If there is one single area that the religious right deserves criticism, it is for forming too tight of an alliance with the Republican Party. This staggering fact came to prominence after the 2004 Presidential Election, when exit polls showed that evangelicals voted for George W. Bush at a rate of three to one (surpassed only by the African American community’s nine to one turnout for the Democratic Party candidate John Kerry). But to a deeper extent, the concern comes not from the way evangelicals vote, but the mindset many seem to have. It has come to the point that a majority of the evangelical Church could be said to believe that voting Republican is the “Christian thing to do.”
Before we come across too harsh on the religious right, it is important to note that, for the most part, the evangelical-Republican alliance was birthed through the significance of one of the most singularly important issues of our day: abortion. The GOP’s tendency to be more pro-life than their opposition has forged a bond with evangelicals that has been central too much of the Church’s civic participation. The problem, however, arises when Christians start to see the whole of the party’s platform to be ordained by God, instead of just that one plank. A blind adherence to questionable facets of the Republican Party’s positions has raised the ire of many on the evangelical left and center.
In February of 2005 Christianity Today responded to close ties of many evangelicals to the Republican Party by stating, “George W. Bush is not Lord…The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. ‘God Bless America’ is not the Doxology. Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it’s less and less obvious.” CT rightly called evangelicals to remember that the Faith is not inextricably tied conservatism. While this is something that all Believers should be able to affirm, it is indeed helpful to be reminded of it when we stray dangerously close to the edge of allegiance to a party instead of our Savior.
Also after the 2004 election Jim Wallis’ organization Sojourners popularized the phrase, “God is not a Republican…Or a Democrat.” Once again, this is something that all Believers should be able to affirm, the question, however, is if Wallis himself believes that. Even a cursory reading of anything Wallis has written concerning President-elect Obama shows his undaunting bias towards the future Democrat president. For the past eight years Wallis has been relentless in his condemnation of evangelicals’ blind support for Bush, however, now that his man is headed to the White House he has suddenly taken a different tone. The most recent cover of Sojourners magazine shows Mr. Obama with his head bowed in prayer, an image that Wallis would have lambasted the right for using if Mr. Bush was shown in a similar position. All in all, we are left to wonder if those on the evangelical left, like Jim Wallis, actually believe that God is not a Democrat.
We all have biases. We are all a product of our background and experiences. Because of our biases and backgrounds many of us will have a natural tendency to incline towards one political party or another. The task of the Believer is to work towards a dependence on God for our political ideology, not a reliance on our political ideology for our understanding of God. Those on the Christian right need to remember that God is not a Republican, but at the same time, is it just as important that those on the Christian left acknowledge the fact that neither is God a Democrat: God is God.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
NAE Vice-President Resigns
The National Association of Evangelicals is once again in the news for the resignation of one of its leaders. This time it was the Rev. Richard Cizik, who formerly served as the Vice President of Governmental Affairs, the head of their Washington office, and, for all practical purposes, the second in command at the NAE. The reason that is most often cited for the abrupt end to his 28 year tenure with the NAE is the comments he made on an interview with NPR concerning his shifting opinions on civil unions for homosexuals. In reality, however, tension over Rev. Cizik’s work at the NAE has been building for quite some time, mostly as a result of his efforts on global warming.
In recent years Cizik has come to national prominence due to his advocating for what he deems “Creation Care.” Cizik has been at the forefront of an evangelical movement to fight against global warming, which led Time Magazine to recognize him as one of the 100 Most Influential People of 2008. But his efforts were not appreciated by everyone in the evangelical community. In March of 2007 a group of leaders on the religious right (including James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and many others) wrote an open letter to the NAE, requesting that the board somehow keep Cizik from advocating for the environment and taking focus off the issues of “the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.” (Read the letter) The board of directors for the NAE promptly ignored the letter’s suggestion that Cizik be encouraged to resign, and instead showed a great deal of support for his role in the NAE. Nevertheless, Rev. Cizik’s continual focus on the environment, and his obvious liberal tendencies, did not sit well with many of the NAE’s constituents. His most recent comments seem to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, and the NAE is now without a leader in their D.C. office.
The question is now percolating, and rightly so, as to who the board of directors will anoint as Cizik’s replacement. On December 16th, another letter was sent to the NAE, not by the conservative heavyweights of the previous letter, but by a group of influential evangelical centrists. (Read the letter) They encouraged Leith Anderson, the President of the NAE, to ensure Cizik’s replacement continues the “vision of a broad moral agenda,” presumably in line with the NAE’s groundbreaking document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility", which set the NAE’s policy agenda to include both historically conservative and liberal issues.
At a deeper level, the resignation of Rev. Cizik is not about a few controversial statements, rather, it is indicative of the giant struggle going on within evangelicalism as a whole. This bit of contention comes while leftists such as Jim Wallis are gleefully proclaiming the death of the religious right, and conservatives such as Tony Perkins and James Dobson are trying to maintain their control over the vast majority of evangelicals, and while centrists such as David Gushee fight to be heard. Cizik, while clearly leaning to the left, could have been placed in the centrist camp, someone who is still pro-life, but is willing to consider other issues as part of a holistically biblical approach to politics. His forced resignation can be seen in one of two ways, it is either a result of the strangle hold the religious right has on evangelicalism, or it is merely the growing pains of a new evangelical camp, the centrists, as they try to find an adequate balance between left and right in this intense political climate.
As the NAE moves on from the Cizik era, we hope that they will take the advice of those who believe they should hire someone who fully embraces the concept of this holistically biblical approach to politics. Pragmatically it might be more effective to find someone with proven conservative credentials, but who is passionate about all the issues identified in For the Health of the Nation. A prominent figure such as J.C. Watts or Rick Warren would be great, but more likely they will have to draw from the ranks of lesser known individuals. Whomever they choose, we all pray that the NAE will be able to faithfully represent the whole of biblical truth to a nation that so desperately needs it.
In recent years Cizik has come to national prominence due to his advocating for what he deems “Creation Care.” Cizik has been at the forefront of an evangelical movement to fight against global warming, which led Time Magazine to recognize him as one of the 100 Most Influential People of 2008. But his efforts were not appreciated by everyone in the evangelical community. In March of 2007 a group of leaders on the religious right (including James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and many others) wrote an open letter to the NAE, requesting that the board somehow keep Cizik from advocating for the environment and taking focus off the issues of “the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.” (Read the letter) The board of directors for the NAE promptly ignored the letter’s suggestion that Cizik be encouraged to resign, and instead showed a great deal of support for his role in the NAE. Nevertheless, Rev. Cizik’s continual focus on the environment, and his obvious liberal tendencies, did not sit well with many of the NAE’s constituents. His most recent comments seem to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, and the NAE is now without a leader in their D.C. office.
The question is now percolating, and rightly so, as to who the board of directors will anoint as Cizik’s replacement. On December 16th, another letter was sent to the NAE, not by the conservative heavyweights of the previous letter, but by a group of influential evangelical centrists. (Read the letter) They encouraged Leith Anderson, the President of the NAE, to ensure Cizik’s replacement continues the “vision of a broad moral agenda,” presumably in line with the NAE’s groundbreaking document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility", which set the NAE’s policy agenda to include both historically conservative and liberal issues.
At a deeper level, the resignation of Rev. Cizik is not about a few controversial statements, rather, it is indicative of the giant struggle going on within evangelicalism as a whole. This bit of contention comes while leftists such as Jim Wallis are gleefully proclaiming the death of the religious right, and conservatives such as Tony Perkins and James Dobson are trying to maintain their control over the vast majority of evangelicals, and while centrists such as David Gushee fight to be heard. Cizik, while clearly leaning to the left, could have been placed in the centrist camp, someone who is still pro-life, but is willing to consider other issues as part of a holistically biblical approach to politics. His forced resignation can be seen in one of two ways, it is either a result of the strangle hold the religious right has on evangelicalism, or it is merely the growing pains of a new evangelical camp, the centrists, as they try to find an adequate balance between left and right in this intense political climate.
As the NAE moves on from the Cizik era, we hope that they will take the advice of those who believe they should hire someone who fully embraces the concept of this holistically biblical approach to politics. Pragmatically it might be more effective to find someone with proven conservative credentials, but who is passionate about all the issues identified in For the Health of the Nation. A prominent figure such as J.C. Watts or Rick Warren would be great, but more likely they will have to draw from the ranks of lesser known individuals. Whomever they choose, we all pray that the NAE will be able to faithfully represent the whole of biblical truth to a nation that so desperately needs it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
On Proposition 8
It seems that one of the issues for our society that will perennially cause controversy is homosexual marriage. Every time this front of the “culture war” seems to be taking the backburner, something will ignite the passions of one side or the other and a swarm of energy is put into rallying the troops. Usually, whichever side has lost the most recent battle finds the impetus to get their side motivated. When the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled that homosexual marriage should be legal, the religious right responded by getting a number of states to pass constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This past month, when California approved Proposition 8, also defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the homosexual rights activists have been rapidly trying to mount a counter-offensive. For our purposes, however, the interesting (and perhaps disturbing) facet of this debate is how the Church has responded. The Christian right and left have each been making arguments as to why Proposition 8 is worthy of Christian support, or why Jesus Himself would have opposed it.
Many on the religious left have been taking a stand against these marriage initiatives for a while, arguing that the most important thing for the Church to do is to love homosexuals. They rightly point out the fact that God is love (1 John 4:8), that we are called to love our neighbors (Matthew 19:19), and that neighbors include those who are different than us (Luke 10:25-37). It is indeed a tragedy that many homosexuals view the Church as being full of hate. The Christian left rightly calls us to temper our speech, and to let love reign in all that we do.
Unfortunately, the left has not met their call to love with an equally vigorous adherence to the whole of Scriptural truth. Many have tried to say that the Bible actually supports the idea of homosexual marriage. In a recent controversial piece, a Newsweek author has tried to say that the Bible does not actually teach a one man/one woman view of marriage (read the article here). This argument is nothing new. Many have argued that “Jesus never condemns homosexuality,” “the Old Testament is the only place that talks about homosexuality,” and that “the New Testament only attacks homosexual prostitution, not monogamous relationships.”
Without getting into the complex topic of Covenant Theology (how the Old Testament applies today), let us deal with these other two arguments: Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, and the New Testament doesn’t condemn monogamous homosexual relationships. When dealing with Jesus’ lack of discussion on homosexuality, it should be noted that scholars generally recognize arguments from silence to be weak (see D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies). This weakness becomes even more pronounced when one realizes that Jewish culture saw homosexuality as a result of idolatry, thereby making it a “gentile” sin (see Elodie Ballantine Emig, Exegesis of Romans 1 on Homosexuality). Since Christ’s ministry was primarily to the Jews (Matthew 15:24) it makes sense that He would not spend time on a topic that His audience would have already agreed with. Secondly, proponents of the idea that the New Testament doesn’t condemn monogamous homosexual relationships usually cite 1 Corinthians as their case study. But if we are going to be faithful to the Apostle Paul’s take on this subject, we must consult the whole of his writing. Romans 1 makes it very clear that homosexuality is a retreat from the natural created order, this could very reasonably be taken to include monogamous relationships. (Note: there are many other arguments concerning the Bible and homosexuality, none of which when interpreted properly would indicate anything less than the Bible’s complete condemnation of homosexual intercourse)
Now, let us briefly examine the religious right’s role in Proposition 8. At the heart of their motivation is a desire for holiness. They rightly point to God’s holiness and His call for us to emulate Him (1 Peter 1:16). However, I believe they go astray when they try to place this requirement for holiness on the world instead of the Church. The Bible’s commands for holy living should not be placed upon the backs of those who don’t even claim to follow Christ (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). Perhaps as a whole, the Church needs to reconsider our foundation for fighting against homosexual marriage. It may very well be that if we are truly guided by the Bible we will not see this topic as a hill worthy to die on.
Ultimately, this recent swarm of controversy should encourage the Body of Christ to rethink our approach to this heated issue. The many hot headed responses that have been circulating since the election demonstrate that, as a Body, we are not always guided by love. Personally, I find the whole language of “the culture war” to be something that is antithetical to the Gospel. Likewise, people on both sides of this issue need to be first and foremost guided by Holy Scripture and the proper interpretation thereof. We cannot allow our personal political biases to influence our reading of God’s Holy Word, thereby damaging the Gospel that we are supposed to live out in all we do.
Many on the religious left have been taking a stand against these marriage initiatives for a while, arguing that the most important thing for the Church to do is to love homosexuals. They rightly point out the fact that God is love (1 John 4:8), that we are called to love our neighbors (Matthew 19:19), and that neighbors include those who are different than us (Luke 10:25-37). It is indeed a tragedy that many homosexuals view the Church as being full of hate. The Christian left rightly calls us to temper our speech, and to let love reign in all that we do.
Unfortunately, the left has not met their call to love with an equally vigorous adherence to the whole of Scriptural truth. Many have tried to say that the Bible actually supports the idea of homosexual marriage. In a recent controversial piece, a Newsweek author has tried to say that the Bible does not actually teach a one man/one woman view of marriage (read the article here). This argument is nothing new. Many have argued that “Jesus never condemns homosexuality,” “the Old Testament is the only place that talks about homosexuality,” and that “the New Testament only attacks homosexual prostitution, not monogamous relationships.”
Without getting into the complex topic of Covenant Theology (how the Old Testament applies today), let us deal with these other two arguments: Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, and the New Testament doesn’t condemn monogamous homosexual relationships. When dealing with Jesus’ lack of discussion on homosexuality, it should be noted that scholars generally recognize arguments from silence to be weak (see D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies). This weakness becomes even more pronounced when one realizes that Jewish culture saw homosexuality as a result of idolatry, thereby making it a “gentile” sin (see Elodie Ballantine Emig, Exegesis of Romans 1 on Homosexuality). Since Christ’s ministry was primarily to the Jews (Matthew 15:24) it makes sense that He would not spend time on a topic that His audience would have already agreed with. Secondly, proponents of the idea that the New Testament doesn’t condemn monogamous homosexual relationships usually cite 1 Corinthians as their case study. But if we are going to be faithful to the Apostle Paul’s take on this subject, we must consult the whole of his writing. Romans 1 makes it very clear that homosexuality is a retreat from the natural created order, this could very reasonably be taken to include monogamous relationships. (Note: there are many other arguments concerning the Bible and homosexuality, none of which when interpreted properly would indicate anything less than the Bible’s complete condemnation of homosexual intercourse)
Now, let us briefly examine the religious right’s role in Proposition 8. At the heart of their motivation is a desire for holiness. They rightly point to God’s holiness and His call for us to emulate Him (1 Peter 1:16). However, I believe they go astray when they try to place this requirement for holiness on the world instead of the Church. The Bible’s commands for holy living should not be placed upon the backs of those who don’t even claim to follow Christ (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). Perhaps as a whole, the Church needs to reconsider our foundation for fighting against homosexual marriage. It may very well be that if we are truly guided by the Bible we will not see this topic as a hill worthy to die on.
Ultimately, this recent swarm of controversy should encourage the Body of Christ to rethink our approach to this heated issue. The many hot headed responses that have been circulating since the election demonstrate that, as a Body, we are not always guided by love. Personally, I find the whole language of “the culture war” to be something that is antithetical to the Gospel. Likewise, people on both sides of this issue need to be first and foremost guided by Holy Scripture and the proper interpretation thereof. We cannot allow our personal political biases to influence our reading of God’s Holy Word, thereby damaging the Gospel that we are supposed to live out in all we do.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
The Necessity of Faithful Politics
To say that we live in a time of intense partisanship would be a definite understatement. The truth is that, despite a constant barrage of calls for unity from our political and religious leaders, we are currently slipping into an ever more partisan environment. The ironic part is that most of the individuals calling for unity (whether they are elected officials or politico-religious leaders) are actually leading the charge for partisanship as a means to hold onto their individual power. Unity is an idea that we all like, but the power that we would have to cede in order to achieve it is an opportunity cost that no one is willing to pay.
There should be an important difference, though, between the secular political environment, and that where Christians are involved, especially when Believers are interacting with fellow Christians. Jesus’ prayer for unity the night He was betrayed should be enough impetus for us all to work towards unity. But instead we fall into the cultural trap of partisanship and power brokering. It is true that for most individuals the core of their partisanship is rooted in convictions that are honorable and should not be compromised. The problem with Christians, however, is that we mix these core convictions with other political ideologically driven garbage that we should never be associated with.
On one side of the Christo-political spectrum is the Religious Right. Strongly aligned with the Republican party, these conservatives rightly emphasize the importance of life and traditional family values. On the other side, the Christian Left is just as entrenched with the Democratic party, and rightly emphasizes the importance of justice. Both of these core convictions are worthy of Christian engagement, but the problem is that both sides have sold out to the party that they are naturally inclined toward, and by so doing, adopt a partisan framework that, in many cases, is directly contradictory to what Scripture teaches.
What, you might ask, is the solution then? In a perfect world: a third party. In our current climate: a working knowledge of our biases and a commitment to think biblically and act faithfully with our politics. Ideally, this will lead us to a place where we are no longer slaves to a particular party or our political ideology, but rather we are upholding our call as Christians to be salt and light and spread the Gospel. A failure in this regard will leave us, well, right where we currently find ourselves. Driven by our political backgrounds, fighting those across the aisle in politics and in church, and failing to show the love and unity that Christ requires of us.
There should be an important difference, though, between the secular political environment, and that where Christians are involved, especially when Believers are interacting with fellow Christians. Jesus’ prayer for unity the night He was betrayed should be enough impetus for us all to work towards unity. But instead we fall into the cultural trap of partisanship and power brokering. It is true that for most individuals the core of their partisanship is rooted in convictions that are honorable and should not be compromised. The problem with Christians, however, is that we mix these core convictions with other political ideologically driven garbage that we should never be associated with.
On one side of the Christo-political spectrum is the Religious Right. Strongly aligned with the Republican party, these conservatives rightly emphasize the importance of life and traditional family values. On the other side, the Christian Left is just as entrenched with the Democratic party, and rightly emphasizes the importance of justice. Both of these core convictions are worthy of Christian engagement, but the problem is that both sides have sold out to the party that they are naturally inclined toward, and by so doing, adopt a partisan framework that, in many cases, is directly contradictory to what Scripture teaches.
What, you might ask, is the solution then? In a perfect world: a third party. In our current climate: a working knowledge of our biases and a commitment to think biblically and act faithfully with our politics. Ideally, this will lead us to a place where we are no longer slaves to a particular party or our political ideology, but rather we are upholding our call as Christians to be salt and light and spread the Gospel. A failure in this regard will leave us, well, right where we currently find ourselves. Driven by our political backgrounds, fighting those across the aisle in politics and in church, and failing to show the love and unity that Christ requires of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
