We all have our ideological biases, and no matter how much we like to think that God shares our worldview, the truth is that, all too often, instead of our Savior, our surrounding environment shapes our ideas. The task for the Believer, throughout his or her life, is to systematically jettison any and all facets of our worldview that do not conform to scripture, and replace them with a biblically sound outlook on life. But how is one supposed to do this? Ultimately we will always be shaped by our environment, so how are we to perform the amputation of our environment from our worldview? I believe a starting point (and it should certainly be emphasized that this is merely a starting point) is to recognize the inherent pitfalls of our particular ideological leanings. While Liberalism and Conservatism each offer very contrasting worldviews, they both provide the Believer with certain assets and liabilities.
One of the main things that Liberalism has going for it is its ability to dream. Often criticized for being too utopian in their worldview, Liberals can posses the ability to look at a situation and envision the potential of what lies within. Ultimately the benefit of this outlook is that it encourages its adherents to strive for perfection; never satisfied with the status quo, they attempt to better their surroundings by pushing their vision of a utopian society. The shortcomings of this are also readily apparent. Their dreams can often be so picturesque that they lack any grounding in reality whatsoever, and by striving for perfection, the perfect ultimately becomes the enemy of the good. Christians who find themselves drawn towards this worldview must remember that the utopia they seek will ultimately only be found in the culmination of Christ’s Kingdom, not in our present reality. By confusing the perfection of Heaven with the depravity of earth, they strive for a world that will not exist under present circumstances.
Conservatives pose a completely different set of pros and cons. If Liberalism leans towards how things should be, Conservatives are firmly grounded in the way things are. Often criticized for being too utilitarian, Conservatives have a good grasp of how the free market works, how human nature works, and how a government should balance those two realities. The benefit of this worldview is that it is realistic. By not dreaming of a utopia, they are able to make the current system work for the overall good of society. The pitfalls of this are equally obvious. By accepting our current reality, they can become complacent towards bettering society. Also, by focusing on what works, they can neglect those for whom the system doesn’t work. While the current structure obviously creates wealth (despite periodic downturns), it can also be unjust. Christians who inherently align themselves with Conservatism must remember that just because something is the way it is, doesn’t mean it should be. God’s economy is not man’s, and while being practical is, well, practical, it can lead to a blind acceptance of the inherent injustice that God despises.
In short, it could be argued that Liberalism tends to be utopian, which leads to it being unrealistic, while Conservatism can be utilitarian, which can lead to it being unjust. Neither one offers the Believer with a complete understanding of our situation or responsibilities. Clearly this is not an exhaustive list of the strengths or weakness of our nation’s two main political philosophies, but it is a starting point. From here it is up to us to ask God to show us the places in which our default worldview keeps us from seeing the whole of biblical truth. In so doing we will not only better love our neighbor, but we will better serve our Creator as well.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
How to Handle a President
In the days and weeks following the inauguration of President Barack Obama, there was a swarm of news stories, editorials, and commentary on the historic nature of the event. As Americans we can all celebrate the fact that we have made this historic stride in electing our first African-American president. Several weeks have passed since this momentous day, and some semblance of normalcy is settling in. Washington has rolled up their collective sleeves and gone back to work. Yet, despite the constant call for a change in approach with the dawn of this new day, things already appear to be slipping back into their old routine. Bickering, animosity and bitter discourse have dominated the political scene both from our elected leaders and our fellow countrymen. What is worse, even some of our fellow Christians have been contributing to this chaotic scene. So, as we make our way through another presidency, another congress, and another few years, let us lay some ground rules as to how a Christian who desires to be faithful with his or her politics can engage in this tumultuous political climate.
First, a few words to those who voted against our current president: while this should go without saying, it seems from time to time we need to be reminded to respect the elected officials that God has given us. The hatred that was directed towards President Bush can be taken as a prime example of what not to do. No matter how much one disagrees with the policies of a of leader, we are commanded by God to pray for him or her, and to respect him or her. If we do disagree with a policy stance, let us disagree in such a manner as to not depredate the Body of Christ, as one man in the recent March for Life in Washington D.C. did by carrying a sign that said, “Impeach Adolf Obama.”
Now, a few words to those who voted for our current president: we must not fall into the same trap that we so easily criticized the right for during the Bush Administration. No matter how much we may like President Obama, he is not the messiah, nor is he always going to do implement policy that we should support. When he does advocate a policy that contradicts Scripture, let us have the integrity to stand up to him, instead of finding a way to justify every position he takes. Just as the Religious Right succumbed to blindly following President Bush, so too the left is just as vulnerable to being a group of mindless supporters of President Obama.
Politics will always be a messy game. But as followers of Christ we must strive to stay above the mire that so easily entangles all who approach the realm of public policy. As we engage the sphere of political action these next few years, let us do so in a manner that first and foremost brings glory, not shame, to our Savior.
First, a few words to those who voted against our current president: while this should go without saying, it seems from time to time we need to be reminded to respect the elected officials that God has given us. The hatred that was directed towards President Bush can be taken as a prime example of what not to do. No matter how much one disagrees with the policies of a of leader, we are commanded by God to pray for him or her, and to respect him or her. If we do disagree with a policy stance, let us disagree in such a manner as to not depredate the Body of Christ, as one man in the recent March for Life in Washington D.C. did by carrying a sign that said, “Impeach Adolf Obama.”
Now, a few words to those who voted for our current president: we must not fall into the same trap that we so easily criticized the right for during the Bush Administration. No matter how much we may like President Obama, he is not the messiah, nor is he always going to do implement policy that we should support. When he does advocate a policy that contradicts Scripture, let us have the integrity to stand up to him, instead of finding a way to justify every position he takes. Just as the Religious Right succumbed to blindly following President Bush, so too the left is just as vulnerable to being a group of mindless supporters of President Obama.
Politics will always be a messy game. But as followers of Christ we must strive to stay above the mire that so easily entangles all who approach the realm of public policy. As we engage the sphere of political action these next few years, let us do so in a manner that first and foremost brings glory, not shame, to our Savior.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Ballot, the Bullet, or Option #3
Malcom X gave a speech called "The Ballot or the Bullet" in which he said that you can use the ballot to change things and if that fails then you have no choice but to fall back on the bullet. It seems as though Christians have accepted these two options as well. The only way to change the world is through either politics or force. We are able to change laws through the voting process or through democracy in other lands, or we have to use force to overcome dictators and unjust governments around the world. These two options are accepted mainly because they are preached to us from every radio and television and newspaper and is accepted as fact. While Christians occasionally offer lip service to the power of God to change situations they often fall back on the two accepted change agents being either force or politics. If you were to ask a Christian how to deal with a unjust government or mass killings going on in other countries the most common answers will involve the ways to get the government involved through protesting, sending letters, getting the government to send in its military or peacekeeping troops to applying international pressure. Rarely is the answer to send in the Church as ambassadors of Christ.
I remember in the lead up to the war in Iraq, reading a newspaper article that pushed the idea what if instead of sending 800 missiles to Iraq in the first two days (the Shock and Awe phase) we sent 800 missionaries. I remember reading the article, laughing at its absurdity, and then returning to my original opinion that "real" force was necessary. Something about this article has always stuck with me. Do I really think so little of God and the Christian message that I think its power is absurd? Am I so brain washed by the idea that physical force is the only way to change things that I dismiss the power of the God that created the Universe? We need to return from boasting in the power of chariots, horses, jets, and missiles to boasting in the name of the Lord.
There is without a doubt a place for the government in these large world affairs but there is also a place for the Church. While sending Christians into war zones may be very dangerous, the Christian life never claimed to be safe.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Failure of Excommunication
This past week HBO aired Alexandra Pelosi’s latest documentary, The Trials of Ted Haggard. As this saga is once again brought to the public eye, Believers are forced to find a way to reconcile the actions of Haggard and his church with the principles that we espouse. No where, that I have seen, has someone been able to articulate as well thought out response as Mark Galli has done in his article Holy Laughter for Christianity Today (I highly recommend this piece; not only because it is thought-provoking and well-reasoned, but because he accurately describes what it is about this story that we all should recognize: the fact that we are all fallen creatures).
The tragedy of Ted Haggard does not revolve around his inability to practice what he preached, nor does it center on his sexual sin. Rather, the deepest heartbreak in this incident is the fact that his own church was not able to demonstrate the Gospel to a world that was looking on. Rather than embracing Haggard and showing him the grace that we all have found in Christ, he and his family were shipped out of town and told never to return.
His church’s response is absurd, yet, at the same time it is to be expected. We should not be shocked that they would want to sweep their “problem” under the rug and forget about it as soon as possible, because that is precisely the reaction that we all have with our own sin. Life is messy, and when one’s biggest failures are made known its messiness is all the more evident. We need to learn to embrace the work that Christ does through our mess, and in so doing, give the world a clearer glimpse of God’s attributes amidst our fallenness. We should all pray for Ted Haggard and his family, but let us also pray for the Body as a whole. That through this incident we will all learn how to better address the sin in us as individuals, and as a corporate body.
The tragedy of Ted Haggard does not revolve around his inability to practice what he preached, nor does it center on his sexual sin. Rather, the deepest heartbreak in this incident is the fact that his own church was not able to demonstrate the Gospel to a world that was looking on. Rather than embracing Haggard and showing him the grace that we all have found in Christ, he and his family were shipped out of town and told never to return.
His church’s response is absurd, yet, at the same time it is to be expected. We should not be shocked that they would want to sweep their “problem” under the rug and forget about it as soon as possible, because that is precisely the reaction that we all have with our own sin. Life is messy, and when one’s biggest failures are made known its messiness is all the more evident. We need to learn to embrace the work that Christ does through our mess, and in so doing, give the world a clearer glimpse of God’s attributes amidst our fallenness. We should all pray for Ted Haggard and his family, but let us also pray for the Body as a whole. That through this incident we will all learn how to better address the sin in us as individuals, and as a corporate body.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Searching for the Center
The recent forced resignation of Rich Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals has revealed a number of tensions within the Evangelical community. In addition to the internal struggles within the NAE as to what their particular future holds, there is also the battle for the future of Evangelicalism as a whole. On one side of the proverbial aisle, Jim Wallis and other leftists are gleefully declaring the death of the religious right. At the same time, the powerhouses of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are gearing up for a rallying of their conservative base, in an attempt to consolidate their power. While the usual suspects of the religious right and left seek to control the face of Evangelicalism, there is an alternative to the politics of old that is gaining momentum: the Evangelical center.
The Evangelical center is rapidly coming into prominence. Numerous books and articles have been written detailing the importance of finding an alternative to the left/right dichotomy that is so engrained in our culture. Even politicians who have long capitalized from the pitting of one side against the other are now realizing that there are in fact a great number of people who would label themselves centrist or moderate instead of hard right or left. The reasons for this sudden rise in centrist politics, or more specifically, Evangelical centrist politics, are several. First, there is a general consensus that people have been growing tired of business as usual when it comes to the contentious subject matter of politics. This is only increased by the fact that business as usual has been, as of late, a rather bad sort of business. The economy taking a dive has only highlighted voters’ desire for something new. In this past election cycle practically every candidate on the ballot emphasized the need for “change.” Secondly, and more specifically for our purposes, the rise of the Evangelical center is coming after several decades of the Evangelical world being dominated by figures on the right. Deservedly or not, many of these figures have garnered a tainted image, and a lot of Evangelicals wish to distance themselves from some of their fiery rhetoric and blind partisanship. At the same time, most Evangelicals do not like how distant the left is, recognizing that they would merely be trading one party’s ideology and its problems for another.
Because of all these factors there are many people searching for the center in Evangelical politics, but by many accounts, the center is proving to be incredibly hard to find. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all American politics is firmly entrenched in a two-party system. This means that in order for someone to have any manner of influence whatsoever, he or she must find a place in one of the two parties, which of course is not conducive to a centrist approach. This in turn has led to most of the country being raised in either Republican or Democrat homes. When one has grown up identifying with a party and ideology it is very difficult to break from that type of partisan thinking. This means that even when someone does attempt to find the center, they are coming at it from either the left or the right, which causes others who are trying to find the center from the opposite side of the aisle to feel put off by the liberal or conservative tendencies of their fellow centrists. Finally, the center is hard to find because there is no one organization with which centrists can identify. So instead of there being a strong group around which centrists can rally, we are left with a loose nebulous of an idea, rather than the strong parapet of an established leader.
Yet, despite all these obstacles, it cannot be emphasized enough the importance of finding the Evangelical center, for there is so much at stake. The secondary title of David Gushee’s recent book is, The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, and I don’t think there is a better way to put it. As Christians our first and foremost responsibility must always be to share the good news of the Gospel. The success or failure of a political action can only be measured in how closely it represents our God to a fallen world. But with the hyper-partisanship that so many Evangelicals engage in, this witness is badly damaged. Not only can one make a strong biblical argument for a centrist approach to politics, but finding the center will allow us to distance ourselves from the bad implications of the current two-party system, implications which, sadly, all too often we find ourselves defending. Finally, finding the center will allow us to not be beholden to a party’s leader, but to the Head of the Church. The world needs to know where our allegiance truly lies. A biblical approach to politics will go a long way towards correcting our misplaced loyalty.
The Evangelical center is rapidly coming into prominence. Numerous books and articles have been written detailing the importance of finding an alternative to the left/right dichotomy that is so engrained in our culture. Even politicians who have long capitalized from the pitting of one side against the other are now realizing that there are in fact a great number of people who would label themselves centrist or moderate instead of hard right or left. The reasons for this sudden rise in centrist politics, or more specifically, Evangelical centrist politics, are several. First, there is a general consensus that people have been growing tired of business as usual when it comes to the contentious subject matter of politics. This is only increased by the fact that business as usual has been, as of late, a rather bad sort of business. The economy taking a dive has only highlighted voters’ desire for something new. In this past election cycle practically every candidate on the ballot emphasized the need for “change.” Secondly, and more specifically for our purposes, the rise of the Evangelical center is coming after several decades of the Evangelical world being dominated by figures on the right. Deservedly or not, many of these figures have garnered a tainted image, and a lot of Evangelicals wish to distance themselves from some of their fiery rhetoric and blind partisanship. At the same time, most Evangelicals do not like how distant the left is, recognizing that they would merely be trading one party’s ideology and its problems for another.
Because of all these factors there are many people searching for the center in Evangelical politics, but by many accounts, the center is proving to be incredibly hard to find. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all American politics is firmly entrenched in a two-party system. This means that in order for someone to have any manner of influence whatsoever, he or she must find a place in one of the two parties, which of course is not conducive to a centrist approach. This in turn has led to most of the country being raised in either Republican or Democrat homes. When one has grown up identifying with a party and ideology it is very difficult to break from that type of partisan thinking. This means that even when someone does attempt to find the center, they are coming at it from either the left or the right, which causes others who are trying to find the center from the opposite side of the aisle to feel put off by the liberal or conservative tendencies of their fellow centrists. Finally, the center is hard to find because there is no one organization with which centrists can identify. So instead of there being a strong group around which centrists can rally, we are left with a loose nebulous of an idea, rather than the strong parapet of an established leader.
Yet, despite all these obstacles, it cannot be emphasized enough the importance of finding the Evangelical center, for there is so much at stake. The secondary title of David Gushee’s recent book is, The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, and I don’t think there is a better way to put it. As Christians our first and foremost responsibility must always be to share the good news of the Gospel. The success or failure of a political action can only be measured in how closely it represents our God to a fallen world. But with the hyper-partisanship that so many Evangelicals engage in, this witness is badly damaged. Not only can one make a strong biblical argument for a centrist approach to politics, but finding the center will allow us to distance ourselves from the bad implications of the current two-party system, implications which, sadly, all too often we find ourselves defending. Finally, finding the center will allow us to not be beholden to a party’s leader, but to the Head of the Church. The world needs to know where our allegiance truly lies. A biblical approach to politics will go a long way towards correcting our misplaced loyalty.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Devotional Thought: The Beauty of Sacrifice
During this past holiday season I had the occasion to spend some thirty-two hours in the car. I used a great portion of this time to listen to the audio version of my favorite work of fiction: A Tale of Two Cities. In this captivating novel, Charles Dickens describes the tumult that surrounded the French Revolution and how it effected his collection of fictional characters. I see the golden theme of this story to be the power of love, but the part that I am always mesmerized by is the final scene, in which the dull and selfish “jackal” Sydney Carton gives his life to save the noble Charles Darnay. In one of the most moving pieces of literature ever penned, the reader witnesses as Sydney Carton fades into history, but his words live forever on, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”
Now that I know how the story ends, I am always struck by how I long for the tragedy of Carton’s death to be avoided. Every time I see the plot unfold I wish that maybe, just maybe, this time it will come out different. But the beauty of A Tale of Two Cities is found in how it ends. If it were not for this powerful ending scene, it doubtlessly would be just another interesting story. As much as I long for Carton to be able to escape his demise, I know that he must die, for it is in that death that the story truly takes life.
My desire to see Carton’s fate changed reminds me of another tragic death in history. Only this time it is not a wretch such as Carton who is making the sacrifice, but the Spotless Lamb of God. Every time I read through one of the Gospels a strange part of me desperately wants Pilate to change his mind, to see the error of his ways and release Jesus. But this too I know is not what happened. Jesus could not be released, because that is not why He came, and that is precisely the beauty of the Gospel. His sacrificial death paved the way for our redemption; you, me, even Sydney Carton.
I think it is normal to have a part of you wish that the Gospel narrative had turned out another way, because buried within that desire is the recognition that it was us who sent Him there. A Tale of Two Cities ends with the powerful death of Sydney Carton, but thanks be to God that that is not where the Gospels end. The Crucifixion is powerful, but the Resurrection is absolutely glorious. So the next time you read the Gospel account of Christ’s Passion, spend just a moment contemplating why it is we wish the story would take a different turn, but after that moment spend every waking second you have basking in the glory of the way the story actually ends.
Now that I know how the story ends, I am always struck by how I long for the tragedy of Carton’s death to be avoided. Every time I see the plot unfold I wish that maybe, just maybe, this time it will come out different. But the beauty of A Tale of Two Cities is found in how it ends. If it were not for this powerful ending scene, it doubtlessly would be just another interesting story. As much as I long for Carton to be able to escape his demise, I know that he must die, for it is in that death that the story truly takes life.
My desire to see Carton’s fate changed reminds me of another tragic death in history. Only this time it is not a wretch such as Carton who is making the sacrifice, but the Spotless Lamb of God. Every time I read through one of the Gospels a strange part of me desperately wants Pilate to change his mind, to see the error of his ways and release Jesus. But this too I know is not what happened. Jesus could not be released, because that is not why He came, and that is precisely the beauty of the Gospel. His sacrificial death paved the way for our redemption; you, me, even Sydney Carton.
I think it is normal to have a part of you wish that the Gospel narrative had turned out another way, because buried within that desire is the recognition that it was us who sent Him there. A Tale of Two Cities ends with the powerful death of Sydney Carton, but thanks be to God that that is not where the Gospels end. The Crucifixion is powerful, but the Resurrection is absolutely glorious. So the next time you read the Gospel account of Christ’s Passion, spend just a moment contemplating why it is we wish the story would take a different turn, but after that moment spend every waking second you have basking in the glory of the way the story actually ends.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Book Review: The Future of Faith in American Politics, by David P. Gushee
Dr. David Gushee has made an immense contribution to the world of Evangelical politics with the publication of his most recent book, The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. Gushee not only provides an in-depth look at the current Evangelical political spectrum, but he also clearly articulates a vision for an emerging “Evangelical Center,” a moderate approach to politics that more fully embraces the whole of biblical counsel, not merely a partisan outlook on political life.
In the first half of his work, Gushee details the major players, organizations and worldviews that constitute what he sees as a distinct Evangelical Right, Left and Center. On the Right he chronicles the rise of such influential organizations as Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, among others. Gushee agrees with the way in which the Right is able to speak out on abortion and the sanctity of marriage, but faults them for at times having too narrow of an issue base, and at other times for merely adopting the Republican Party platform wholeheartedly.
The Evangelical Left consists mainly of the personalities of Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo and the organizations that they have built around them, but there are many other organizations that embody a liberal approach to politics as well. While the Left, and especially Wallis, tend to view themselves as a mediator between the Secular Left and the Evangelical Right, Gushee rightly points out that most of the ire of those on the Left is directed at the Right. As is to be expected, Gushee praises the Left for being able to widen the agenda of the Evangelical world, especially in the realm of social justice and their reliance on Jesus and His message in the Sermon on the Mount. However, they can fall vulnerable to losing their self-proclaimed prophetic roll when they refuse to speak out on issues that make them feel uncomfortable, most notably homosexuality and abortion.
The thrust of Gushee’s argument comes in his description and advocacy for the Evangelical Center. He notes the many different venues from which the Center is emerging, the more prominent of which would be the National Association of Evangelicals, Christianity Today, activist Ron Sider, and mega-church pastors such as Rick Warren and Joel Hunter. The hallmark of the Center is their ability to hold to the traditional Evangelical stances on the issues of abortion and protecting marriage, but also being able to include a broader scope of concerns that includes poverty, the environment, torture, and racism just to name a few.
Gushee takes a much different approach in the second half of his book, using it to articulate the centrist position on a few key issues, including: torture, the environment, marriage and war. While at times it could be argued that Gushee is approaching the subject with a more leftward leaning stance than centrist, all in all he does a good job of promoting both a biblical argument and innovative solutions. At the very least, Gushee should be respected for attempting to strike the delicate balance that the Center should hold, even if at times he comes across as a little more liberal than centrist.
The Future of Faith in American Politics is an essential read for anyone who wants to understand the current state of Evangelical politics, but more importantly, Gushee does a wonderful job of showing what the future of Evangelical political engagement will be. Even if one does not agree with all the conclusions Gushee comes to, it is important to make the same efforts he does, putting the Word of God at the forefront of our political positions and attempting to break free of the partisan structure that so often captivates our political ideologies.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Do We Really Believe God Is Non-Partisan?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
