Tuesday, April 13, 2010
We've Moved!
We have moved to a new, expanded site. Check out FaithfulPolitics.org and let us know what you think!
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Dignity of Work
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the most recent data puts the unemployment rate for our country at 9.7%. One in ten Americans does not have a job, a truly startling figure, and obvious reason for concern. But our concern should go beyond the self-preservation instinct to worry that we may become one of the unfortunate citizens without work. As a matter of fact, with unemployment that high, many of us already are without a job. As Christians, our unease should touch multiple levels. First of all, and perhaps most obvious, is the reality that poverty and unemployment go hand in hand. The plethora of Scripture verses that call the Believer to care for the poor implies that we must worry about the unemployment rate. Additionally, our Christian duty of compassion should lead us to sympathize with the unemployed, and negative effects unemployment has on family life is certainly a cause for concern.
At a deeper level, however, I want to focus on the spiritual implications of the unemployment rate, specifically with regards to how this issue ties into the robust doctrine of the image of God. The Imago Dei, as theologians refer to it, is perhaps the most central piece of theology for guiding the Believer in his or her interactions with society. The Imago Dei is what tells us we must fight for the unborn, it leads us to battle HIV/AIDS in Africa, prompts us to advocate for human rights, and tells us that unemployment is as destructive to the soul as a myriad of other societal ills. If we don’t fully understand this doctrine it may seem strange that unemployment would make such a list, but the biblical narrative indicates that work, and by inference employment, are central to what it means to be created in the image of God.
In Genesis 2:2-3 we are told three times that God worked, this just a few paragraphs after we read that God had created mankind in His image. The fact that the book of Genesis states that God worked during the six days of creation shows that it is a part of His nature. Additionally, when we are told that mankind is created in the image of God, and then told to work the Garden, we see that work is an extension of the Imago Dei. In its most basic form, the Imago Dei means that we are a further representation of God here on earth, that He created us to be ambassadors. Part of our ambassadorship is participating in the act of creating, which is at its very core work. By working we are engaging in one of the central tenets of what it means to be human.
Before we continue a caveat is in order. Work is an extension of the Imago Dei, but that doesn’t necessarily require it to be work in the employment sense. A stay at home mother or father is certainly working, and that act of work also reflects the image of God. In the same way, a volunteer for a charity is working without being employed. By discussing the unemployment rate, let us not fall into the common trap of believing that “bringing home the bacon” is any more valuable in God’s sight than work that doesn’t receive a paycheck.
So, we have seen that work is important in God’s eyes, and that our Christian duty leads us to be engaged on this issue, but what do we do about it? The most obvious answer when dealing with unemployment is government intervention. There is certainly a place for government jobs—especially public work projects—in lowering the unemployment rate. But an economy cannot be sustained on government jobs. A government employee is a net drain on the tax system, so in order for a stable economy to exist there needs to be multiple private sector workers to support every public sector employee. This implies that the best thing the government can do to lower unemployment is let the private sector create jobs, prompted by government incentives. Many today treat the phrase “tax-cuts” as a curse word, but what better way to incentivize companies to higher more employees? Most of the angst over cutting taxes for corporations comes from the misguided notion that corporations can pay taxes, when the reality is they can’t. Sure, there is a tax levied on corporations, but in order for a company to survive they simply pass that tax on to their consumers. Ironically, when taxes on corporations are raised it is the unemployed who get hit the hardest by the escalating cost of goods. By cutting tax rates and incentivizing companies to higher more employees the government can make huge strides in lowering the unemployment rate.
Secondly, each of us can do our part to lower the unemployment rate by helping those without work find a job. We all have a network that includes contacts with employers, and we all know people without work. By connecting these two groups through mutual friends and acquaintances we can help employers find good employees, and the unemployed find work. Finally, we all have an obligation to vote with our wallet. We should support businesses that have good hiring practices and treat their employees fairly.
The unemployment rate is a huge problem, and some of the brightest minds in the country are working to make things better. As followers of Jesus, though, we have a responsibility to help those who are need, many of whom would be counted among the ranks of the unemployed. As the Church our prayers and generosity should touch the unemployed in a special way in this time of economic hardship.
At a deeper level, however, I want to focus on the spiritual implications of the unemployment rate, specifically with regards to how this issue ties into the robust doctrine of the image of God. The Imago Dei, as theologians refer to it, is perhaps the most central piece of theology for guiding the Believer in his or her interactions with society. The Imago Dei is what tells us we must fight for the unborn, it leads us to battle HIV/AIDS in Africa, prompts us to advocate for human rights, and tells us that unemployment is as destructive to the soul as a myriad of other societal ills. If we don’t fully understand this doctrine it may seem strange that unemployment would make such a list, but the biblical narrative indicates that work, and by inference employment, are central to what it means to be created in the image of God.
In Genesis 2:2-3 we are told three times that God worked, this just a few paragraphs after we read that God had created mankind in His image. The fact that the book of Genesis states that God worked during the six days of creation shows that it is a part of His nature. Additionally, when we are told that mankind is created in the image of God, and then told to work the Garden, we see that work is an extension of the Imago Dei. In its most basic form, the Imago Dei means that we are a further representation of God here on earth, that He created us to be ambassadors. Part of our ambassadorship is participating in the act of creating, which is at its very core work. By working we are engaging in one of the central tenets of what it means to be human.
Before we continue a caveat is in order. Work is an extension of the Imago Dei, but that doesn’t necessarily require it to be work in the employment sense. A stay at home mother or father is certainly working, and that act of work also reflects the image of God. In the same way, a volunteer for a charity is working without being employed. By discussing the unemployment rate, let us not fall into the common trap of believing that “bringing home the bacon” is any more valuable in God’s sight than work that doesn’t receive a paycheck.
So, we have seen that work is important in God’s eyes, and that our Christian duty leads us to be engaged on this issue, but what do we do about it? The most obvious answer when dealing with unemployment is government intervention. There is certainly a place for government jobs—especially public work projects—in lowering the unemployment rate. But an economy cannot be sustained on government jobs. A government employee is a net drain on the tax system, so in order for a stable economy to exist there needs to be multiple private sector workers to support every public sector employee. This implies that the best thing the government can do to lower unemployment is let the private sector create jobs, prompted by government incentives. Many today treat the phrase “tax-cuts” as a curse word, but what better way to incentivize companies to higher more employees? Most of the angst over cutting taxes for corporations comes from the misguided notion that corporations can pay taxes, when the reality is they can’t. Sure, there is a tax levied on corporations, but in order for a company to survive they simply pass that tax on to their consumers. Ironically, when taxes on corporations are raised it is the unemployed who get hit the hardest by the escalating cost of goods. By cutting tax rates and incentivizing companies to higher more employees the government can make huge strides in lowering the unemployment rate.
Secondly, each of us can do our part to lower the unemployment rate by helping those without work find a job. We all have a network that includes contacts with employers, and we all know people without work. By connecting these two groups through mutual friends and acquaintances we can help employers find good employees, and the unemployed find work. Finally, we all have an obligation to vote with our wallet. We should support businesses that have good hiring practices and treat their employees fairly.
The unemployment rate is a huge problem, and some of the brightest minds in the country are working to make things better. As followers of Jesus, though, we have a responsibility to help those who are need, many of whom would be counted among the ranks of the unemployed. As the Church our prayers and generosity should touch the unemployed in a special way in this time of economic hardship.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Ideologues Anonymous
Are you an ideologue? Most likely your instinctual reaction to this question is a resounding “no!” That nasty word has come to be one of the gravest insults in our culture, especially if the person being insulted is involved in politics. No one wants to be labeled an ideologue, and for quite obvious reasons. Merriam-Webster defines ideologue as, “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.” Now, honestly assess yourself, are you an ideologue? I will confess that I am a recovering ideologue, and by my own informal assessment of the Church today, I would assert that a great majority of us are ideologues, especially when it comes to our politics. True, there is also a portion of the Church that hasn’t put enough thought into public policy to have an opinion one way or the other, which is a quite different problem, but the preponderance of us who participate in political discussions have a distinct ideological bent.
You will notice that the definition we gave of an ideologue mentioned the word “partisan,” and many of you are thinking that this is your way out of this etymological trap. And, as long as we define “partisan” in a narrow enough way, most of us would not be partisan. We cling to the fact that, while we may vote for party X every time we see a ballot, we still criticize them when they do something we don’t like. True, but let’s take a more broad use of the word partisan. Hardly anyone is blindly Republican or blindly Democrat, but all too many of us are blindly conservative or blindly liberal, and thus the pejorative: ideologue. We trumpet the idea that we can always leave our party of choice, but few of us ever diverge from our ideology of choice. So when we say we are nonpartisan (i.e. not a Donkey or Elephant), we should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that we are ideological, and most likely an ideologue.
A caveat is in order, however. We do in fact need some intellectual grounding, and the philosophies of liberalism and conservatism provide a good framework from which to make political decisions. The problem for most of us is that they are more than simply a framework, they have become the altars upon which we worship our political gods, confident that they will provide the absolution our nation needs. We do a wonderful job of convincing ourselves that we are merely following the tenets of the Christian faith; that God is on our side. Rarely, however, do we stop to assess whether or not we are on God’s side. We blindly assume that Christianity obviously tends towards conservatism, or that if you read your Bible closely you will end up a liberal. The truth (and a painful truth it is) is that both liberals and conservatives are right on some things and wrong on some things. If we are going to fully reflect what it means to be the Body of Christ we will need to draw from both of these ideologies, which means there may yet be a place for us recovering ideologues.
You will notice that the definition we gave of an ideologue mentioned the word “partisan,” and many of you are thinking that this is your way out of this etymological trap. And, as long as we define “partisan” in a narrow enough way, most of us would not be partisan. We cling to the fact that, while we may vote for party X every time we see a ballot, we still criticize them when they do something we don’t like. True, but let’s take a more broad use of the word partisan. Hardly anyone is blindly Republican or blindly Democrat, but all too many of us are blindly conservative or blindly liberal, and thus the pejorative: ideologue. We trumpet the idea that we can always leave our party of choice, but few of us ever diverge from our ideology of choice. So when we say we are nonpartisan (i.e. not a Donkey or Elephant), we should at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that we are ideological, and most likely an ideologue.
A caveat is in order, however. We do in fact need some intellectual grounding, and the philosophies of liberalism and conservatism provide a good framework from which to make political decisions. The problem for most of us is that they are more than simply a framework, they have become the altars upon which we worship our political gods, confident that they will provide the absolution our nation needs. We do a wonderful job of convincing ourselves that we are merely following the tenets of the Christian faith; that God is on our side. Rarely, however, do we stop to assess whether or not we are on God’s side. We blindly assume that Christianity obviously tends towards conservatism, or that if you read your Bible closely you will end up a liberal. The truth (and a painful truth it is) is that both liberals and conservatives are right on some things and wrong on some things. If we are going to fully reflect what it means to be the Body of Christ we will need to draw from both of these ideologies, which means there may yet be a place for us recovering ideologues.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Book Review: Jesus for President, By Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw
A friend of mine recently pointed out the importance of discernment when choosing what books to read. Most of us will not complete more than a dozen or so books in a year, and with all the fantastic books out there, we need to be careful not to waste our time on dribble. Unfortunately, Jesus for President, by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, is not a fantastic book. It is a stunning example of what happens when Christians allow our political ideology and biases to affect how we approach the Bible. Billed as a “book to provoke the Christian political imagination,” the reader is left with more provocation than actual thought. Showing no understanding of the differing roles of the Church and the state, the authors conflate the two in a misguided attempt to shape Christians approach to politics. The end result is a work that only the most radical of the Christian left will find intriguing, while the rest of us are left wondering if it is Jesus they are following or the god of Liberalism. The book is replete with error, all of which fit into one or more of four different categories.
1. Bad Hermeneutics (Biblical Interpretation)
The most egregious and prevalent of all their errors, the authors blatantly rape Scripture in order to bend it to their ideology. For example, even though 1 Chronicles makes it quite clear that David was not to build the Temple because he had shed much blood, Claiborne and Haw argue that God didn’t want a temple because He likes sleeping in tents with poor people (pg. 35). Of course this doesn’t explain why God seems to have been pleased to dwell in the temple Solomon built. In another instance the authors state that the Israelites had laws for dealing with illegal immigrants (pg. 58). By choosing the phrase “illegal immigrants,” instead of what the text actually says “aliens,” the authors are trying to make a passage that has little relevance to our current immigration debate fit their own ideological purpose. At one point Claiborne and Haw state that Jesus was from a family of “peasants” (pg. 116), when we now know that the fact that he was a carpenter most likely put him in what we would know as the middle-class. In another instance, the authors say that the people were hungry for revolution, and thus chose for Barrabas to be freed instead of Jesus (pg. 76), when the Gospel account makes it clear that it was the prompting of the Pharisees that led to this decision. Finally, they state that the book of Revelation was written in code so the empire wouldn’t know what John was really saying (pg. 148), when it is commonly recognized that the genre of Revelation is apocalyptic and is thus written in such a mysterious manner.
2. Bad Theology
Despite the fact that Chris Haw is said to be working on a graduate degree in theology, the authors make some incredibly basic errors in theological understanding. In many cases they footnote their arguments by thanking some scholar for giving them “new eyes to see” on a particular issue, but due to the obscure nature of their argument, we are left feeling that they simply choose which eyes they like best. In one disturbing instance, they state that violence kills the image of God within a person (pg. 205). The doctrine of Imago Dei is one of the most foundational beliefs for Christian thinking, and no where does the Bible indicate that a person can have more or less of the image of God within them. The image of God is what gives each person their value, and, if the authors’ assertion were true, we would be left with some people that are intrinsically more valuable than others, hardly the traditional Christian understanding. Another instance where the authors show their ignorance is their understanding of the Trinity. In a poor attempt at humor, the authors tell a joke in which Jesus is letting people into Heaven whose names are not written in the Book of Life (pg. 290). This type of naiveté is easily repudiated when one recognizes that the Trinity cannot be divided, and thus would certainly know who is allowed into Heaven. Of course, this issue is further complicated by the authors seeming to indicate that they might not believe that Hell exists anyway. In another instance, Claiborne and Haw state that it is difficult to know whether or not Jesus would pay taxes if he lived in the U.S. (pg. 257), of course the simple phrase “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” seems to answer that quandary. In still another case, the authors revel in the act of lying when it fits their political cause (pg. 297).
3. Bad Political Philosophy and Logic
In many places Claiborne and Haw show utter inconsistency in their logic, coupled with a radically naïve approach to politics. For instance, they state that capitalism is a yoke that we need to be freed from (pg. 113). And while they admit that writing a book participates in capitalism, they don’t seem to grasp the fact that without capitalism their book would not be able to be printed or distributed. In a truly confusing paragraph, the authors argue that the industrial revolution wasn’t really an advancement, an assertion so absurd it is difficult to even respond to (I’ll let the fact that you are reading this be my rebuttal). And in perhaps the most stunning example of the sheer absurdity of their logic, Claiborne states that, if faced with genocide, he would simply take his clothes off and squawk like a chicken (pg. 273). Such a simplistic assertion fails to grasp the fallen world we currently inhabit, and instead makes a joke of over a million deaths on one continent alone.
4. Bad Use of Historical Argument
Still another way that Claiborne and Haw mislead their readers is by a deceptive use of history. They state that the more the early Church lived out the Gospel, the more they collided with the Roman Empire (pg. 141), when even a cursory understanding of early Church history shows that persecution was sporadic and wholly contingent on who was running the empire, not the degree to which Christians lived the Gospel. In an attempt to show the futility of violence, the authors state that an attempted assassination plot against Hitler only galvanized his resolve and made any efforts towards peace impossible (pg. 203). What they fail to mention is that this happened mere months from the end of WWII, and there was no indication that Hitler was going to surrender under any circumstances.
There are many other examples of all these types of errors I could list, all with equally simple rebuttals. The point is that Claiborne and Haw do not contribute anything new to the discussion of how our faith should influence policy. Rather, they simply carry the water for the far left, attempting to argue that Jesus agrees with them. Personally I am tired of people trying to prove that Jesus agrees with their ideologies, instead, I believe, we should be trying to agree with Jesus. Admittedly this is incredibly difficult for any of us to do, especially since Christ didn’t have much to say about the role of the state (contra Claiborne and Haw). What He did address, however, is how we as Christians should act, and I think if we put those things into practice the politics will come naturally.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Civil Rights vs. Human Rights
The President currently finds himself mired in yet another attempt to fulfill a campaign promise, this time over how to close the Guantanamo Bay holding facility. Amidst all the controversy of whether or not to close the prison, where to move the prisoners, and how they should be tried, there has been one phrase in particular that stands out, or should stand out, for us Christians: a mention of the prisoners’ “rights.” This naturally raises the question as to what rights are being referred to. A closer investigation demonstrates that, on many occasions, we don’t seem able to distinguish between a person’s civil rights and their human rights. In his wonderful book, Healing for a Broken World, Steve Monsma articulates the difference between civil and human rights as the following:
“Civil rights are those that are spelled out and protected by a specific government and its constitution and other laws. They are enforceable in courts of law. Human rights are God-given. They are rooted in all human beings having been created in the image of almighty God himself…No government gives us our human rights; no government can take them away.”
So when we speak of an individual’s “rights,” we must first clarify which field we are playing on. Civil rights are byproducts of a governing body, presumably with the consent of the governed (i.e. voting, due process, freedom of speech, etc.). Human rights are the result of every man, woman and child being created in the image of God, and naturally carry with them a greater sense of importance (i.e. life, freedom, personal choices, etc.). Naturally, the Bible has very little to say directly about one’s civil rights, but addresses the concept of human rights throughout. It may be a bit of a stretch, but one could argue that Christians should therefore be much more enraged over human rights violations than infringements on one’s civil rights. That is not to say that civil rights are unimportant, but rather that a jury trial pales in comparison to torture.
Let us now attempt to make this information relevant to our current situation. As human beings, created in the image of God, the human rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay must be protected. Torture and wrongful imprisonment are the most egregious violations, and should never be excused. However, as enemy combatants, the detainees are not endowed with the same set of civil rights that we as American citizens are. There is no constitutional basis for trying these prisoners in the American judicial system, nor is their a reason to provide jury trials instead of a military tribunal. Therefore, if Believers are going to advocate for the “rights” of these prisoners, it is much more important to advocate for their God-given human rights, not a state-granted set of civil rights.
One potential caveat to our discussion is the fact that civil rights violations can indeed become human rights violations (one thinks of the heroic civil rights struggle of the 1960s). But, for our current situation, that should be seen simply as an encouragement to engage this issue thoughtfully and biblically, not as evidence that terrorists should be tried on U.S. soil.
“Civil rights are those that are spelled out and protected by a specific government and its constitution and other laws. They are enforceable in courts of law. Human rights are God-given. They are rooted in all human beings having been created in the image of almighty God himself…No government gives us our human rights; no government can take them away.”
So when we speak of an individual’s “rights,” we must first clarify which field we are playing on. Civil rights are byproducts of a governing body, presumably with the consent of the governed (i.e. voting, due process, freedom of speech, etc.). Human rights are the result of every man, woman and child being created in the image of God, and naturally carry with them a greater sense of importance (i.e. life, freedom, personal choices, etc.). Naturally, the Bible has very little to say directly about one’s civil rights, but addresses the concept of human rights throughout. It may be a bit of a stretch, but one could argue that Christians should therefore be much more enraged over human rights violations than infringements on one’s civil rights. That is not to say that civil rights are unimportant, but rather that a jury trial pales in comparison to torture.
Let us now attempt to make this information relevant to our current situation. As human beings, created in the image of God, the human rights of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay must be protected. Torture and wrongful imprisonment are the most egregious violations, and should never be excused. However, as enemy combatants, the detainees are not endowed with the same set of civil rights that we as American citizens are. There is no constitutional basis for trying these prisoners in the American judicial system, nor is their a reason to provide jury trials instead of a military tribunal. Therefore, if Believers are going to advocate for the “rights” of these prisoners, it is much more important to advocate for their God-given human rights, not a state-granted set of civil rights.
One potential caveat to our discussion is the fact that civil rights violations can indeed become human rights violations (one thinks of the heroic civil rights struggle of the 1960s). But, for our current situation, that should be seen simply as an encouragement to engage this issue thoughtfully and biblically, not as evidence that terrorists should be tried on U.S. soil.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Devotional Thought: Evangelism's Most Destructive Quote
St Francis of Assisi is often attributed with the pithy saying, “Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words.” It is doubtful that St. Francis was actually the one to utter these words, but it is less doubtful that the American Church has taken this advice all too far. What started as a nice sentiment for living out the Gospel has turned into an excuse for a lack of evangelism. We couch our apathy and indifference in the inoffensive language of “lifestyle evangelism,” claiming that we are spreading the Good News by how we live. The reality, however, may be that we just don’t want to share our faith, at least not enough to take any risks. Risks like stepping out of our comfort zone, being willing to strike up a conversation, and facing the possibility of rejection. But the truly startling thing is that we are more than willing to evangelize for everything we believe in except Christ. I will try to convince you that baseball is the greatest sport, but I won’t tell you that you are a sinner. I can make a compelling case for why my Civic is a fantastic car, but I don’t want to ask what you think about God. And I can try to tell you who to vote for, but I won’t tell you about who gave His life for you. In college I even avoided taking a class because I heard the professor required you to share your faith with someone. If I am so sure that Jesus is the way, why am I unwilling to point others toward Him?
Lately the idea of evangelizing has gotten a black eye because of the methods some have employed. If you walk downtown of most large cities you are sure to find someone with a megaphone proclaiming the coming destruction of all who don’t repent. The effectiveness, or even worthiness, of this method is certainly debatable. I once visited a church that was on the complete other extreme. They would instruct their members to not even mention Jesus’ name until they had known someone for at least a year, opting instead for the method of lifestyle evangelism. The truth, as often is the case, probably lies somewhere in between megaphone evangelism and lifestyle evangelism. We shouldn’t be vocal in a way that turns people off, but we should still be willing to be vocal.
In Ephesians, Paul tells us that evangelism is a spiritual gift. We all have met those people who can convince whoever sits next to them on a plane that they need Jesus. I don’t believe that God wants us all to become like those people, if He did He would have given everyone the gift of evangelism. But what He did give us all was a command, a command to go unto all the world making disciples. We may not all have the gift of evangelism, but we all do have the Spirit within us, and that is where we get the courage to share Christ with others. May we always live the Gospel in such a way as to draw others to the Father, but may we also be willing to share Him with others as we are led.
“If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let No one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” -Charles Spurgeon
(For further reading on this topic check out Mark Russell’s excellent post, “Preach the Gospel Always: When Necessary, Use Words.”)
Lately the idea of evangelizing has gotten a black eye because of the methods some have employed. If you walk downtown of most large cities you are sure to find someone with a megaphone proclaiming the coming destruction of all who don’t repent. The effectiveness, or even worthiness, of this method is certainly debatable. I once visited a church that was on the complete other extreme. They would instruct their members to not even mention Jesus’ name until they had known someone for at least a year, opting instead for the method of lifestyle evangelism. The truth, as often is the case, probably lies somewhere in between megaphone evangelism and lifestyle evangelism. We shouldn’t be vocal in a way that turns people off, but we should still be willing to be vocal.
In Ephesians, Paul tells us that evangelism is a spiritual gift. We all have met those people who can convince whoever sits next to them on a plane that they need Jesus. I don’t believe that God wants us all to become like those people, if He did He would have given everyone the gift of evangelism. But what He did give us all was a command, a command to go unto all the world making disciples. We may not all have the gift of evangelism, but we all do have the Spirit within us, and that is where we get the courage to share Christ with others. May we always live the Gospel in such a way as to draw others to the Father, but may we also be willing to share Him with others as we are led.
“If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let No one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” -Charles Spurgeon
(For further reading on this topic check out Mark Russell’s excellent post, “Preach the Gospel Always: When Necessary, Use Words.”)
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Maturing of the Pro-Life Movement
As a political movement, Evangelicalism is still in its infancy. While Roman Catholics have been engaged in politics for over a thousand years, it is only within the past thirty years that Evangelicals have ventured forth into the political sphere. The immaturity of the movement was at times more obvious than others. In the past, one of the clearest places that Evangelicals would show their inexperience was the abortion debate; but, as this movement has matured so has its practices. The recent “controversy” surrounding Focus on the Family’s Super Bowl commercial is one example of the maturation of Evangelicals, and the pro-life movement as a whole. The media hype before the ad aired would have led us to believe that we would be shocked by the audacity of Focus on the Family, but instead all we saw was a mom talking about how she cared for her son. What a perfect example of the new manner in which the pro-life community conveys its message.
This new maturity is revealing itself in two particular ways. The first is the focus of the movement. In the past the pro-life community was defined as being pro-baby. Anti-abortion rallies were replete with posters of aborted children and signs labeling anyone who chooses the practice a murderer. All that this conveyed was that the pro-life community was pro-fetus, while the pro-choice community was pro-mother. Not many women with crisis pregnancies are going to go to a pro-life clinic if they feel the organization’s supporters are attacking them. In recent years the pro-life community has moved away from this guilt approach and embraced a joy approach. Instead of labeling the woman a murderer, pro-life billboards will have a picture of a smiling mom holding her child, choosing to focus on the joy that each child brings. Additionally, by pointing towards the many harmful side-affects of abortion - physical, psychological, and emotional – the pro-life community is highlighting concern for both the mother and the child. These decisions by pro-life leadership are destroying the myth that being pro-mother means you have to be pro-choice. Showing love to the women with crisis pregnancies is doing something effectively a condemning sign never could: reducing the number of abortions.
The second area the pro-life movement is showing signs of maturity is in its willingness to accept incremental gains, instead of being locked in to an all-or-nothing mentality. Previously, we saw the pro-life movement target the complete abolition of abortion, and anything less was unacceptable. But all that we were left with was over thirty years of abortion on demand. Recently the pro-life community has recognized the importance of taking small steps to reduce the number of abortions, and has thus moved to encourage the passage of laws to that end. This is pragmatically effective due to the overwhelming public support for certain checks on abortion on demand. For example, according to Gallup Polling, 88% of Americans favor a law that would require the woman’s doctor to inform her of alternatives to abortion, 78% favor a mandatory twenty-four hour waiting period before having an abortion, while 69% favor parental consent for minors, and 64% favor spousal notification (see polling data here).
As the movement continues to mature it will be interesting to see what new facets develop. In the meantime, however, there is still much work to be done. Not everyone has adopted the pro-mother approach, and many still need to be convinced of the effectiveness of focusing on incremental gains. Additionally, we still need to do a better job of answering the critics that claim the pro-life movement is only pro-birth, but doesn’t care about the children after they are born. But these steps, if implemented thoroughly, will result in fewer abortions and show the love of Christ to the world, both of which are very good things.
This new maturity is revealing itself in two particular ways. The first is the focus of the movement. In the past the pro-life community was defined as being pro-baby. Anti-abortion rallies were replete with posters of aborted children and signs labeling anyone who chooses the practice a murderer. All that this conveyed was that the pro-life community was pro-fetus, while the pro-choice community was pro-mother. Not many women with crisis pregnancies are going to go to a pro-life clinic if they feel the organization’s supporters are attacking them. In recent years the pro-life community has moved away from this guilt approach and embraced a joy approach. Instead of labeling the woman a murderer, pro-life billboards will have a picture of a smiling mom holding her child, choosing to focus on the joy that each child brings. Additionally, by pointing towards the many harmful side-affects of abortion - physical, psychological, and emotional – the pro-life community is highlighting concern for both the mother and the child. These decisions by pro-life leadership are destroying the myth that being pro-mother means you have to be pro-choice. Showing love to the women with crisis pregnancies is doing something effectively a condemning sign never could: reducing the number of abortions.
The second area the pro-life movement is showing signs of maturity is in its willingness to accept incremental gains, instead of being locked in to an all-or-nothing mentality. Previously, we saw the pro-life movement target the complete abolition of abortion, and anything less was unacceptable. But all that we were left with was over thirty years of abortion on demand. Recently the pro-life community has recognized the importance of taking small steps to reduce the number of abortions, and has thus moved to encourage the passage of laws to that end. This is pragmatically effective due to the overwhelming public support for certain checks on abortion on demand. For example, according to Gallup Polling, 88% of Americans favor a law that would require the woman’s doctor to inform her of alternatives to abortion, 78% favor a mandatory twenty-four hour waiting period before having an abortion, while 69% favor parental consent for minors, and 64% favor spousal notification (see polling data here).
As the movement continues to mature it will be interesting to see what new facets develop. In the meantime, however, there is still much work to be done. Not everyone has adopted the pro-mother approach, and many still need to be convinced of the effectiveness of focusing on incremental gains. Additionally, we still need to do a better job of answering the critics that claim the pro-life movement is only pro-birth, but doesn’t care about the children after they are born. But these steps, if implemented thoroughly, will result in fewer abortions and show the love of Christ to the world, both of which are very good things.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The State of Our Unity, Part 2
Last week we discussed the importance of unity for our country. The idea we were getting at is that it is absolutely essential for America to have some semblance of unity if our government is going to function efficiently and effectively. This week we are going to continue our discussion of unity by narrowing our focus to a wholly more important subject: unity in the Church.
There are many things in the Church that we can fight over, theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, pneumatology, and even whether or not we sing the doxology. But as we are told in John 17:20-23, a unified Church is what shows the world the power of Christ. We can naturally infer that the opposite is also true. If we are not unified the world will not be as receptive to Christ’s redemptive work. Even a cursory survey of the Christian landscape shows just how fractured we are. Every day there are church-splits, people of different denominational backgrounds hold each other in animosity, and many of our leaders refuse to work together over, what seems to be, petty theological differences. Some will point to their own church or clique and say, “look how unified we are, we get along on almost everything!” But even the world gets along with people they like. For the Believer being united in Christ must mean, if it means anything at all, getting along with people we don’t like or agree with.
Let us examine for a moment what unity looks like for the Church. Unity is not about agreeing on everything. It has been said that if two people agree on everything one of them is worthless, the same is true with the Body. It is only by working with our theological differences that we can get a more robust understanding of who God is. No one denomination or theological framework has a corner on Truth, and by interacting with people that have differing views we will be able to recognize our own shortcomings. True unity comes despite our differences, not by forcing uniformity. Now, this is not to say that Truth is relative, we must always work within the bounds of Scripture. There are still right answers to our questions, answers we should be working towards, but being united means we work together for those answers, not against each other. To make true unity work we will all have to pray for humility and accept a degree of ambiguity, recognizing, as the Apostle Paul says, “we see through a glass dimly.”
As an example, consider one area in particular that brings divisiveness to the Body of Christ: politics. The Religious Right and Christian Left seem to be diametrically apposed to each other. Many of their publications spend a great deal of time demonizing the other side, coyly implying that their opponents are not true Christians, don’t read their Bible enough, and are actually hurting the Church. What does unity look like here? First of all it means recognizing that we are working towards a common goal. All Christians should agree that we need to alleviate poverty, reduce abortions, be good stewards of the planet, and promote strong families. The conflict is over how we deal with these issues, not whether or not we should deal with them. Conflicting views on the role of government are at the core of these disagreements, and most likely, we will never all agree on what the degree of governmental involvement on a particular issue will be. But we all should be able to work towards a common ground, finding areas that we can agree on, and then taking incremental steps from there. Despite our political differences, there is a lot of common ground we have simply by virtue of reading and submitting to the same Bible. If we focus on the things we do agree on we will do a much better job of presenting Christ to the world.
My grandmother and I were talking the other day about the divisiveness of our current political state. She asked if I thought that we will ever be rid or the partisanship and back bighting that is dominating our politics. My first reaction was to say no, human nature – coupled with our two-party system – will never allow our politicians to all get along. It is tempting to say the same for the Church: human nature will never let us be united. But that is the point of redemption. Christ died that He may take away our human nature, that which we inherited from Adam, and give us His nature as new creations. That is what can bring us unity, and that is why we must strive for it, because it is itself an act of redemption.
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
-John 17:20-23
There are many things in the Church that we can fight over, theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, pneumatology, and even whether or not we sing the doxology. But as we are told in John 17:20-23, a unified Church is what shows the world the power of Christ. We can naturally infer that the opposite is also true. If we are not unified the world will not be as receptive to Christ’s redemptive work. Even a cursory survey of the Christian landscape shows just how fractured we are. Every day there are church-splits, people of different denominational backgrounds hold each other in animosity, and many of our leaders refuse to work together over, what seems to be, petty theological differences. Some will point to their own church or clique and say, “look how unified we are, we get along on almost everything!” But even the world gets along with people they like. For the Believer being united in Christ must mean, if it means anything at all, getting along with people we don’t like or agree with.
Let us examine for a moment what unity looks like for the Church. Unity is not about agreeing on everything. It has been said that if two people agree on everything one of them is worthless, the same is true with the Body. It is only by working with our theological differences that we can get a more robust understanding of who God is. No one denomination or theological framework has a corner on Truth, and by interacting with people that have differing views we will be able to recognize our own shortcomings. True unity comes despite our differences, not by forcing uniformity. Now, this is not to say that Truth is relative, we must always work within the bounds of Scripture. There are still right answers to our questions, answers we should be working towards, but being united means we work together for those answers, not against each other. To make true unity work we will all have to pray for humility and accept a degree of ambiguity, recognizing, as the Apostle Paul says, “we see through a glass dimly.”
As an example, consider one area in particular that brings divisiveness to the Body of Christ: politics. The Religious Right and Christian Left seem to be diametrically apposed to each other. Many of their publications spend a great deal of time demonizing the other side, coyly implying that their opponents are not true Christians, don’t read their Bible enough, and are actually hurting the Church. What does unity look like here? First of all it means recognizing that we are working towards a common goal. All Christians should agree that we need to alleviate poverty, reduce abortions, be good stewards of the planet, and promote strong families. The conflict is over how we deal with these issues, not whether or not we should deal with them. Conflicting views on the role of government are at the core of these disagreements, and most likely, we will never all agree on what the degree of governmental involvement on a particular issue will be. But we all should be able to work towards a common ground, finding areas that we can agree on, and then taking incremental steps from there. Despite our political differences, there is a lot of common ground we have simply by virtue of reading and submitting to the same Bible. If we focus on the things we do agree on we will do a much better job of presenting Christ to the world.
My grandmother and I were talking the other day about the divisiveness of our current political state. She asked if I thought that we will ever be rid or the partisanship and back bighting that is dominating our politics. My first reaction was to say no, human nature – coupled with our two-party system – will never allow our politicians to all get along. It is tempting to say the same for the Church: human nature will never let us be united. But that is the point of redemption. Christ died that He may take away our human nature, that which we inherited from Adam, and give us His nature as new creations. That is what can bring us unity, and that is why we must strive for it, because it is itself an act of redemption.
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
-John 17:20-23
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The State of Our Unity
In his first State of the Union Address, President Obama issued a call for bi-partisanship. He argued that our elected officials need to put aside their differences for the good of the country. But, as the disparity between Democrat and Republican claps-per-minute grew, the viewer was left wondering how effective that call for unity would be. Hopes for bi-partisanship began to fall when Republicans wouldn’t even clap for tax cuts, they began to fall even faster as the President threw jab after jab at his predecessor and opposition, and they down right plummeted when the Republican response highlighted how different the agendas of our two political parties actually are. We are left wondering if bi-partisanship will ever work, or if these calls for unity are merely more political propaganda.
Bi-partisanship is important in the political realm. As the recent health-care debacle has demonstrated, one party simply isn’t enough to get anything accomplished in our politically charged climate. In this way politics can be like a marriage, the two parties involved can get by without cooperating, but if they want to truly thrive, they will need to be unified. The importance of unity certainly isn’t lost on Washington, or the public for that matter, which is why so many speeches have been made on the importance of the subject. So the question remains, why are we gridlocked in this partisan mire?
The most obvious answer is that we don’t really want unity, none of us do. We want to win. We will work with the other side, but only if it accomplishes our ends, and preferably only after a thorough trouncing of the other side. Thus the incessant belittling of conservatives in the President’s speech, thus the refusal to applaud his good ideas, and thus our current knock-down, drag-out, take no prisoners assault on public opinion. It is not just the politicians desire to win that creates this atmosphere; this virus infects all of us. Special interests, lobbyists, political action committees, all of these only have as much power as society gives them. Our donations and support is what keeps these political machines running, and all to one end: to make sure we win.
So what do we do about this problem? I’m not suggesting that we all give up our agendas. The beliefs that we hold to create this tension are deep-seated, and no amount of eloquent speech will change that. What we can do is act in humility, avoid actions and words that are deliberately designed to anger our opponents and fire up our base, and act with civility in all we do. This won’t bring in a lot of money, and it won’t make any headlines, but it will contribute to an atmosphere that genuinely works for the common good.
So far we have been dealing strictly with political unity, but for Christians there is a far more important type of unity: spiritual. Our need for unity goes beyond merely needing to make a country operate, it is a plea straight from our Savior Himself. In John 18:21 Christ prays that all of the Body would be united, just as the Trinity is united. Not for ourselves, but so that the world would know that Jesus is the Messiah. The validity of our testimony rises and falls with how well we all get along. Sadly, the Church is more divided than ever. Infant baptism, tongues, church hierarchy, predestination and a host of other issues all contribute to our infighting. As with political unity, we cannot expect these controversial issues to go away, for they all are extremely important in their ramifications, but what we can do is recognize that our common bond as heirs with Christ is far more important. For it is through our unity and love for one another that the world will come to know Christ as King.
Bi-partisanship is important in the political realm. As the recent health-care debacle has demonstrated, one party simply isn’t enough to get anything accomplished in our politically charged climate. In this way politics can be like a marriage, the two parties involved can get by without cooperating, but if they want to truly thrive, they will need to be unified. The importance of unity certainly isn’t lost on Washington, or the public for that matter, which is why so many speeches have been made on the importance of the subject. So the question remains, why are we gridlocked in this partisan mire?
The most obvious answer is that we don’t really want unity, none of us do. We want to win. We will work with the other side, but only if it accomplishes our ends, and preferably only after a thorough trouncing of the other side. Thus the incessant belittling of conservatives in the President’s speech, thus the refusal to applaud his good ideas, and thus our current knock-down, drag-out, take no prisoners assault on public opinion. It is not just the politicians desire to win that creates this atmosphere; this virus infects all of us. Special interests, lobbyists, political action committees, all of these only have as much power as society gives them. Our donations and support is what keeps these political machines running, and all to one end: to make sure we win.
So what do we do about this problem? I’m not suggesting that we all give up our agendas. The beliefs that we hold to create this tension are deep-seated, and no amount of eloquent speech will change that. What we can do is act in humility, avoid actions and words that are deliberately designed to anger our opponents and fire up our base, and act with civility in all we do. This won’t bring in a lot of money, and it won’t make any headlines, but it will contribute to an atmosphere that genuinely works for the common good.
So far we have been dealing strictly with political unity, but for Christians there is a far more important type of unity: spiritual. Our need for unity goes beyond merely needing to make a country operate, it is a plea straight from our Savior Himself. In John 18:21 Christ prays that all of the Body would be united, just as the Trinity is united. Not for ourselves, but so that the world would know that Jesus is the Messiah. The validity of our testimony rises and falls with how well we all get along. Sadly, the Church is more divided than ever. Infant baptism, tongues, church hierarchy, predestination and a host of other issues all contribute to our infighting. As with political unity, we cannot expect these controversial issues to go away, for they all are extremely important in their ramifications, but what we can do is recognize that our common bond as heirs with Christ is far more important. For it is through our unity and love for one another that the world will come to know Christ as King.
Friday, January 22, 2010
We Need a Shift in Hope
As the dust settles a few days after the startling results of the Massachusetts Senate election an interesting shift has taken place, and it goes much deeper than the alignment of our much-maligned Congress. A shift in hope has occurred. Conservatives across the entire country are walking with a bounce in their step, exuberant for their sudden change in fortunes. A common thread in all this adulation is that they feel like they have hope again; hope that things will turn out the way they want them to. The truly astounding part about this, however, is that it was only a few short months ago that the political left had this same bounce in their step, the same swagger, and the same feeling of hope. Much ink has been spilt dissecting the political ramifications of this shift in hope, but of far greater concern is the spiritual implications of placing our hope in a single politician.
The fascination with Scott Brown, and the excitement he is bringing to the Right, is nothing new. The same crowd greeted Sarah Palin with equal enthusiasm, and their counterparts on the Left carved uncharted territory with their cult of personality surrounding Barrack Obama. An undeniable part of our political reality is that we love to love our politicians (note: it is our politicians we love, the ones that have all the solutions, not the ones on the other side who are causing all the problems). We hang all of our hopes for the future on these individuals. Every time a charismatic leader, with a bright smile and catchy slogan comes around we will rally to their side, certain, beyond any doubt, that this is the person that will get our country on the right track. But as anyone who stops to think can tell you, this cult of personality fades, with all but the true believers decrying the false prophet that didn’t fix the economy, public schools, or the DMV. Our knight's armor gets rusty, his ratings fall, and our hopes with it.
So why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we long so very much for someone to come save the day? Could it be that we were created with that yearning? Let us propose, for a moment, that there is something within us all that needs a hero, that needs someone tangible that we can hitch our wagon to. Ideas can be persuasive, movements can inspire, but only a person can truly captivate our hearts. And thus the Incarnation. Thus the glory of the incredible statement, “God became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Incarnation is what takes this ethereal concept of God and brings it down to our level. The Incarnation is when God got His hands dirty and showed us who we should follow, who we should place our hope in. And the beauty of it all is that this Messiah isn’t up for re-election, and He can’t be term limited out. He is the only one whose armor never gets rusty and whose campaign slogan never gets old, for his call of, “my yoke is easy and my burden is light,” will forever be good news.
No matter our political inclinations, we must learn to hope in Christ, not a fledgling campaign slogan or fleeting election returns. As humans who need to have an example to follow, there will always be the temptation to see in a politician the answer to all our problems. There will always be new problems and new politicians promising to fix them. But thankfully there will always be someone whom we can confidently put our hope in.
The fascination with Scott Brown, and the excitement he is bringing to the Right, is nothing new. The same crowd greeted Sarah Palin with equal enthusiasm, and their counterparts on the Left carved uncharted territory with their cult of personality surrounding Barrack Obama. An undeniable part of our political reality is that we love to love our politicians (note: it is our politicians we love, the ones that have all the solutions, not the ones on the other side who are causing all the problems). We hang all of our hopes for the future on these individuals. Every time a charismatic leader, with a bright smile and catchy slogan comes around we will rally to their side, certain, beyond any doubt, that this is the person that will get our country on the right track. But as anyone who stops to think can tell you, this cult of personality fades, with all but the true believers decrying the false prophet that didn’t fix the economy, public schools, or the DMV. Our knight's armor gets rusty, his ratings fall, and our hopes with it.
So why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we long so very much for someone to come save the day? Could it be that we were created with that yearning? Let us propose, for a moment, that there is something within us all that needs a hero, that needs someone tangible that we can hitch our wagon to. Ideas can be persuasive, movements can inspire, but only a person can truly captivate our hearts. And thus the Incarnation. Thus the glory of the incredible statement, “God became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Incarnation is what takes this ethereal concept of God and brings it down to our level. The Incarnation is when God got His hands dirty and showed us who we should follow, who we should place our hope in. And the beauty of it all is that this Messiah isn’t up for re-election, and He can’t be term limited out. He is the only one whose armor never gets rusty and whose campaign slogan never gets old, for his call of, “my yoke is easy and my burden is light,” will forever be good news.
No matter our political inclinations, we must learn to hope in Christ, not a fledgling campaign slogan or fleeting election returns. As humans who need to have an example to follow, there will always be the temptation to see in a politician the answer to all our problems. There will always be new problems and new politicians promising to fix them. But thankfully there will always be someone whom we can confidently put our hope in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
