probably would give your life for family.

Many anti-racism advocate groups, celebrities, etc. out there will tell you that we should all get along and be nice to each other and love one another.  Telling someone they should love people  does state a reality, but it has never actually motivated anyone to love, and therefore cannot generate a new reality.  These groups are dealing with symptoms, not root problems.  They sense that there is a better world out there, but can’t/won’t see that the Savior of the Bible is the only road to worldwide family.

The day a person sees God’s intended oneness for mankind in Christ Jesus is the day that they will actually care about people who are different from them.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

This past Sunday I preached on just one word from this famous verse.  But it’s a very powerful word.  It’s a very Christmas word.  It’s the thought I want to share with you this week.

Immanuel, one could argue, is one of the most beautiful words/expressions in the English language.  It’s not a mere collection of sounds as many names are, but really, in English, a phrase that means “God With Us.”  But think just for a moment about how the reality of who Jesus is would be changed if that little preposition “with” was changed.

If Jesus was God “in front of/ahead of” us, he’d be blazing a trail for us.  This is essentially the teaching of the Mormon faith, that if we live like him we can become a god like him.  But if this is who Jesus was, we’d never be able to keep up.  We’d never be able to walk in those footsteps.  That wouldn’t work.

If Jesus was God “after/following/behind” us, he’d be pushing us and moving us forward as an impersonal force. This is essentially the teaching of pantheistic Eastern religions.  But if this is who Jesus was, we’d be floundering around directionless and leaderless, dependent on our own ability to navigate through life.  That wouldn’t work either.

If Jesus was God “above/beyond” us, he’d be looking down upon us from a distance.  This is essentially the teaching of Deism, an understanding that God is out there and that he set the world in motion, but that he has primarily a “hands off” policy concerning it now.  But if this is who Jesus was, he’d be so aloof that he’d never experientially know our problems nor be willing to dirty his hands with the our sins.  That also wouldn’t work.

If Jesus was God “below/beneath” us, our wisdom, our understanding, our feelings, and our choices would be supreme.  This is essentially the teaching of liberal Christianity.  But if this is who Jesus was, he’d be too weak, powerless to defeat the enemies that are too big for us or carry the weight of struggles too heavy for us.

If Jesus, God forbid, was God “against” us, he’d be mercilessly out to get us.  Though they wouldn’t admit it, I would suggest to you that this is essentially the belief of atheists and agnostics.  Most objections to God today are not scientific, but appear to be personal, i.e. people don’t like the way God operates so they choose not to believe in him.  But if this is who Jesus was, “against” us, we obviously wouldn’t stand a chance.

Fortunately, Jesus is none of these things.  He’s God “WITH” us.  And if he’s God “WITH” us, then he’s clearly God “FOR” us.  And finally, as the Apostle Paul says, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31)  This is the true peace of the season.

Merry Christmas!

Busyness has prevented me from posting for the previous several weeks.  I wanted to share with you one of the things that I’ve put together in the past week though, something I’ll be sharing as a service folder insert with my congregation here in Rochester.  Recently we’ve tried a distribution method for Communion different from what’s been done for a long time.  Some like it quite a bit. Some dislike it quite a bit.  It all leads to the bigger question of why we do what we do in worship, and my hope is that members either love or hate certain practices for the right reasons.  So….

The following is a consideration of the Continuous Flow method of Communion Distribution in worship (and hopefully a worthwhile template for the consideration of all things done in public worship).

For three Sundays spanning October to December we used the Continuous Flow method of Communion distribution on a trial basis at Resurrection.  We appreciated all the feedback from members and there were widely ranging opinions.  We wanted to use this opportunity to provide you with a more thorough analysis of the various considerations that go into distribution methodology.

Biblical – What did they do in the New Testament?

There are four biblical texts which directly speak to the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-23; and 1 Cor 10-11).  We know from the accounts of Communion’s institution in the Gospels that Jesus gave us this sacrament in the midst of celebrating the Passover meal, while he and the disciples were reclined at the table.  In the 1 Corinthians text, the Apostle Paul informs us that the community meal of the early Christians (i.e. the “Agape Feast”) served as the backdrop for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, at least till around the end of the first century.[i]  Likewise, the end of Acts 2, which speaks of the fellowship of believers, as well as the Didache, the early Jewish Christian church manual, support the idea of the Lord’s Supper as closely connected with the more casual Christian community meal.

Consequently, while the Bible is very specific in detailing how a communicant should spiritually receive Communion (1 Cor 11:27-29), the Bible says virtually nothing regarding the physical procedure of how a communicant should receive Communion.  Contextually, it was originally received against the backdrop of a fellowship meal of believers.

Ecclesiastical History – What have they done in church history, particularly Lutheran history?

The early Christian church saw the liturgy as a malleable product that began in freedom and moved to form and ritual.  The standardization of liturgical rites and ceremonies did not come about until Roman control and influence several centuries after the formation of the Christian church.  The driving force behind the practices done in worship were twofold: theology and culture.  Church historian James White says that from early on in Christanity’s history “The theological content is constant….The liturgical form, on the other hand, has undergone and continues to undergo changes or modifications in the course of time because of prevailing theological and cultural factors.”[ii]  White is suggesting that what you believe certainly affects what you do in worship as a church.  Likewise, who you’re seeking to communicate gospel truth to (consideration of the recipient), also affects what you do in worship as a church.  Records of regional liturgical practices dating to the first centuries A.D. witnessed to the fact that there was an essential unity in the celebration of Communion despite the diverse languages, cultures, and liturgical rites of the believers around the Mediterranean world.  This concept of unity in Jesus transcending cultural diversity has been a hallmark of the Christian faith from the beginning.

Lutherans historically have regarded many liturgical rites and ceremonies as adiaphora (from the Greek adiaphoron, meaning “a thing that makes no difference”).  In the Formula of Concord, the historical Lutheran church confessed that “the community of God in every place and at every time has the right, authority, and power to change, to reduce, or to increase ceremonies according to its circumstances”.[iii]

A basic but obvious change that has been made to worship since the time of the Reformation has been the length of worship services.  In 16^th century Leipzig and Dresden, worshippers received Communion each Sunday, and if there were many communicants that day, services could often last three to four hours.[iv]  (We’ll address this once again under practical issues.)

So, in the history of the Christian Church, much has been debated concerning what is truly being received in Communion, who may receive which elements, what is the proper frequency of Communion.  However, very little has ever been espoused concerning the manner in which a congregation receives Communion.  Historically, it’s simply been too small of an issue by comparison to get much time, energy, or press.

Theological – What truths are we seeking to get across in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper?

What we believe regarding the Lord’s Supper is most easily understood by listening to the words we speak.  The Words of Institution (spoken every time we celebrate Communion) indicate this is Christ’s true body and blood, received in faith principally for the forgiveness of sins.  Explained in more detail in his Large and Small Catechisms, Luther properly taught that in Communion we also receive a strengthening of our faith for Christian living as well as the assurance of eternal life.  To properly receive Communion – recognizing what exists inside me (i.e. sin) and what exists in the Lord’s Supper (i.e. Jesus’ body and blood, the very gospel that forgives and saves me) – we encourage communicants to read through pg. 156 in the front of our hymnal, Christian Worship.

To a lesser degree we confess what we believe about Communion through the distribution procedure in which we partake of it.  Confirmed and prepared members are asked to approach the altar under the direction or our elders.  In the past, they’ve come up in groups referred to as “tables” (since no literal table is present, the communication is perhaps a bit outdated and misleading).  The idea expressed in “tables” is the unity of believers expressing “table fellowship” – which was considered a sign of unity and friendship in the ancient world.  However, as a congregation of believers communes, they’re not chiefly expressing unity with the 10-12 people at their “table”, but with the full congregation of believers present.  Dividing the congregation into smaller segments, while it could be understood properly, technically (somewhat artificially and unnecessarily) segregates a congregation in a sacrament which unifies.

The continuous flow distribution, while it keeps people moving in a line, carries more of a symbol of exile – an image consistent throughout Scripture for God’s people while on earth.  Patriarchs in the Old Testament like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the children of Israel in the wilderness, John the Baptist in the countryside, the Apostle Paul traveling from church to church in his mission work, and even Jesus himself, who claimed the absence of a real home on earth (Matt 8:20), are all images that the Holy Spirit inspires in Scripture to remind readers that this home is not a permanent one, but that we walk, united, to our heavenly Promised Land.

Practical – What common good procedural issues are necessary to consider in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper?

As mentioned earlier in reference to the history of the Christian Church, there was a time and place when Christian worship was considered an all day, or at least multiple hour, occasion.  The roots of this naturally go back to the Old Testament Jewish ceremonial idea of a Sabbath Day.  While having the entire day dedicated to worship and rest is not at all a bad idea, it is not a practical reality for most in the 21^st century.  While worship services never have advertised times of ending, whenever you have multiple services on a Sunday morning, and when you include Bible Study, time considerations are legitimate concerns.

At Resurrection, distribution under the method of table(s) requires approximately 15-20 minutes in an average worship service.  Distribution under the method of continuous flow requires approximately 7-10 minutes.  While we’d hope and pray that the worship hour on Sunday mornings is not the believers only contact with God’s Word throughout the week, the average Christian does consider the hour of public worship with their fellow believers to be a spiritual high point in the week.  As worship leaders, pastors have a responsibility to be good stewards of the 60 minutes of worship – making the most of that time for all of the worshippers present.  Under the table(s) method of distribution, the non-communing worshipper (children, visitors, those in instruction classes) experience about a quarter of the worship service in which they are non-participants.  In the early Christian Church, this was a non-issue as catechumens (non-members who were going through instruction) were generally excused before that portion of worship.  Again, worship in the 21^st century is a little different and therefore has different procedural considerations.  We don’t structure our worship services merely or primarily for visitors, but repeatedly asking worship visitors to sit in non-participatory fashion for 15-20 minutes is perhaps asking a bit much of them as well as providing more “down time” for members before and after they’ve communed.

It’s also worth noting that continuous flow distribution is not a foreign concept in WELS circles.  It is regularly the distribution method at large WELS worship gatherings.  WELS pastor John Micheel points to it as a legitimate option for time considerations in his 2003 WELS Symposium paper “The Church Offers Holy Communion.”[v]  And, in fact, it is proposed as an option in the worship manual of our WELS hymnal.[vi]

Conclusion

Since the institution of the Lord’s Supper on the night before Christ was crucified, the elements, understanding, and benefits of Communion have remained.  The method of distribution has changed over time and across cultures to best fit the needs of God’s people in public worship.

While Old Testament worship for the Israelites was highly structured by God, the Lord has actually given us very little direction in terms of procedures and customs for public worship for today.  In fact, the passage that most clearly points us to what God desires in worship is the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:11 “Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”  In other words, have intention, order, and purpose in what you do in worship, and make sure it’s all about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  That is God’s direction for New Testament worship.

Our decisions for worship at Resurrection are made with the best interest of the body in mind, not as much according to the preferences of individuals.  While we are sensitive to all considerations and all communicants, as a church, we operate as a collective body with Jesus as our head, not as a group of independent-minded believers.  So, while many have varied opinions, “what I like/don’t like” is rarely the predominant consideration in Christian worship.  What glorifies God and benefits God’s people as a unit is the main consideration.

And finally….we’ve come to the last week in our study of idolatry.  Perhaps the most pristine looking of idols, the most seemingly outwardly god-pleasing, is the idol of religion.

Now, we’re going to make a clear distinction of terms here so that there’s no confusion.  We’ll define “religion” as the belief of the world (and the human heart in its natural state) that man can make himself right with God if he does the right things.  We’ll define the “gospel” as the essential opposite, that man CANNOT make himself right with God, but that God descended to mankind in the form of Jesus, and through his gift of gracious love found in Jesus’ sacrifice, HE made man right with God.

In religion, man goes to God.  In the gospel, God comes to man.  Religion is about what I do.  The gospel is about what Jesus did.  Religion says that some are either born or eventually become good or bad.  The gospel says we’re born bad, but Jesus is good, so our future is good.  You get the point.

It’s a little difficult for Christians today to understand that Christianity should probably and properly not be labeled as a “religion.”  The world categorizes us as simply another belief system that has certain spiritual practices.  But, when Christianity first arose it was recognized so clearly and uniquely as a non-religion.   The Christians had no temple, and they had no priests sacrificing no animals at this non-existent temple.  Jesus himself was the logical conclusion to each of those religious customs.  This lack of religious traditionalism and external rite (with some obvious exceptions, like Baptism & Communion) was absolutely confounding to the pagans as well as the super-religious Jewish moralists.

Today we still tend to drift back towards religious ideology.  Despite the new nature we possess as Christians, we never fully shake the effects of the sinful nature in this lifetime.  Consequently, we never fully shake the prideful desire for religion to make us right with God in this lifetime either.  Unfortunately, sometimes Christians and Christian churches are some of the guiltiest parties when it comes to “religious observance.”  Sometimes it seems as though the only ones that Christian churches attract are the well-groomed, moralistic people of the world, i.e. the highly religious.  But that wasn’t really who Jesus attracted.  That was precisely who Jesus offended.  And this reality ultimately leads us to ask if the message we’re proclaiming today is always consistent with the message that he was proclaiming.

Again, we’ll understand better if we see the truth pointed out to us in God’s Word.

Most Christians have heard of Jesus’ famous parable of “The Lost Son” (Luke 15:11-32).  But, as Dr. Timothy Keller wisely points out in his book The Prodigal God, the story is probably better called “The Two Lost Sons” or “The Love of the Father” because the parable actually starts out: “There was a man who had two sons.”  (Luke 15:11)  Both of these sons are in spiritual peril.

No one doubts that the Father’s love in the story represents the gracious and forgiving love of God.  No one doubts that the younger son in the story represents all wayward souls who have indulged in the life of immorality only to come to their spiritual senses upon reaching rock bottom and returning to the open arms of God.  However, the misunderstood character of the account is the older brother.  Keep in mind, Jesus started teaching these parables on “The Lost” in Luke 15 principally for the benefit of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, the super religious (Luke 15:2).  They went to worship regularly.  They gave large sums of money to the church.  They performed all of the worship customs and traditions and ceremonies immaculately.  And because they did all of this, they felt that God was indebted to them.  Like the older brother in the parable, they believed their Father (i.e. God) owed them good things due to their external faithfulness.  Also like the older brother, they were furious that the Father’s love could possibly extend to the prostitutes and tax collectors (i.e. the younger brothers).  Now, the only way that the older brother Pharisees and teachers of the law could possibly be upset with God about this is if they didn’t understand that the very love which the Father was showing to the younger brother prostitutes and tax collectors was the same gracious love that saved them too.  In other words, they didn’t understand the grace of the gospel because they were too religious.

The fascinating connection in the parable between the younger brother and the older brother is found in what they are both pursuing.  Both of them wanted the goods of the father, not the father himself.  Yes, the young brother makes this more obvious – he defiantly demands his inheritance early on in life, separating himself from the father for the sake of living how he wants.  But the older brother, through his anger, showed what the desire of his heart really was too.  He was mad at the father for welcoming the younger brother back into the family and now once again making him an heir in the family.  This re-admittance into the family actually came at financial loss to the older brother, since the property that remained of the father’s had been destined for the older son.  In other words, welcoming the younger son back into the family required true sacrifice on the part of the older brother.  Forgiveness always comes at a cost and it’s the one who is doing the forgiving who has to absorb the loss.  So when the Father in this account kills the fattened calf for the younger son and puts the special robe and ring on him, it is legitimately taking money out of the older son’s pocket.

All of this was so offensive to the older brother who felt he deserved so much more for his obedience.  But remember, both sons challenged the father.  Both sons sought to control the father through their behavior – one bad, one good.  Both sons were interested in the father’s inheritance, not the happiness of their father.  They’re a lot more alike than they think, and more alike than we initially think.

The scary part is that we’re never told that the older brother went in to the Father’s banquet.  “The older brother became angry and refused to go in.” (Luke 15:28)  While the wild, immoral living was certainly dangerous to the younger son, the moralistic obedience of the older son was just as dangerous, perhaps more so, because unlike the younger son, he appears to be blind to his real spiritual condition.

When you think about the parable in its entirety, noting the personality of the older brother, you begin to better understand the behavior of the younger brother at the outset.  While the younger brother’s rebellion and immoral living are certainly not justifiable, you can understand his hatred of home due to the relationship he must have had with his moralistic older brother.  Who would want to be in a family where you thought you had to earn love through obedience.  It’s hypocrisy to even call that “family.”

Many in the world today have lumped Christianity together with other religions and recognize that the Christian faith has called us away from “younger brother” immoral living, but they often fail to recognize that the Christian faith has also called us away from “older brother” moralistic self-righteousness and judgment.  That’s an image, and at times a sad reality, that we as individuals and as a church need to repent of regularly – the idol of religion.  The world’s assessment that Christian churches are just “more moralistic religion” is regrettably sometimes fair.

So how do we move beyond the idol of religion?  It starts by recognizing the brother we wish existed in the parable.

If you examine all three “lost” parables in Luke 15, you notice that “The Lost Son” is different from the other two in that there is no character in it who goes out and searches for what was lost.  By the absence of one seeking the lost brother in this third and final parable, Jesus is teaching something pretty remarkable.  He is creating for us a longing for a better older brother.  And he’s helping us see that HE is the this better older brother.

Think through the account again.  We are lost.  God the Father is the Father.  If the older brother really loved the young, wayward brother, he would have left the Father’s house and chased after the younger brother, encouraged him to come home and absorbed the financial blow of welcoming the younger brother back into the family.  Who does that sound like?  Left the comfort of his Father’s home.  Check.  Pursued the lost brother.  Check.  Encouraged him to turn away from the lost life and turn back to life with the Father.  Check.  Paid the cost so that the younger brother could re-enter the family and once again be an heir to the Father’s blessings.  Check.  This greater older brother that we long for when hearing this parable is an actual reality for us – our Savior Jesus Christ.  “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17).

To avoid the idol of religion, there are a few things we want to recognize.  By nature, we are all lost brothers.  In our lives, we struggle with the tendencies of this parable’s lost brothers, sometimes the tendencies of both of them.  But the love of the Father extends to us all through the greater older brother Jesus.  And through his sacrifice, we have once again become heirs of our heavenly Father – recipients of promised real estate in paradise.

As with the two brothers, the distance from the least of us to the greatest of us is negligible in the conversation of earning the Father’s love (and our salvation).  None of us can come close to working our way to God through religion.  But we fortunately don’t have to because of our perfect brother Jesus.  And that means that we’re all in the same boat.  None of us has room for judgment.  None of us can point fingers.  None of us is proud.  All of us are humble because we’re all saved by a generous family member’s gracious gift.  No religion.  Just the gospel.

What’s the main problem with the world?  Think carefully.

If you insinuate that something other than sin is the main problem with the world, you’ll end up falsely suggesting that something which is not inherently bad is purely evil.  Likewise, if you insinuate that something other than Jesus is the answer to the world’s problem, you’ll end up foolishly “idolizing” something that is not inherently good.

For many people, this is the case when it comes to political ideology.

Remember that our working definition of an “idol” is a good thing that becomes the ultimate thing in our lives which we believe can answer all the problems and right all the wrongs of life.

When it comes to politics, it doesn’t take too much imagination to see how a good thing like patriotism, if pushed to be the ultimate thing in life, can turn into racism and imperialism.

It really wasn’t that long ago that the Western world had fairly high hopes for what was then called “scientific socialism.”  However, a quick glance at the Fascist, Nazi, and major communist movements of the 20th century will show you how corrupt such a system can become.  Upon the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, seeing the symbolic collapse of socialism, the world mostly came to a collective conclusion that free market capitalism was the solution – perhaps the thing that can end hunger and poverty in the world.

Notice, however, that something other than sin was perceived as the primary problem and something other than Jesus was seen as the solution.  Reviewing a little church history though will tell you that the early Christian Church in the Roman Empire participated in communal living (i.e. need-based wealth distribution), and they did so to such success that it was one of the more attractive qualities of the new faith to outsiders.

All the believers were together and had everything in common.Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:44-47)

Perhaps the method of wealth distribution isn’t the problem.  The de-Christianization of communist countries appears to be a greater reason that such a system would collapse upon itself.

Interestingly, in Adam Smith’s classic of economics, The Wealth of Nations, he refers to the free market as an “invisible hand” that guides people to act in ways that are best for the benefit of society.  Giving an ideology that kind of credit – that it compels people to do the right thing for others, outside of connection with God – seems to give a power to something that doesn’t truly have that power, i.e. it “idolizes” it.

Upon the housing market crash and global recession that began in 2008, which was driven at least in part by greed, we’re catching more than a glimpse that a free market is perhaps not the answer to all financial problems either.  I’m not at all suggesting it’s wrong.  I’m merely suggesting it doesn’t have the power with which it was once credited.  Free market societies, too, can collapse upon corruption.

What this issue all comes back to is how much credit we give to an ideology.  There are probably a few valid tests to see whether or not you’re tempted to deify political ideology.  For starters, if you can’t admit that there are going to be flaws in any political ideology, you’re likely giving a party, political leader, or ideology way too much credit.  Likewise, if you can’t admit that a party which is not your party, candidate who is not your candidate, or philosophy which is not your philosophy could have some really good ideas or legitimate concerns, but rather, he/she/it is viewed as pure evil, you’re likely giving your own party, candidate, or philosophy way too much credit.  At that point, you have blindness to any general points of agreement or common interest because the points of disagreement overshadow everything.

Finally, while Christianity in our country is becoming seemingly more ecumenical as churches merge together in non-denominationalism and general doctrinal indifference, American politics have become increasingly polarized and policy based.  What that tells me is that it’s possible that people have become more particular about their political messiah than their spiritual messiah.  Political policies have become more doctrinal than biblical doctrine.  And political activism has at times achieved near religious levels. In other words, it’s possible that for some, politics is a very real idol.

Let me show you how Jesus is better.

As mentioned earlier, the Christians of the early church were able to practice communal living in a remarkably attractive fashion.  The success was based in their demonstrations of Christ – their faith in action towards one another.  If you took Jesus out of the equation, it never would have worked.  So it’s not necessarily always that a system is flawed.  It’s that the people within the system are flawed.

Now let’s apply this to modern politics.  Here’s one example: A hot issue over the past couple of years has been the reform of health care.  Why have health care prices been driven up so drastically in recent years?  Well, there’s a host of reasons, but things like malpractice suits, patients not paying bills, drastically unhealthy living, and even the so-called “medical student syndrome” have all played big roles.  Every single one of these issues ultimately revolves around sin (greed, irresponsibility, poor management, and arrogance respectively).  And the smartest minds in D.C. are not going to be able to form policy that circumvents sin.

Politics, at its root, is a power and control issue.  But regardless of who’s in power or what we put into legislation, we can only control so much.

There is, however, a benevolent ruler whose power is limitless and whose control is truly authoritative, while at the same time he respects the integrity of human free will.  When he entered this world, the Son of God gave up his position of rule in the heavenly headquarters from which he  governed creation.  He humbled himself, relinquishing power, being subject to the laws made for men.  And yet he kept these laws perfectly, taking his righteous life to the cross to pay for our unrighteousness.  He died for those times which we lacked moral control.  And yet, on the third day he rose in power and glory to benevolently rule all things on our behalf.

Whether our earthly authorities are great or corrupt, they cannot solve all of the world’s problems.  But there is one who can.  And did.  He’s the one to whom these earthly authorities finally have to answer to in the end.  And only when we relinquish ultimate power and control from ourselves and from our political parties and recognize our life, times, nation, and this world are in His control, will we find peace, the ability to love and forgive, and no desire to oppress others.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.  No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.  None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.