Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally

In defiance of my new policy of only including things I or close friends have written I present this article by Dennis Prager. He puts into words better than anyone I've read the culture war and its root cause.

To understand the worldwide ideological battle -- especially the one between America and Western Europe and within America itself -- one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law -- both national and international. Law is the supreme good. For most on the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.

Take the war in Iraq. The chief leftist argument against the war -- before it began, not later when no weapons of mass destruction were found -- was that without U.N. sanction, attacking Iraq violated international law.

Whatever their feelings about George W. Bush or about attacking Iraq, for most of those on the Left, the rightness or wrongness of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime was determined by its legality (i.e., whether it was authorized by the U.N. Security Council). On the other hand, for those who supported attacking Iraq, whether the war was deemed legal played no role in their assessment of its rightness or wrongness.
To those who supported removing Saddam Hussein by force, if the United Nations did not authorize it, it was a reflection on the morality of the United Nations, not the morality of the war.

International law thus provides a clear example of the Left-Right divide. To the Left, an international action is right if nations such as China, Russia, France and Syria vote for it, and wrong if they vote against it. To the Right and to the religious, an action is good (or bad) irrespective of the votes of the world's nations. They judge it by a code of morality higher than international law.

To cite one other contemporary example, the Left throughout the world opposed Israel's 1981 air strike razing Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, thereby destroying his ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Among major American newspapers, only the conservative Wall Street Journal supported the strike along with various religious Jewish and Christian groups. From The New York Times to Le Monde to your local university, there was outrage that Israel had acted against international law. It meant nothing to their judgment of Israel's action that the leading mass murderer of the time had his nuclear weapons facility destroyed with the loss of but one life. All that mattered was that it was illegal.

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality.

Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?

The answer is to be found in the Left's substitution of legal for moral.
And why is the Left so enamored of law?

First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality not as absolute, but as relative. This inevitably leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the Left holds legal absolutes. "Legal" for the Left is what "moral" is for the Right. The religious have a belief in God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.

Second, whereas they cannot change God's laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society's laws.

In fact, the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.

Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution.

Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis a vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.

In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.

Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty -- e.g., compassion, equality, fairness -- this presents little problem.

All this helps to explain the Left's preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth.

And that's one reason the Left hates the America represented by George W. Bush. This country under this president says morality is higher than man-made law. To the Left, that, not Saddam Hussein's torture and rape rooms, must be fought.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

The Vineyard DNA

Recently I was talking with a friend from church about our spiritual journey... the process by which we came to find the Lord and how we came to identify ourselves with Vineyard Church. I made the comment that I knew pretty quickly that I was "Vineyard". I was somewhat surprised by the response I received. My friend seemed genuinely confused by my comment... asking how to know if you're Vineyard. This seemed a reasonable question and one which I think would be appropriate to attempt to answer here.

So, how do you know if you're Vineyard? We used to use the phrase "Vineyard DNA" to refer to the core value system that establishes what Vineyard stands for. I think in order to answer the question I will highlight a few of the things that I saw as I came into the Vineyard almost 15 years ago that set Vineyard apart from other denominations or churches. This is not saying Vineyard is superior to these churches or that they have more truth... just that these are some of the values that make Vineyard unique... their DNA.


  1. The first thing that comes to mind when I say "Vineyard" is their focus on worship... not just music but a genuine desire to "touch the face of God" through intimate encounters with Him by the Holy Spirit. Although worship is certainly valued at most churches in all denominations there was something unique about the way Vineyard emphasized worship... and their music was more modern and exciting than even the contemporary stuff I was hearing elsewhere. Vineyard calls this being "Culturally Current", doing ministry in a way that is consistent with the culture we're in, and it is primarily evidenced in their music and worship styles. It was the first thing that I noticed about the church and the thing that drew me initially.

  2. The focus on seeing genuine, powerful moves of God was definitely unique. I had been in many churches that talked about power and a few demonstrated some evidence of the Gifts of the Spirit operating, but I saw more real miracles and healings in my first few weeks at Vineyard than all the rest of my experience combined. Along the same line... Vineyard taught that this was a normal expression of Christian life... that it wasn't for the super-holy but for you and me... "These signs will follow those who believe..." Mark 16. This radical idea was instrumental in changing the course and focus of my life.

  3. Tied to this demonstration of power was an emphasis on personal evangelism. Now certainly Vineyard is not at all unique here... but they added a new perspective for me. John Wimber's book "Power Evangelism" offered the concept that the Power of God... the gifts of the Spirit were primarily given for the growth of the church through evangelism. Suddenly all of the power had a purpose beyond my own health and wealth.

  4. "Naturally Supernatural" is probably my favorite spiritual concept I learned through Vineyard. The value of authenticity... I was tired of the contrived, manipulated "moves of God" I had experienced in the past. I actually left ministry at one point because of the total disconnect with reality I sensed in much of the "ministry" I had seen. Vineyard was the most serious movement I had ever seen at trying to avoid a hyped, platform-oriented display of God's power. In fact, it seemed most of the healings, "signs and wonders" were occurring in home groups and individual settings rather than being performed by one person. I found in this an opportunity to allow God to use me without having to draw attention to myself or without having to be terribly weird... as if telling someone God wants to heal them isn't weird enough.

  5. In Vineyard I found an awareness of the Presence of the Holy Spirit. Suddenly the Holy Spirit wasn't an "it" but was a person walking with us. Ministry and prayers were dotted with phrases like "Come, Holy Spirit" and the sense of Him being right beside us, even inside us was tangible. Church wasn't about going and hearing, it became about coming and experiencing... I had an expectation of having an encounter with God whenever we got together.

  6. The teaching was powerful with a focus on the Kingdom of God that gave me a foundation for all that I was experiencing. The theology of the Kingdom explained many of the questions I had carried for years... why isn't everyone healed?... why doesn't God speak today?. There was a serious emphasis on the Word of God, again, not unique to Vineyard, but the combination of teaching and experiencing made church more like a college lab... learn then do.

  7. There was an expectation that God would speak. I had never seen "personal prophecy" before. What I thought of as prophecy was somebody in a church service speaking a "thus saith the Lord" message using King James english that was usually generic and uplifting. But in Vineyard I found people who would speak to very specific things with amazing insight and accuracy. Although of everything in Vineyard in my early days this single thing made me the most uncomfortable I always marvelled at it and grew to love and appreciate the fact that God speaks through his people.

  8. And finally, there was an overriding sense of purpose... training to send. Vineyard calls it "Recruit, Train, Deploy". We are all in boot camp learning what we need in order to get fully employed in the battle. The vision for planting churches at home and abroad is derived from this vision.


This is by no means everything and there are places to go read more about the formal doctrinal distinctions, and I recommend doing so, but these are the areas that most impacted me. The things I listed are certainly all still true and relevant in varying degrees and still drive who we are and what we strive to be.

Hopefully you can see the things I highlighted and you'll be able to say of yourself with certainty, "I'm Vineyard!"

Links