Religion in Politics

Listen (RealAudio)

In the past few weeks, two significant events have transformed the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. First has been the surge in popularity of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee into the top tier of candidates. Various polls show him gaining substantially on the party's frontrunners, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Huckabee now appears to have secured a strong second-place ranking in Iowa, where he must score big to have any chance in later primaries. Huckabee, it must be mentioned, is an ordained Baptist minister. He frankly admits that his faith influences his policy decisions.

The second event of consequence was the December 6 speech by Romney at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, in which he answered his critics on the subject of his Mormon beliefs. Essentially, he argued that, while confessing the Mormon creed, he is still a Christian, saying, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind." However, should he be elected, he said, "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. . . . I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."

He reminded his listeners of the fact that many of the Founders of this nation were religious men and that they enshrined religious principles into our founding documents. Despite their memberships in various denominations, they were patriots first, fighting for America's well-being. Romney promised that he would strive to follow their example: "A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States." The former Bay State governor cited the example of another politician from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, who "explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President."

In an era of mounting secularism, it is intriguing that religion has become such an integral part of the election debate. Members of the American Civil Liberties Union and other anti-Christian groups—their hopes firmly placed in the more secular Democrat candidates—must be beside themselves in frustration at the resurgence of matters of faith into the national discourse. Should an ordained minister like Huckabee attain the Oval Office, their fears of a fanatical religious takeover of America will reach hysterical proportions: the atheistic version of "the end is near!"

Nevertheless, true Christians should not take this religious turn of events as a sign of American revival. Despite their claims of piety, these two Republican candidates are not knights on white horses to the rescue. Romney, for instance, is a Mitt-come-lately to the conservative cause, having made a number of reversals in his stances on homosexual rights, abortion, and stem-cell research and more recently, on gun-ownership and the environment. His position on illegal immigrants is also seen to be hypocritical, having hired undocumented workers as landscapers at the Governor's Mansion. He is at best a Northeastern moderate running as a conservative.

Huckabee is no better. While he tends to agree with social conservatives on abortion and homosexuality, he is extremely soft on illegal immigration, having consistently supported giving benefits to illegals and their children, while opposing restrictions on them. He is also known as a tax-and-spend governor. The conservative Club for Growth writes of him: "His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation." In Arkansas, as Romney did in Massachusetts, he has governed as a moderate at best, though he talks about Jesus a great deal.

As this column has mentioned before, the Church of the Great God is apolitical, which means we do not become involved in the political process. We do not endorse political candidates or parties, nor do we lobby government on political issues. However, we often comment about politics from a biblical point of view because political trends eventually effect societal change. It is the church's job to be society's watchman and warn the people of coming destruction, whether internally or externally generated (Ezekiel 33:1-11). And while it may seem strange that we should caution people about this trend of including religion in politics, it is necessary.

We cannot for a minute discount the decades-long shift toward secularism in our culture, thinking that the tide has been stemmed and reversed at last. Nor can we forget that these men are vying for the nomination to the highest office in the land, the office with the most political power in the whole world—they would say or do anything to make themselves more electable. Finally, we should not diminish the fact that these men need the voting power of the Religious Right to catapult them to the nomination and the Presidency beyond.

Call me skeptical, but these men are playing the "religion card," which they believe may be their ace in the hole. It is an old ploy, using religion to gain temporal power. Our radar should beep like crazy when it appears on the horizon. What they are doing is not far removed from the behavior of the Pharisees in Jesus' day, and He castigated them for their hypocrisy (see Matthew 23). The truth and the true prophets of God were in mortal danger when they held the reins of power (see Matthew 23:13, 15, 27-35). History proves that religion and politics do not often mix well, as one corrupts the other with delusions of power.

It is indeed true that "when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan" (Proverbs 29:2). However, a religious person is not necessarily a righteous person, especially when so much is at stake. Americans would do well to discern the difference.

What Is the Pope Up To?

Pope Benedict XVI, the German-born former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is the leader of over a billion Catholics worldwide and presides over a multi-billion dollar empire of land holdings, churches and cathedrals, companies, universities, institutions, hospitals, etc. His representatives, official and otherwise, are in every nation on the globe, influencing policy to the advantage of the Roman Catholic Church. He has hundreds of advisors and assistants, many of whom are among the most learned men on earth. He sits atop an organization that wields power and influence far beyond the confines of tiny Vatican City in Rome.

If he has all this wealth, knowledge, and authority behind him, why did he make such a colossal blunder in his comments at Regensburg University in Germany on September 12? Did he not know that even quoting a fourteenth-century Christian emperor's anti-Islamic remark would ignite protests and perhaps violence as well across the Muslim world?

Without a doubt.

The Pope, who turned 79 in April 2006, has observed the world long enough to be able to predict accurately just how his audiences will react to his ideas. The Vatican, long steeped in both politics and cultural sensitivity, understands the hair-trigger reactions of Islamic fundamentalists to anything even remotely offensive to "the religion of peace" or its prophet, Muhammad—remember that the furor over the Danish cartoons erupted just months ago. If his words, then, were not a thoughtless blunder, what were they designed to do? Why did he intentionally make them? What is the Pope up to?

There are probably at least two answers to these questions. The first is contained in the public response to Muslim demands of the Pope to apologize to the faithful for his "outrageous slander" of Muhammad. In his remarks to invitees to a meeting at his summer residence near Rome on September 25, the Pope regretted that his comments offended Muslims, yet he went on to explain briefly that Christians and Muslims "must learn to work together . . . to guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence."

A reading of his Regensburg speech makes it plain that this was his intention all along. Notice this passage:

The [Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II, a Christian] must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." . . . But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, . . . he addresses his interlocutor . . . on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death. . . ."

Here he introduces his real subject, the relationship of reason and faith in religion. Muslim extremists—and frankly most Muslims period—have abandoned reason in their wholehearted devotion to Islam, and the result has been conflict, destruction, and death. On the other side, Western Christianity has rejected faith in favor of rationalism, producing cultural relativism and an essentially godless society. Benedict's speech was designed to steer a course toward the future between the two extremes.

At this point, the second answer to the why of the Pope's intentions comes to the fore. Upon ascending to the pontificate, Benedict dedicated himself to returning Europe to fundamental Christian values in response to increasing secularization. In a May 1996 address titled "Relativism: The Central Problem for Faith Today," he noted, presaging his papal theme:

Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own ego.

To counter this creeping narcissism, he recommends Europe's re-Christianization, urging Europeans "to open ourselves to this friendship with God . . . speaking to him as to a friend, the only One who can make the world both good and happy. . ." ("St. Josemaría: God Is Very Much at Work in Our World Today," L'Osservatore Romano, October 9, 2002). In early 2006, this theme still on his mind, he reiterated, "It is time to reaffirm the importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians . . ." ("Friendship with God," Zenit News, February 7, 2006).

In this light, his remarks at Regensburg were a rallying cry to Europe to reject the fanatical, violent faith of its burgeoning Muslim minority as well as the sterile, empty secularism of modern society—and to embrace the reasonable, traditional, and beneficial faith of Christianity. By doing so, he sets up himself and the Roman Catholic Church as sound-minded bastions of European solidarity and strength.

Despite the violence his remarks caused, he has calculated that they were worth the turmoil so that he could gauge, not the Muslim reaction, which was predictable, but the European response. He is hoping to see a shift in attitudes toward the Catholic Church and the papacy to defend Christendom from the ongoing Islamic assault. So far—and granted, his remarks still echo across the Continent—he has seen nothing from secular Europe to give him hope.

America's Imminent Perfect Storm

As spring turns toward summer and the fall elections march ever nearer, winds of change are blowing across this nation, auguring a critical moment in American history. Once, this nation had farsighted leaders who could grasp the reins in a time of crisis and guide the country through its peril to a better, brighter future. The Founding Fathers led the newly independent nation through revolution and its first toddling steps. Though we may not agree with the means they used or the political perspectives they espoused, men like Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, and others brought the United States to prominence, power, and prosperity despite the doughty forces arrayed against it.

Is there a leader in the wings who will have the fortitude to face the coming crisis? Perhaps there is, though it appears that he has not shown his face in public. It is reminiscent of the prophetic thought in Isaiah 3:1-7, in which all the real leaders of the nation are gone, and of those who remain, no one wants to step forward and take responsibility to correct the sorry state of affairs. Verses 8-9 explain why they are in such a mess:

For Jerusalem stumbled, and Judah is fallen, because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of His glory. The look on their countenance witnesses against them, and they declare their sin as Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to their soul! For they have brought evil upon themselves.

Over time, the cumulative sins of a nation's people pile so deep that their weight drags down the whole nation. Everyone becomes caught in the crisis, and the prudent person, seeing calamity on the horizon, hides himself (Proverbs 22:3; 27:12). This means a person takes precautions to survive the coming storm, yet the downside of this survival mentality is that few want to take on the additional burden of responsible, positive leadership. As the man in Isaiah 3:7 says, declining the offer of rulership, "I cannot cure your ills, for in my house is neither food nor clothing; do not make me a ruler of the people."

There is a perfect storm gathering strength and whirling into position over America. According to Wikipedia, "A perfect storm is any only-remotely-possible disastrous confluence of singly innocuous events. In such a situation, it is clear that if any one element had been displaced in time or space the result would have been far less powerful, but because just the right things were in the mix and with just the right timing, the situation ballooned." We are witnessing the thunderheads building on at least six fronts: cultural, social, religious, political, military, and economic. Any one of them is bad enough, but as a powerful, wealthy nation, we could probably handle it. However, the convergence of all these factors—and perhaps more—makes a truly successful outcome doubtful.

Culturally, this nation is wallowing in filth. We sell sex and its paraphernalia as if they were cars, furniture, or soap. Pornography is rampant in magazines, television, adult stores, and on the Internet, bringing its purveyors billions of dollars. Our streets are full of crime and drug use. We kill a million unborn children each year through abortion. Our music, language, fine art, and dance have degenerated into perverse imitations of their more beautiful ancestors.

Socially, we are on the brink of coming apart at the seams. The white majority is split along political and economic lines, while large numbers of Blacks and Hispanics are seething at their often-perceived and sometimes-real inequality. Allowing in millions more immigrants over the next several years will only exacerbate this growing divide.

Religiously, America is adrift. In fact, it is far more accurate to say that America is almost entirely secular and humanist, not religious. There is little religious conviction left in most people, and what is left cannot muster the energy to do more than mount a milquetoast protest.

Politically, the country is divided along partisan lines, while a few moderates or centrists swing back and forth to garner votes to ensure reelection. None of the major politicians in America has the intestinal fortitude to do what is right and good for the country because such solutions are difficult and may not produce visible results before the next election. Even when no-brainer legislation comes across their desks, they fail to act in the country's best interests (for example, yesterday's downing of legislation in the House to allow offshore drilling in order to become more energy-independent; Congressmen whined that it would scare away tourist dollars).

Militarily, America’s armed forces are too few, stretched thin, and exhausted. They may be doing a fine job, but the United States is not prepared to defend itself or its principles on another front. It is not clear how well-supplied our forces are with materiel, but the fact that up-armored vehicles and Kevlar vests are not ubiquitous among our frontline troops is troubling. Besides this, the latest sniping at the Commander-in-Chief by several retired general officers suggests a deep morale problem among its leadership.

Economically, we live in Bubble Land. We have enjoyed a sustained, positive economic wave for many years, and each year that it continues bodes darkly that the crash, when it comes, will be jarring. Debt, personal and public, is piling up as never before. The government runs continual deficits. The housing market is due for a downturn (though the Federal Reserve Chairman promises it will be a "soft landing"). Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements are not going to be solvent much longer. Finally, we have lost much of our manufacturing base, which in the past has helped us through the hard times.

Sadly, few, if any, of these problems are being addressed, much less solved. Everyone moans that his hands are tied, which may be code for, "I'm not going to be the one who has to take the fall for this!" Many people are sniping and sneering at the other side, criticizing them for doing nothing and having no ideas, while doing nothing themselves. There are no leaders on the scene or on the horizon.

Perhaps I am just being overly pessimistic. I hope I am. Yet, I keep repeating in my mind the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that [H]is justice cannot sleep forever."

The West's Religion Problem

Church of the Great God is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and as such, it is considered to be located in America's Bible Belt. Polls like those conducted by George Barna show repeatedly that the most religious Americans live in the South, and we have the churches on just about every corner to prove it. Many of our roads are named something like "Salem Church Road" and "Ebenezer Church Road." Some of our towns boast names like "St. Matthews," "Smyrna," "Chapel Hill," "Corinth," and "Trinity." South Carolina still has blue laws that restrict buying and selling on Sundays to certain items and times. And don't even think about buying an "adult beverage" on Sundays in certain locales!

On a broader level, the United States is considered by the rest of the world to be a religious nation. Church attendance across America dwarfs that in other Western, industrialized nations. Most of our citizens consider the U.S. to be a "Christian nation," and point out as evidence our founding documents, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Congressional chaplains, the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court, and many other biblical or religious inscriptions, ceremonies, and traditions. Even the current administration's foreign policy is thought by many to be Fundamentalist Christian!

Even more broadly, religion played a key role in the development of Western civilization. Along with Classical Greek and Roman ideas, Judeo-Christian values and the unifying presence of the Catholic Church (and later the Protestant churches) molded the West's cultures, philosophies, sciences, governments, and traditions into the dominant force on earth. Like a religion itself, Western thought and culture has been exported worldwide by colonizing and trading nations, absorbing or at least changing its rivals in many perhaps irreversible ways.

Nevertheless, the West presently has a deep problem with religion. Some might describe it as a love-hate relationship, in that the powers that be—as well as the sheep that follow them—admire religion for its ability to unite, inspire, and motivate, but despise it for its perennial tendency to demand morality, equity, and accountability. In other words, as secular as the West has become, it sees religion as useful, but on its own terms. Because of this, in the present climate, religion as a force for encouraging moral conduct is practically powerless.

In his May 11, 2005, editorial titled "America's Basic Problem Is a Pastor Problem," Dr. Chuck Baldwin, pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, makes a similar point. Holding up biblical heroes of faith as well as intrepid churchmen of history as examples, he complains that most church pastors in the U.S. are more interested in position and pay than in boldly proclaiming the truth of God. He is convinced that, if America is to turn from its present humanistic hedonism, godly leadership will have to return to its pulpits. Such a proposition is hard to disagree with.

There are many signs that churches in America and Western Europe are in a sad state of repair. The Catholic Church in America has the reputation of being a bastion of rebellion and liberal theology. For instance, American Catholic women are more likely to get an abortion than the national average, despite the fact that the Catholic Church itself is staunchly pro-life. American Catholics' visible angst over the election of conservative Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI only underlines its wayward inclination.

Mainline Protestant churches are little better, if not worse. For example, the Anglican/Episcopal churches in both Britain and America are in steep decline in terms of attendance and new converts. They are leading proponents of many liberal issues, acceptance of homosexuality being the most noteworthy. Their most outspoken theologians say and write the most controversial things, questioning the deity of Christ, the resurrection, Jesus' miracles, and the general authority of Scripture at just about every turn. In fact, what is truly Christian about them is disintegrating at an astounding rate!

Astoundingly, many Fundamentalist churches are little better. While they generally acknowledge the veracity and authority of the Bible—and for the most part preach traditional Christian doctrines—a growing majority of them are more interested in becoming mega-churches rather than forces for positive societal change. A quick look at a list of "pastoral helps" and "church growth" literature provides dozens of reasons for understanding that today's churches are businesses that must grow or die. Too many pastors study business models for ideas about church growth rather than biblical models for ideas about Christian growth.

The problem, then, is not that religion is absent from modern life but that it is feeble, emasculated, and distracted. There are plenty of churches, but they have little impact on their congregants. By compromising with God's Word, they have abdicated their position as the moral conscience of society. Even if they desired to "Cry aloud, [and] spare not" (Isaiah 58:1), who would listen? How much credibility do they have left after allowing decades of self-indulgence to transpire with hardly a challenge? The Bible tells us, "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well" (Proverbs 25:26).

A primary but long-term solution to the West's religion problem is righteousness in its ministers, who stand up to ungodliness and who preach righteousness to their congregations. As Paul urges Timothy: "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. . . . But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (II Timothy 4:2, 5). It does not need to be a mass-movement, backed by millions of dollars or accompanied by a slick marketing campaign. All it takes is a growing number of ministers who quietly and consistently uphold God's standards of righteousness within their congregations. God will supply the rest.

"Then [Jesus] said to His disciples, 'The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest'" (Matthew 9:37-38).

Politics and Idolatry

According to both American political parties, we have just endured "the most important" campaign and election in our nation's history, certainly in our lifetimes. This was the election that would "define American politics for the next generation." Campaign 2004 was the big one for all the marbles. To hear it from the media, it was as important as the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the crumbling of the Soviet Union, and the discovery of a cure for cancer combined.

All of it was hyperbole, pure and simple.

There are several reasons why this political season was billed in such an exaggerated way. With a preponderance of the media rooting for John Kerry, it was a way to galvanize a certain segment of the population—Democrats and the anti-Bush crowd—to take action and flood the polls with supporters. The media, always in contention for better ratings, also played a game of one-upmanship amongst themselves, elevating the rhetoric as much as the candidates themselves did and maybe more. In addition, many partisans on both sides truly believed that 2004 was a make-or-break election for America, warning that the slide into oblivion would commence if the other side's candidate were victorious.

The biggest reason, however, springs from the attitudes and approach of these true believers: They are not just "into" politics—it is their religion. They worship at the altar of government, sacrificing their time, money, and effort to honor the god of politics, the party, and the state. Each side has its particular pantheon of demigods (Founding Fathers), saints (past presidents), and luminaries (party bigwigs) to point to for past glories and party principles. Each uses its own set of scriptures from which it pulls decisive quotations and zinging bon mots, as well as derisive condemnations of their enemies and their irrational ideas. Each party clothes itself with its own peculiar kind of zeal (patriotism), righteousness (laws, regulations), and good deeds (pork, entitlements), which they are not ashamed to flaunt before the masses as proof of their devotion. They even take tithes from the people to fund their righteous work!

Napoleon mockingly called Britain "a nation of shopkeepers." He likely thought of America as a nation of rubes and castoffs. If he were alive today, he would have to call it a nation of political partisans. We are either Reds or Blues, living in Red or Blue states. Americans watch political news avidly every day, as it fills most of the network news programs. This year a record number of voters turned out to cast their ballots, about 116 million people. Many of these stuck signs in their yards, stickers on their automobiles, or buttons in their lapels announcing their choices for president, governor, senator, representative, councilperson, or dogcatcher.

A good number of these same people made out checks to individual candidate's election committees or to local, state, and national party committees to get their candidates into the public eye via media advertisements, direct mail, and public appearances. Some of them volunteered their valuable time to stuff envelopes, distribute signs and stickers, and organize rallies. Many of the high rollers among them paid thousands of dollars for a plate of institutional food (rubbery chicken or too-well-done steak) and a few minutes of face-time with their political idol.

Hyperbole again, right? Don't be too sure.

What is religion anyway? The dictionary defines it in its general sense as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." One's religion is what one believes and devotes oneself to following. It is what a person spends his time, efforts, and resources pursuing. It is his way of life. Understanding a person's way of life will point directly to that person's god. For a good many Americans who spent the past year or nine months devoted to the election or defeat of a particular political candidate, their god is politics.

The last time I checked, this broke the first commandment (Exodus 20:2-3). For those who think that the Ten Commandments are passé and Old Covenant, check out Jesus' own words in Matthew 22:37-38: "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment." And we call ourselves a Christian nation. . . .

We Persuade Men

The apostle Paul writes in II Corinthians 5:9-11:

Therefore we make it our aim . . . to be well pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men. . . .

When God summoned us to His way of life, He persuaded us with various proofs that He exists, desires a relationship with us, and rules not just the universe but also the affairs of men. As often happens during our first love (Revelation 2:4-5), we desire to share our joy and newfound truth with others. Most of the time, our early evangelistic efforts fail to produce any new converts to the faith—instead, our efforts usually cause problems in our relationships.

Most lay-members, after one or two failures of this sort, get smart and desist in trying to convert their relatives and friends. They realize that nothing will ever happen without God first calling the other individual and changing his heart by His Spirit to accept the truth (John 6:44; Romans 2:4-5; 8:7; I Corinthians 2:10-14; Hebrews 8:10; Ezekiel 11:19). All our preaching and cajoling will accomplish nothing unless God moves to initiate a personal relationship with him.

Ministers do not have such an easy out. Certainly, in their personal relationships they can quit trying to "save" those unconverted members of their families, but in their professional capacity, their job is to "persuade men." In personal conduct, counsel, sermons, and articles, they must devote their energies to showing and explaining why God's way is true and will lead to eternal life in God's Kingdom.

Today, that is not an easy task. It has never been easy, really, but the current environment makes it harder than it has been historically. For starters, though a high percentage of people say they believe in God, most people are no longer religious but secular. Religion is not a high-ranking concern, and because of this, religious issues fly under their radar and over their heads. They just do not care, and even when they inquire about them, they do not understand them because they lack the background and education necessary to evaluate them properly.

Another problem is competition. It used to be that most people at least treated Sunday, "the Lord's day," as a Sabbath and devoted most or all of that time to religious pursuits. No longer. Sunday, though it is not God's Sabbath day, is used just like any other day: for work and entertainment. If God receives a few hours on Sunday morning for worship services, most Americans—and Europeans to an even greater degree—think He should feel satisfied that they could spare Him even that much!

Yet a third hindrance is the way moderns think. Too many people, especially younger adults, have absorbed the postmodern, values-neutral approach. This way of thinking considers every idea and belief as equally valid, neither right nor wrong. A person can believe anything he likes—even that the moon is made of green cheese—and he should not be judged as right or wrong. Any god one worships, or for that matter, if one chooses to worship no god, is fine, and no one god or belief system is better than any other.

In such an environment, how can we persuade anyone of the truth? Our success certainly looks bleak.

The answer lies in what Paul writes in II Corinthians 5:9: "We make it our aim . . . to be well pleasing to Him." Our judgment does not rest on how many men we persuade but on whether we do the job. We are called to make the witness for God and Christ to the best of our ability and strength. Christ will judge us "according to what [we have] done, whether good or bad." How others react to us and what we say or write matters little; it is "God who gives the increase" (I Corinthians 3:5-8). As Paul says, one plants and another waters, but what happens to the sprout is not under their control but God's.

Thus, we cannot quantify the results of our persuasion as others can. We cannot see the growth of our "business" in statistical form. The true measure of our success will be revealed in God's Kingdom, and even then, we will be unable to claim the glory for it. For in persuading men, we "do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31).