Public Christianity

This is for the many who define their politics from forwarded emails. And I know you’re out there, because you send these emails to me!

One hot topic recently in the presidential race has been Barack Obama’s opposition to “Born Alive” legislation while in the Illinois legislature. I remember this issue coming up in the primaries but didn’t pay it much attention. Support or opposition of abortion legislation is a tricky thing to weigh considering all the fine print that usually is needed for such legislation to pass. This case is no different.

If you want to look at it in black and white, supporters of Sen McCain (not officially the McCain Campaign) put out this ad. As usual, there’s more to the story, so I checked out politifact.com and the had a very comprehensive article on this. The truth of course, is grey, with both sides misrepresenting the issue. This shouldn’t come as any surprise.

But what is interesting in this article is the bureaucratic red tape that’s necessary in abortion legislation. You usually hear about “health of the mother” clauses which are tricky because what is “health”? It is usually left undefined, opening up mental anguish or physical pain (the promise of painful labor from Genesis) as legal reasons to allow for abortions.

But this article introduced me to the “neutrality clause” where the legislation essentially promises that passage won’t change the legal status of a fetus. It’s like a disclaimer that preserves Roe v Wade. The reason these clauses are necessary is because the Pro Choice side insists that any restriction on abortion will lead to an outright ban. Not an unreasonable position, in fact this is the position the Gun Ownership side of the Right to Bear Arms debate take. Any restriction to gun ownership opens up the possibility to outright prohibit any ownership at all.

But these word games are silly. Do you think anyone really believes a baby born from a failed abortion would be refused medical care because they’re not supposed to be alive? Or that there’s really a “health” reason (to the mother) to abort a child 8 months into a pregnancy that wasn’t there in the first three months?

Regardless of how you feel about either of these issues, the truth is Roe v Wade won’t be overturned via legislation. There will never be the votes to make it happen, no matter who is president. Even hoping to load the Supreme Court in the hopes to overturn the ruling is a stretch with Justices serving life terms. So to me as a Christian, the only way to stop the disgusting act of abortion is to face the issues that lead to abortion in the first place: a casual view of sex, rampant single parenthood tied to poverty, and the cycle of teenage pregnancy that runs generation to generation. And these can only be addressed through supporting, not condemning, those in these plights, living our convictions, and applying the word of God.

I’m going to go a bit off topic and get personal here. Right now my wife is with one of our good friends about to welcome a new life into this world. From the world’s perspective, our friend is (about to be) a single mom, with no job, and health issues. A perfect candidate for an abortion right? To quote Lee Corso, “not so fast, my friend!” Or better yet, to quote Paul, “By no means!” (Rom 6:1) It wasn’t a “Christian value” issue for her, or even a question about convenience. She wants to be a mom, and I think she’ll do great at it. She didn’t let the fact that the father (this will be the last time I mention him) bailed on her dissuade her from valuing life over convenience. For that she should be commended.

At the same time, another friend’s niece just passed away at less than two weeks of age. She was born with heart problems and they did everything they could to save her. Again, life was more important than convenience.

I’m reminded of the flack John Kerry took for being pro-life, but voting pro-choice. Personally I understand it, but couldn’t understand why the Catholic Church would not serve him the Eucharist while I know there were multiple adulterers in the parish I grew up in. His wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry related their own personal story of a baby doctors feared wasn’t going to make it, but she chose not to abort, trusting that God was in control. When she miscarried, she knew it was meant to be. Politically, she’s grateful she had the choice to make, even though she chose life.

Similarly, a couple from our church was having a baby ultrasounds showed would be born with deformities and tests showed would have serious issues. Doctors encouraged an abortion, but they too, chose to trust in God. And God knew what he was doing when the pregnancy ended in miscarriage.

These are painful experiences, to be sure. But I also know of other families who would give anything just to be able to get pregnant. The brother who officiated my wedding and his wife just welcomed twins into this world. They were trying to get pregnant for years. Finally, they chose to adopt embryos. What? That was my reaction too. But this is becoming increasingly popular. Just as First Century Christians rescued babies from infanticide in Rome, many Christians today are rescuing embryoes that would otherwise be discarded. Our friends adopted embryos, leftovers if you will, from a couple who did in-vitro fertilization. These are the same types of embryos at the center of the stem-cell debate.

Another family at my church returned a month ago from China after adopting their second child from there. In China, you’re limited in the number of children you can have. So if one is born with a defect, or God-forbid is a girl, the baby is usually discarded like an old pair of shoes. Their first child was born with a clubbed foot. This child, with a cleft palate. Both now can overcome these “hardships” with first-world medical care. And a family who couldn’t bear children are blessed with two beautiful girls.

Meanwhile yet another family at church has adopted two black children with family histories of drug abuse. Unfortunately, no one wants a black baby, especially one with that kind of history. They can’t wait until they have enough saved to adopt again.

And one of the biggest things that’s keeping me from supporting Obama is this clip where he states he doesn’t want his children “punished” with having a child if they make an irresponsible decision. Now, I get where he was going with this, but as a recovering addict I understand the difference between a punishment and a consequence. And as a Christian I understand the difference between justice and mercy. But those words from the likely future President of the United States burn me bad.

I write all of this because this is a very personal issue for me. I am the product of an unwed, teenage mother that probably got pregnant on spring break, based on my birthday. I’ll never know the circumstances because I was adopted at two weeks. But I remember debating abortion in my high school civics class when one girl said that men shouldn’t have any say in the abortion debate because it doesn’t effect them. I beg to differ as living proof of “choice”. In a different era, under different circumstances, would I have been aborted? Probably. And that thought sends chills down my spine and brings me to my knees to thank God for my very breath.

After seeing my own children develop in their mother’s womb and being there as they drew their first breaths, I could never, ever, support “choice” for the sake of convenience. Is that the only “political” issue important to me? Of course not, but no other is as personal.

With the general election only a couple of weeks away, I’m finally getting around to reading “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis, requisite reading for the topics I cover on this blog. Reading it is like I wrote it myself, if only I was a better writer and could expand the depth of my thoughts enough to fill a book. I agree with much of what I’ve read so far; in fact, his motivation for writing that book is the same as my motivation for this blog. But I do disagree with him in some areas, most notably with regards to the war in Iraq and his faith in Christian values shaping our political system.

I was hoping to share more of my thoughts as I go through the book and relate to the current election. But not only have I run out of time, but that book is packed! With small font, margins that run nearly to the edge of the page, and pretty dense prose I’m only a dozen or so pages in after a week. At this rate, I might finish the book this year. So don’t hold your breath for any reviews.

In the meantime however, I do recommend you click over to his website, Sojourners (also linked over on the right). The God’s Politics Blog has a rotation of writers and consistently offers pretty strong insight. In the spirit of remaining “fair and balanced” I also suggest checking out Breakpoint, the ministry started by Chuck Colson. The articles there are more in-depth, so there aren’t as many and are updated less frequently. Regardless, these articles are very insightful. I feel that the two frame a strong Christian socio-political worldview.

We’re in the home stretch and there are too many topics to try and squeeze in before the election. But I’m going to try. I mentioned before that I don’t want to make this blog politics-only, but in this case the calendar takes precedent. I’m going to try and hit on some hot topics and continue to post regarding headlines as I see them. As we head towards the General Election remember what country you’re a citizen of and put your faith in its ruler. Referencing the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11, “If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” (Heb 11:15-16)

There’s an article in last week’s Newsweek on America’s Branding in light of the recent financial crisis that I read in a doctor’s waiting room yesterday. The article itself isn’t necessarily relevant to this blog, but a statement caught my attention that I want to spend some time on.

“Many commentators have noted that the Wall Street meltdown marks the end of the Reagan era. In this they are doubtless right, even if McCain manages to get elected president in November. Big ideas are born in the context of a particular historical era. Few survive when the context changes dramatically, which is why politics tends to shift from left to right and back again in generation-long cycles.” (emphasis mine)

The article then goes on to describe how the Reagan era came about in response to ballooning governments and economies that grew out of Roosevelt’s New Deal and were beginning to collapse under their own weight, as evidenced by the fall of the Soviet Union and the widespread economic failures in Latin America in the 80’s.

I’m not an economist or a political scientist, but the idea of political and social paradigms being shaped by historical context that endures over a generation gets my wheels turning. As a Christian who is only old enough to have voted in the last three presidential elections, it seems to me that we’re at a unique point in our history that I believe could result in a new Christian political movement or at least a revitalization of the Church.

First, some historical perspective. The permeation of nationalism and patriotism in our churches dates back to the Second World War. At that time, faith-based politics were in the middle of the political spectrum, leaning left supporting the social programs that rose out of the New Deal as well as right supporting post-war patriotism and nationalism. Faith-based politics took a left turn in the era of the Kennedys and the Civil Rights Movement, steered more sharply left with the Jesus Movement and Vietnam, but then took a sharp right turn with the rise of the Moral Majority in the Reagan years. I think it’s interesting that this cycle follows the economic-policy cycle noted in the Newsweek article. Faith-based politics then took another sharp right turn with the election of George W Bush and the poorly coined “value voter”.

But backlash from the 2000 and 2004 elections saw a different faith-based politics forming on the Left in the form of Campolos and Wallises to counter the Dobsons and Robertsons on the Right. Over the last couple of years, even before the release of “An Inconvenient Truth”, Evangelicalism began to embrace a form of environmentalism based on being good stewards to God’s creation (Barna has an update on this movement here) . Political and religious headlines were dominated a year ago by the issue of illegal immigration, bringing the so-called Social Gospel to the fore. The “homosexual agenda” is also forcing a political fight in our churches with marriage on the front line. All of this puts faith again in a front-row seat in our presidential debate. And now, we’re seeing the collapse of our greed-driven, debt-based economy that is responsible for much of the worldliness we see in our churches today. (See this post from OnFaith that breaks down this false deity.)

Combine all these factors, and I see an end to the Religious Right, just as Newsweek notes this is the end of Reaganomics. Honestly, I could care less about the political consequence of all the above, but I care deeply about the state of the Church. While all these social, economic, and political issues collide, the American Christian Church ™ suffers from lukewarm conviction and commitment as heretical teachings such as the Prosperity Gospel and Black Liberation Theology rise in strength. So I see all of this converging to a paradigm shift in our churches. I only pray that it leads to a revitalization of the Church, de-emphasizing politics and instead “fixing [our] eyes on Jesus”. If so, this could lead to another Great Awakening of sorts, where God will truly be glorified in our churches and in our culture. And prayerfully this influence will last past a generation.

It’s been a few weeks and I’m still not sold on Governor Palin. Nothing personal, but she hasn’t given me anything substantive enough to support her. I’m still dismayed at her ascendancy in light of her infant with special needs. If she wants to see the consequence of pursuing a high-profile/high-demand career with a special needs child, she should look no further than Sharon Stone. But I digress.

What she has given us, is an odd paradox as a conservative Christian woman, in a position of authority, who by the opinion of many is pretty hot. What, you were expecting me to break down her policies? Nah, you give me too much credit. But I’m not going to analyze her physical features either. Why this interests me is because it exposes a paradox (or hypocrisy in some cases) in the conservative christian (intentional little-c) church.

On the one hand, you have the stance of the Southern Baptist Convention (and many others) that a woman can’t hold a position of authority in a church. This stance made headlines recently when the cover of Gospel Today featured several woman pastors and as a result was pulled from the shelves of Christian bookstores across the Bible-belt. A couple weekends ago, I watched a feature on ABC news that called attention to this while noting the irony that the same Christians who oppose women in ministry support Gov. Palin as Vice President, one heartbeat away from being the Leader of the Free World.

On the other hand, you have Gov. Palin’s feminine, ahem, assets being praised. An article in Slate goes so far as to say her publicity shatters the stereotype of the prudish Christian woman. (Consider a preemptive warning if you click the link, the language and imagery is pretty crude.) The media had the opposite response to the mothers involved in the Texas polygamy case. I guess the expectation continues to be that a devoted Christian woman should look like Maude Flanders.

Meanwhile, there are many caught the middle who wonder how the same conservative christians (little-c) that back Palin were the same who loudly criticized the portrayal of Murphy Brown as a professional single mother.

Both extremes unfortunately fail to capture the Biblical view of femininity. I’m not going to try and stir up a doctrinal debate on perceived misogyny throughout the Bible. Rather I want to point out that women of Godly character are praised by having their own books (Ruth and Esther), chapters (Judges 4), and sections (Proverbs 31) in the Bible. A lot of people focus solely on a single statement from the Apostle Paul and call him sexist, yet forget that women deaconesses (regrettably often translated as “servant” even though the original Greek is the feminine form of what elsewhere is translated as Deacon) are the first to be praised by Paul in Romans and Corinthians for their ministry. In fact I know a few people who opposed getting married in a church based entirely on Paul’s teaching that a wife should be submissive to her husband. Never mind that the context is an analogy to the Church’s relationship with Jesus and is preceded with the command for the husband to love his wife (and elsewhere is instructed specifically not to “lord over” her).

Not to say sexism in the Church doesn’t exist. It certainly does. The praise of the “Proverbs 31 woman” has evolved into an expectation no woman can meet, but wives and mothers are expected to slave over their homes to achieve that perfect standard.

At the same time, many churches elevate the “trophy wife” as standards of beauty and femininity. In the name of being “sharp”, young men pursuing ministry are encouraged to date the prettiest (and most chaste) sisters. At one point at a church I used to attend, the wives of the ministry staff all looked alike—above average height, thin, blonde, and bubbly. All the while the demands of women’s ministry drove women across my denomination to the ground. I can’t count how many Women’s Ministry leaders I know are now burdened with chronic illnesses. All in the name of being that perfect picture of a Biblical woman.

I don’t want to go as far as the feminist movement has in America, but there needs to be a culture change in the American Church with regard to the role of women in the Church and the value (and measure) of beauty and femininity. John Eldriege, in his book Wild at Heart, puts this well.

Walk into most churches in America, have a look around, and ask yourself
this question: What is a Christian woman? Again, don’t listen to
what is said, look at what you find there. There is no doubt about
it. You’d have to admit a Christian woman is. . . tired. All we’ve
offered the feminine soul is pressure to “be a good servant.”

In fact his wife spun off her own book aiming to change the status quo and together they have built up an entire ministry with the goal of redefining masculinity and femininity in the church. Amen for that!

While I may have a hard time backing Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate, I can at least hope that the publicity she’s receiving sheds light on these issues and empowers women in the Church. After all, women too are made in God’s image and in the Church there is “neither… male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

Following up on the largest single day point loss in Dow Jones history (ironically mostly recouped today) it’s important to keep things in perspective. When it comes to religion and politics, all we seem to hear is how one party wants to turn the United States in to a theocracy. Of course, the argument is narrowly focused only on a couple issues. No one wants to apply it to a bigger picture.

But say we apply a theocracy across the board. Would we be in this financial mess? Proverbs is full of wisdom related to money and finances. One proverb in particular predicted this. “Rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” (Pr 22:7) But let’s glorify in God and turn to the Psalms. “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” (Ps 37:12) Does that sound familiar? Would we be in this mess if our government or our banking industry was actually righteous? Instead we borrow and borrow and borrow, but we do not repay. But in our theocracy, “good will come to him who is generous and lends freely, who conducts his affairs with justice.” (Ps 112:5) The key here of course is generosity and justice. Two things that lack in our materialistic world but God possesses in abundance.

You could argue that Psalms and Proverbs are just fluff without authority. But a majority of Jesus’ parables relate to money. And Deuteronomy is full of specific instructions on how to run “the financial sector”. Deuteronomy 15 gives instructions for the “year of cancelling debts.” Imagine that, every seven years all of our debts being cancelled. Not a big deal for my 5-year car loan. But my 30 year mortgage or those student loans that never go away no matter how many years pass? Of course banks would be wise to not give loans for longer than six years. Do you think the markets would be as volatile if loans were handled this way?

Deuteronomy 15:6 gives further insight into our current mess. “For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.” The parallel passage (p.p. in the margin of your Bible) takes us to Dt 28 where the same statement is followed with “The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom.” (Dt 28:13) But God’s blessings always come with a warning. “However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you” (Dt 28:15) And the corresponding curse reverses the roles above. “The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.” (Dt 28:43-44)

One of the biggest fears in this economic crisis, besides Wall Street collapsing, is foreign nations buying up most of our debt. Will we one day be ruled over by China? It is a possibility and we honestly have it coming since America is far from paying attention to the commands of the LORD our God. But this is a covenant between God and the Nation of Israel, it doesn’t apply to us today under the New Covenant, right? Well, that may be true, but God’s nature doesn’t change and his wisdom makes foolish the wise. I think it would do us well to heed these instructions. We may not be in positions of authority and have no real say how loans are given or repaid. But we can use scriptural wisdom to keep our own financial house in order. We can be righteous in our spending (borrowing, really, since we spend so much with our credit cards). We can give generously, conduct our affairs with justice and in doing so bring glory to God.

it’s adios reality (with apologies to Brad Paisley)

First off, Lindsay Lohan weighed in earlier this week on John McCain’s vice presidential choice saying, “Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?..Is our country so divided that the Republicans’ best hope is a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe?”

I appreciate her theological musings on morality and the nature of sin. One of my biggest beefs with the “gay agenda” is labeling anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin as a “homophobe.” Now I define homophobia as bigotry related to one’s sexual orientation like anti-semitism is bigotry based on religion and racism is bigotry related to race. But what does one’s personal, spiritual, religious beliefs have to do with bigotry? Can one lead to the other? Absolutely. Can religious beliefs be used to justify bigotry? Sure, look no further than the KKK, or the white-supremacist notion than blacks are descended from Cain. But the Bible doesn’t say that. The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. Does that mean that I should treat someone differently based on their sin? Of course not (with the exception of “With such a man do not even eat” (1 Cor 5:11) or “Do not be yoked with unbelievers” (1 Cor 6:14) which are different in context).

On the other side of the debate is the elevation of homosexuality above any other sin, despite “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23) and “you used to walk in these ways” (Col 3:7). The Christian response to homosexuality should be to treat it as any and all other sin, just like I would expect to be treated with my own sin. And that is hoping that someone would be so filled with the love of Jesus to reach out to me to free me from my sin. Unfortunately, most American churches don’t deal with sin, but that’s a different debate.

As for the rest of her theology, yes bearing a child out of wedlock is a sin as is pre-marital sex, while birth control is (and has been for generations) debated. Again, the “gay agenda” tries to shift the debate to invalidate moral codes that have existed for millennia by trying to tell me that what I believe is wrong. Both sides need to respect Socrates’ conclusion in Plato’s Protagoras that “all things are true to he who believes them.” The argument goes that you can’t believe in something you know is false. If I believe homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t automatically make me a homophobe. At the same time, I need to respect the belief that homosexuality is a trait one is born with, even if I don’t agree.

Which brings us to the gay-marriage debate. The other celebrity news I want to link is Brad Pitt donating $100,000 to defeat a measure in California aimed at defining marriage as between a man and a woman. “Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.” His rationale defines “slippery slope”. Everyone has a right to live the life they desire as long as it doesn’t harm another? Well first, the Supreme Court disagrees as evidenced by the fiasco in Texas earlier this year despite the state courts finally deciding that no harm was being done others (fitting Pitt’s criteria). At the same time, if I wanted to marry my dog, I’m not harming another so should that be allowed?

Now that last one would be considered silly. But in my opinion, so is the marriage debate. I’m all for civil unions. And if a minister or public official wants to perform a “wedding” for a civil union, I think that’s ok too. But to me, calling the name “marriage” a right, and not the rights the name carries (which are provided by civil unions, although only where available), is an argument over semantics. I think the proposition, and other attempts to pass a Constitutional Amendment, should be reworded to define marriage as not between a “man and a woman” (which by nature is discriminatory) but as between a “husband and wife”. This stays consistent with traditional nomenclature and shoots down the semantic debate. If a gay couple wants to be “married” then one of them needs to be the wife, and the other the husband. Why is it I don’t hear gay men fighting for the right to be called “wife” or “mom” if they have children? What is the difference between that and calling their civil union a “marriage”?

Thanks to Brad Pitt and Lindsay Lohan I can now better define sin and morality and choose which laws I want to follow. Who needs to debate McCain/Palin vs Obama/Biden? I say, Pitt/Lohan ’08!

It’s been a couple of weeks since Sarah Palin was picked as John McCain’s running mate and I still don’t know what to make of it. I keep having this feeling that this is Harriet Miers all over again. If you don’t remember her, she was the White House Council with no bench experience that was nominated for the Supreme Court. The far-right wing and conservative christians (intentional little c) were ecstatic. So was the media, as she gave them plenty to write and blabber on about- her lack of credentials and her far-right stances on the usual christian wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage. After getting crucified by the media and inflaming Democrats against her, the nomination was withdrawn. But not before the religious right made President Bush their hero by nominating someone with no chance of getting approved.

And here we are, with a Vice Presidential candidate with little experience and far-right stances on the expected wedge issues. And now Sen. McCain is the hero of the religious right, the part of the Republican base everyone says he needs but can’t get. Even James Dobson is now backing that ticket, after earlier pledging to stay home. It doesn’t help that the move was telegraphed by Richard Land, or that her church is sponsoring a “pray away the gay” conference, or that she’s been quoted as saying in her church that the war in Iraq is “God’s mission” (quote at the end of this article)

Other than the above, what does she bring to the ticket? Can she stand toe-to-toe with Sen Joe Biden when debating foreign policy on national television? Can Sen McCain campaign against Sen Obama’s lack of experience with a straight face? And how can she stand against criticism that she should be playing a more active role in raising her children, especially her infant with Downs Syndrome? Or can her unmarried pregnant teen daughter withstand the media onslaught coming her way?

I can’t help but think the McCain campaign is pulling a fast one to invigorate the base, grab the headlines, and get the bump in the polls. I really wouldn’t be surprised to see her family life be used as an easy excuse to pull her name at the last minute so that McCain can do what he really wants, nominate a moderate. Which I would have been ok with had he done it to begin with. But I can’t help but think, as a Christian, that I’m being taken advantage of.

Romans 13 encourages us that all authorities in this world are established by God, but I have a feeling he’s rolling his eyes right now.

And I feel fine.

I’m behind my posting, but I had to get something up because today is the end of the world. What, you didn’t hear? No I didn’t get this information from someone locked away in a commune in Idaho or from a guy on a street corner holding a sign and asking for change. In fact, I don’t have any religious reason for saying this at all, rather purely scientific. You see, today scientists turned on the Large Hadron Collider, a super-collider in Europe that is intended to create subatomic particles and replicate the big bang.

So what does that have to do with the end of the world? Well some are so afraid of the science behind it that they believe small black holes will be created that could eventually swallow the Earth. They’re so afraid in fact, that they’ve tried to sue to keep it from operating. Not exactly how my Bible describes the end of the world. On the other hand, if they can create a singularity, and wormhole theories hold true, then maybe after the Earth is swallowed up our promised “new Earth” will emerge on the other side. Of course, that would require Jesus to have already come back and depending on which-millennialist doctrine you subscribe, another 1000 years or so to pass. So maybe today’s not the day. But I’ll be keeping oil in my lamp.