The Day After (by Gary Eubanks)

The results are in from yesterday’s presidential election, and it’s official: the USA is now “liberal,” or at least “left-of-center.” In the days ahead, the political pundits will undoubtedly offer up a host of well-analyzed reasons as to why the loser lost and the winner won, but they will all be secondary. Perhaps it is true that, given the closeness of the race, the loser would have won if he had been a more charismatic figure, done a better job presenting his message, or not made the mistakes he made, but the cold, hard reality is that the American people had ample opportunity to assess each candidate and make their choice based on their perception of which one aligned more closely with their views and interests. So, whether one views the outcome of the election as a tragedy or a triumph, the fact remains that the winner won because America has fundamentally changed.

This is the only way to explain the re-election of a president in a race which some say, given the circumstances, should have been a guaranteed defeat for him. However, this is not the country it used to be. In a trend which has been gathering strength and been encouraged by the mainstream media for decades, the United States has moved to the “left,” or been “Europeanized.” This is not to say that a member of the losing party will never again be elected to the presidency, but it is hard to imagine a more favorable set of circumstances for that party than was presented to it in this election — and it still lost, and substantially so.

So, the clear message is: liberalism has finally triumphed! Americans have elected as president, not once, but twice, a man who exhibited his liberalism on his sleeve and challenged them to reject him. They did not. The reversal in his view on “gay marriage” epitomizes how quickly attitudes can change and liberalism can advance. While he embraced the concept of marriage being between “one man and one woman” in 2008, four years later, and just prior to the election, he was able to announce a retreat from that view without any fear of political backlash; in fact, it hardly caused a ripple. Again, just twenty years ago, there was such an uproar when another president wanted to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military that he had to back down. Now, not only do homosexuals serve openly in the military, but “gay marriage” (as well as recreational pot-smoking) won big on ballots in several states. In short, the liberal agenda was on trial in this election, and it won a decisive victory. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply has his head stuck in a hole.

Yet, what is of greatest interest to the Christian is what this means for the church. While anything is possible, including persecution, the more immediate points of significance in this success of liberalism may come in two forms. First, there may be an impact on evangelism. As America increasingly abandons Biblical moral values and embraces a worldly and hedonistic lifestyle, Christians, and the interest and values they represent will be increasingly marginalized. Converts may become harder and harder to find.

While the survival of God’s kingdom and gospel are certainly not dependent on this country, the fact is, as much of the Old Testament and the book of Habakkuk, in particular, show, that God has always used political conditions as instruments in the implementation of His will. Indeed, experience shows that there is no more influential factor (which is subject to human observation) in spiritual matters than politics. Any Christian who thinks that political conditions, and the moral and social conditions they reflect and foster, do not matter needs to ask himself, for example, how many faithful Christians, churches, or evangelists he can name in Western Europe, particularly France, or North Korea, or any Communist or Islamic country. How many did he know in Eastern Europe before the collapse of the USSR, especially as compared to now? How many evangelists are coming from foreign countries to preach in the United States, especially as compared to the reverse? Indeed, anyone who is inclined to be flippant about what this election means, needs to realize that the modern church of Christ has largely been an American phenomenon for the past couple of centuries and that this is probably due, in no small measure, to God’s providence in making this country distinctive in the value its citizens have heretofore placed, however imperfectly, on the Bible. (Some may consider their indifference to political affairs to be an expression of higher spirituality. Yes, “God rules,” but they see nothing inconsistent with the fact that also “God heals” by going to the doctor when they get sick.)

However, the greatest significance to be found in the election may lie in the fact that the victory it handed liberalism may find a parallel in the church. The lesson of Scripture and history is that God’s people find it a challenge to differentiate themselves from their social environment. Lot moved into Sodom and stayed there despite its gross sinfulness vexing his soul daily (2 Pet. 2:8). As a result, he lost his whole family. Is it any surprise that two women raised in Sodom were the stars in what may well be the most sordid sexual episode ever recorded in the Scripture (Gen. 19)? Also, it is a lot easier to understand how fornication and idolatry were problems at Corinth (1 Cor. 5), Pergamum, and Thyatira (Rev. 2) rather than Jerusalem. To use a modern example, does anyone wonder why divorce and remarriage became such a hot issue in the church only after divorce lost its stigma, the relevant laws were liberalized, and the divorce rate skyrocketed? One can name just about any issue which has afflicted the church in the past couple of centuries and point to a parallel social change or political movement which introduced it to the church. (Yes, the “social gospel” and “progressivism” had their heydays before “orphans’ homes” became an issue among American brethren.)

So, Satan probably does not need to make a move as dramatic as direct persecution. He can achieve the results he seeks just as effectively and more quickly by infecting the church rather than persecuting it. The devil doesn’t have to assassinate Christians; he simply assimilates them.

So, as distressing as some might find the results of this election to be, Christians should look to what it represents for the church. The liberalism which gave this election its results is coming home to the church. It is the “silent killer” of Christians, the spiritual carbon monoxide of the church — odorless, colorless — but lethally toxic.

Of course, “institutional” brethren have been fighting a losing battle against (hyper-) liberalism for decades. However, signs of liberalism are increasing even among “conservative” brethren. This may be observed in toleration of speech patterns, teachings, and practices which would have immediately gotten a preacher into trouble several decades ago. Now, however, they hardly get noticed. Thus, to cite a few examples, “conservative” brethren are experiencing liberalism in the form of divorce and remarriage, Calvinism, reliance on extra-Biblical writings for an understanding of God’s will, referring to denominationalists as Christians, advocacy of church collections and the Lord’s Supper on days other than Sunday, extension of the authority of preachers to other churches, etc. If the readers have never heard of these cases, it is not surprising, but it is an indication of the nature and magnitude of the problem. What once might have lit a fire of protest is now no longer deemed worthy of attention. Instead, it is given a pass by a blithe and indifferent brotherhood. Indeed, any ire is more likely aroused by any who would dare protest it.

Yes, liberalism is slowly enveloping “conservative” brethren, and few of them seem to be aware or care. And all the while, Satan is gleefully chanting in the background, “Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!” - November 7, 2012