Public Christianity

So Dr. James Dobson admitted today that if he had to, he’d vote for either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Twist his arm if you have to. If you haven’t been keeping track, right before Super Tuesday Dr. Dobson said that he could not in good conscience vote for John McCain and that if he won the nomination the general election “will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime.” And is “convinced that Senator McCain is not a conservative and… has at times sounded more like a member of the other party.” Dr. Dobson vowed that he would not vote for the first time in his life.

I’m not sure what Dr. Dobson’s beef is with Governor Huckabee, a former minister whose policies, while in some respects could be described as populist, is the only candidate who most closely matches the “social conservativism” that is so important to the Religious Right. At the same time, Governor Romney has been claiming all along he’s the most in line with staunch conservatives, although his record as governor would beg to differ. Evangelical leaders have been hesitant to support Romney outright because he’s Mormon. Yet, all evidence from primaries so far show that Huckabee and Romney are splitting the self-described “conservative” and “evangelical” voters.

One thing that is clear though, the evangelical political mouthpieces like Dobson and Tony Perkins absolutely hate John McCain. And this got me thinking, especially after reading Dr. Dobson’s comments. What is so bad about John McCain?

I understand some evangelicals don’t forgive him for calling them “agents of intolerance” in his last run for the White House. But that was more focused towards the “God hates fags” crowd, and in that respect I whole-heartedly agree with him. He also opposed President Bush steamrolling Supreme Court nominees whose sole qualification was what church they went to (Harriet Miers) or that they opposed Roe v Wade. Personally since a Supreme Court justice is on the bench for life, there’s a pretty good chance he or she would hear more cases about subjects other than abortion than on that one issue alone. Yet there’s the clear “lithmus test” that’s existed for Supreme Court justices for years now. I guess as a Christian I should be upset he didn’t vote to restrict embryonic stem cell research (a very grey area ethically, no matter what religion you are), opposes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage (which I believe is an insult to the spirit of that living document), and opposed President Bush’s tax cuts.

Waitaminute. Tax cuts? That’s a religious issue? I guess it is to Dr. Dobson. But I think the real nail in the coffin for McCain is that he is responsible for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill. What does campaign reform have to do with religion? Well, opponents claim that it prevents groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council (hmmm, I see a connection) from spending obscene amounts of money in political campaigns. Supporters note that it applies to all special interest groups, and restrictions keep candidates from promising favors in return for financial backing. By the way, to put this in perspective, last week leading up to Super Tuesday it was reported that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were each spending $1 million A DAY on TV adds. And it was reported today that Clinton “loaned” her campain $5 million. That’s a lot of money that comes from somewhere. And I’d much rather see evangelical organizations spend those kinds of sums on mission work, philanthropy, and local ministry. But Dobson and others feel differently.

There’s a lot of evidence that Dobson and the like don’t have the same influence they had getting President Bush elected. Even so, it’s a dangerous stance for an Ambassador of Christ. Especially considering one of Dr. Dobson’s critiques of John McCain was that he more often than not resembled someone from the “other” party. As if the whole Democratic Party is a bunch of Baal worshipers.

For more on this see this article at Slate and these at the God-o-meter blog at Beliefnet.

To close, I want to remind Christians of their citizenship.

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as
his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was
going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a
foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with
him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with
foundations, whose architect and builder is God….

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not
receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a
distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People
who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 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 11:8-10, 13-16)

Our true citizenship is in heaven and we’re only renting space here. Our political allegience should be to no party, no special interest, no race or gender, but to God alone.

This was from the sermon a couple of weeks ago and I’ve been saving it for a prelude to Super Tuesday. Here’s a quote from Mike Huckabee, when asked by Time Magazine why he left the ministry for politics:

“In my early years of ministry, I was quite idealistic, thinking that most
people in the congregation expected me to be the captain of a warship leading
God’s troops into battle to change the world,” he writes. “As the years passed,
I became increasingly convinced that most people wanted me to captain the Love
Boat, making sure everyone was having a good time.”

It stands to reason in today’s age of 24-hour news cycles, embedded reporters, and an endless number of political blogs, that we’d think that there is a better chance to “change the world” in politics than in ministry. That’s certainly a condemnation of our Church in America, but also highlights that we rely too much on our civic leaders to be our ministry for us.

It’s my conviction that the reason we need welfare, social security, and inevitably some kind of universal health care in this country is that we, as individuals in God’s Kingdom, don’t live up to God’s expectation to take care of the poor, the orphan, and the widow. Jesus specifically condemned not taking care of our own parents in their old age:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
” ‘These people honor me with their lips
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.‘” (Mt 15:3-9)

Let me paraphrase in today’s terms:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your culture? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that it’s the government’s responsibility to take care of the elderly. That our money is to spend on whatever we want, gifts devoted to ourselves. Thus you rely on your government to take care of your responsibilities. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right about you…”

So are we really surprised that a minister feels he has a better chance to affect change in our culture by running for the highest office in the land?

But what about you? Why are you voting for who you’re voting for on Tuesday (or whenever your primary might be)? Are we expecting our leaders to do what we can’t, yet should as members of Christ’s Church? Are expecting our government to legislate our values instead of sharing them through personal evangelism? Are we living our lives defined by our culture, or are we striving to define the culture around us?

Gong back to the first quote, are we sailors on a warship in God’s navy, or vacotioners on a cruise ship just enjoying the sights?

Two nights ago was the last Republican debate before “Super Tuesday” on the 5th. The debate was held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library with the wife of the late president, Nancy Reagan, sitting right in front. The debate asked the usual generic questions which elicit the same stump speaches from the candidates. Until the end, when it was asked of each of the remaining candidates, “why would Ronald Reagan endorse you?”

Both Mitt Romney and John McCain gave the expected lines on lower taxes, strong military, blah, blah, blah. Ron Paul talked about how he had Reagan’s support in his campaigns for Congress and how he supported Reagan for governor of California. But Mike Huckabee, the former minister, spoke last and didnt’ talk about policy or politics. Instead he talked about the inpiration Reagan gave to America.

He was set up from the start. A former minister, asked if one of the most openly religious presidents in our lifetime would support him. And Gov. Huckabee started out alright, discussing hope and patriotism. But he never said those words that I was sure he was set up to say. Quoting Reagan, paraphrasing Jesus, the dream of an America that is a City set on a hill, a light to the world. A statement, a vision, that inspires hope in a better America, a more peaceful world. Reagan said it in the context of the Cold War but it would still apply today in the context of the War on Terror. An attitude that America can be better than it is. More righteous, more hopeful, more prosperous.

But while Gov. Huckabee touched on all those points, he never said those words. “A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” (Mt 5:14) I guess it’s ok to talk about faith and religion in states like Iowa or South Carolina, but not in California.

And for those who say there is no place to quote the Bible in a campaign–heaven forbid we mix religion and politics–here are some quotes from Reagan himself, a man who before allowing doctors to proceed in a surgery to save his life after being shot, would not ask for God’s healing hand before first forgiving the man who shot him.

“I’ve always believed that there is a certain divine scheme of things. I’m
not quite able to explain how my election happened or why I’m here, apart from
believing that it’s a part of God’s plan for me. “

“God has a plan for each one of us. Some with little faith and even less
testing seem to miss in their mission, or else we perhaps fail to see their
imprint on the lives of others. But bearing what we cannot change and going on
with what God has given us, confident there is a destiny, somehow seems to bring
a reward we wouldn’t exchange for any other.”

“We have it within our power to begin the world over again. We can do it,
doing together what no one church can do by itself.”

It was reported on Thursday that the abortion rate in the United States is continuing to decline. I’m not going to hit on the abortion debate or talk about candidate’s views or any of that. Instead I want to talk just a sec about an article from Newsweek that attempts to discern why the rates are going down. First of all, the rate is reported as a number per 1000 women. The article doesn’t say per 1000 pregnancies (for there’s really no way to count that) so the drop could be attributed to a rise in population alone. But that point is never brought up. Instead it brings up the reduced number of abortion clinics, more restrictive legislation, the increased use of RU486, and increased use of birth control; all of which have measurable statistics. But the article tries to reason if attitudes towards abortion in this country have changed from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides. But there’s only one quote and one three sentence long paragraph dedicated to the pro-life view. All in a two page article. Biased much? And as a number cruncher by trade, I don’t think it’s very hard to answer the question of whether more mothers are carrying their babies to full term. One you can compare the drop in the rate of abortions to the change in the rate of births. Next you consider the rate of miscarriages (assuming all are reported). Finally you look at the number of children being put up for adoption.

If the general public is agreeing more and more with the statement that, to paraphrase my least favorite presidential candidate, “abortion should be available, but rare,” it wouldn’t take much homework to figure out. If you assume that a pregnancy that is considered to be terminated but is carried to full term is still an unwanted pregnancy, the statistics would show up with numbers of children put up for adoption. If that number is increasing at a greater rate than the birthrate as a whole (and understanding that with modern pre-natal care there are fewer miscarriages) that would be all the evidence you need. Instead, the author gives the pro-life side a token quote and then expands on how much harder it is to get abortions these days. It’s shoddy reporting at best, blatant bias at worst. But then again, when it comes to this issue, do we expect any better? We should.

Like I said previously, I’ve recently returned from a family road trip over Christmas. We didn’t drive the Wagonqueen Family Truckster, but we did put over 3000 miles on our Mitsubishi Endeavor. Anway, after getting snowed in trying to drive on I-80 coming home, our schedule slipped a day and that meant getting stuck in the post-New-Year’s-Eve Las Vegas traffic. They say, “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” except for the traffic that is. So I-15 was a total parking lot. While patiently (I wish!) waiting in traffic while our 3 month-old was crying at the top of her lungs and our now 3 year-old was kicking the back of my seat, it was awfully tempting to pull over to the shoulder and see how far I could get before getting ticketed. Actually it wasn’t. But that didn’t stop several others from trying, and watching them blatantly break the law ticked me off. I was rooting for them to get pulled over and reveled in the thought of how much the ticket would be.

But then I asked myself why that made me so upset? Sure they’d get to where they’re going faster, but really not by much because they couldn’t ride on the shoulder forever. And besides, it’s not like I never break the law driving. In fact, as soon as traffic started to thin I was back to driving my usual 9 mph over the speed limit. And that got me thinking about right and wrong. If I was as good a Christian as I try and proclaim, I should abide by Romans 13 and obey the law of the land no matter what. And that includes following the speed limit. But I’m confident I’m not the only Christian who speeds. Not only that, but I’ve probably cursed under my breath others whose convictions tell them to strictly follow the limit.

So it strikes me that while our convictions are black and white, we live in a world of grey, and that has a major influence on the decisions we make. This begs the question, what informs our morals? The Bible, the world, or some combination of both? If we were perfect like Jesus, we could say that we are only “do[ing] the will of Him who sent me.” (Jn 4:34) That’s not an excuse however for letting the world inform our morality. This is where the Christian Worldview comes into play. We need to be able to look at the world from a Christ-like perspective while at the same time recognizing that we are sinners and imperfect, so we strive to uphold God’s standards the best we can.

I wanted to list off some more examples of the “grey” world in which we live to illustrate why we can’t let the world define our morals. I was thinking of this when I got back to work, and a couple of contrasting examples came to mind. First, most companies will fire you on the spot if you’re looking at pornography on your computer during work-hours. But the same standard doesn’t apply if you’re checking sport scores, headlines, etc. Is there a practical difference? Not really, the only difference is in the social norm of pornography being a vice. I don’t disagree with that. But what about smoke-breaks? There are several co-workers in my building that take smoke breaks every couple of hours or so. That’s considered ok. But if I wanted to take a “drink break” and down a shot or have a bottle of beer every couple of hours, I’d probably have to start looking for another job. What’s the practical difference? There is none, but unlike with pornography, smoking is considered more of a vice than drinking yet that is the social norm.

Not only are our social norms inconsistent, they’re also ever-changing. Take slavery, the roles of women, and most recently homosexuality as examples. While in some cases the world’s morals have changed for the better (in the case of abolishing slavery for example) in many others they have been changes for the worse (the over-sexualization in our culture presently). This lends more weight to holding to the standards of the Bible over the world since, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” (Is 40:6-8/1 Pt 1:24-25) The Bible doesn’t change. God doesn’t change. But the standards of the world are always changing.

Now today was the New Hampshire Primary. I won’t go into winners and losers, but I want to apply this to politics. There are many who despise the fact that some candidates are so open about their faith. They point to the separation of Church and State and say that religion should have no role in politics. If that’s the case, then where do we expect our leaders to derive their morality? The present inconsistent and ever-changing social norms? Public opinion polls? History or philosophy? Personally, I’d prefer a leader whose convictions are built on rock and not on sand. Social norms, public opinion, history and philosophy are all important in informing political decision-making. But character and leadership aren’t the same as deal-making and power-broking. And this is what has been shown in the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary; voters are looking for leaders with character. Statesmen instead of politicians. And personal views on wedge-issues don’t seem to matter as much, evidenced by the widespread reporting of the cross appeal of McCain and Obama despite opposite positions on just about everything. (then again, it was just announced that Clinton edged out Obama, but I think my point is still valid)

Bottom line, we should all strive to attain, in our day to day living as well as our politics, the goal set forth in Ephesians. “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” (Eph 4:14)

I’ve added a couple of links and got rid of a couple of others. I was never really fond of having a link to the Moral Majority, but I thought it was the best representation of the Religious Right. But I never did find a “Religious Left” equivalent. And from all indications, the Unity ’08 effort has been a flop.

So I’ve added the “God-o-meter” from beliefnet. It’s a regular update of the religious rhetoric coming from the candidates and is a kick to read and keep up with, especially now that we’re in the think of primary season. Another bonus is that from there you can jump back to beliefnet where there are blogs from Jim Wallis and others. I’ve also added the Newsweek/Washington Post “On Faith” page. I really like the “conversations” they have on relevant topics and their blogs are also very insightful. So happy reading. I pray these links help inform your Christian Worldview and inform not only your politics, but also your daily life as a Public Christian.

I’ve just recently gotten back from a roadtrip over Christmas so I have a backlog of posts to put up. Hopefully I’ll get to those this weekend. In the meantime, listening to coverage of last night’s Iowa Caucus brought my attention to this. The God-o-meter at beliefnet.com which gauges how much religious rhetoric each candidate is using to pander for the “value voter”. While I don’t like their categorization of “theocrat” it’s pretty amusing nonetheless. It’s updated daily with related articles, so I might just have to add a permanent link to it.

On Thursday Major League Baseball released the results of “The Mitchell Report” detailing steroid use in baseball. Don’t worry, this isn’t another Barry Bonds rant. Instead, what catches my attention is how strongly and quickly the players deny every detail. Honestly, I don’t care who did or who didn’t use, I just want someone, anyone, to stand up and say, “I did it, and I take responsibility.” And I really don’t care about any records or asterisks, either. I just care about the “integrity of the game.” That phrase is tossed around a lot, but what does that mean, anyway?

Well, The American Heritage Dictionary defines integrity as “Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.” And dictionary.com follows that definition up with “honesty.” I like this definition from Proverbs myself, “A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.” (Pr 12:17) To me, integrity is letting your “yes be yes and your no, no.” (Mt 5:37, Js 5:12)

In this case, it means that all those players who do the Sign of the Cross, thank God for their accomplishments, and face the world when a microphone is shoved in their faces tell the honest to God truth. And athletes aren’t the only ones I wish this for. How many religious leaders who claim to speak for God have been brought low by scandal that was denied for who knows how long before the truth could no longer be hidden. I think of the Catholic priests, the Ted Haggards, the Bob Jones Jrs, and on and on. Why is it so hard in this world to find someone who you can trust to tell the truth?

But instead we live in a fallen world being led by sinners just like you and me. I know I’m not honest all the time. We’ve all told that “white lie” to protect our self interest. But at the same time, I’m not thanking God for something I should really be thanking a chemist for. It’s one thing to lie to save face or to stay out of trouble (not that I’m excusing that either), but it’s another thing to credit God for your accomplishments that you attained by any and every means necessary.

So I’m still grappling with what happened in Colorado and what would motivate someone to do such a thing. And I think about the kid in Omaha too and many, many others who turned their personal demons into another’s hell. Quite common with nonsensical shootings like these are that the shooter is overwhelmed with a feeling of rejection.

Sunday morning, before seeing the news, I taught Sunday School to a group of 3rd graders. My lesson juxtaposed the sinful woman caught in adultery in John 8 with the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Luke 7. When I present lessons from the Bible to this age group, I need to emphasize why the story I’m telling them is important. In this case, the lesson was how Jesus accepts anyone and everyone despite their sin and despite what religious leaders might say about it. A lesson certainly applicable today. There are a lot of religious leaders, Pharisees of this day and age, who are quick to condemn, quick to judge. But not Jesus. Jesus accepts. Jesus forgives.

I think about the modern parable (an oft-forwarded email, actually) of a young man in ratty clothes, long hair, piercings and tattoos who walks late into a Catholic Mass. The church is full and he can’t find a seat and even where there is a seat available the looks from the parishioners made it clear he wasn’t welcome. So without any other seats, he sat down right in the middle of the center isle. Of course, the priest had yet to come down the isle himself and everyone in the church was breathless with anticipation to see what he would do when he came to the young man. The organ stated the opening hymn as the priest and altar boys began down the isle. But no one sang along. All eyes were on the priest to see what he would do next. Noticing everyone’s stares, the priest looked at the young man and…

sat down with him.

Maybe the young men involved in these shootings could relate to this young man. Maybe they could relate to the women described in the Gospels above. Maybe they never understood that Jesus would sit right down next to them, even if no one else would.

What makes this even more sad is that I know of ministries in and around Denver whose sole purpose is to reach out to the unaccepted, the rejected. The one that I think of first is Scum of the Earth. Yeah, you read that right. The name comes from 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, “To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.” They say Matthew Murray came from a very religious family, so maybe he had no interest in finding a community that would accept him. But sources also say that he was once part of Youth with a Mission and was looking at enrolling in Colorado Christian College. So somewhere in his heart and soul there was a desire to reach out to God.

Now some will say it’s arrogant for a Christian to say, “well, he just needed Jesus and this would’ve never happened.” To that I can respond based on experience in ministering to addicts, that while Jesus forgives us there’s no promise that he’ll heal us. No doubt he can, but there will always be scars. We need to face and deal with the baggage we carry and lay it at the foot of the cross. If he “had Jesus” would this have been prevented? There’s really no way of knowing. Did he “need Jesus”? Well, only Jesus knows the answer to that.

Instead of worrying about the arrogance of us Christians having all the answers, or of the eternal fate of the shooter, the focus should be on the victims. And to follow Jesus’ example and forgive.