Public Christianity

So I turned in to tonight’s YouTube debate just in time to see the candidates questioned if they believe the words in the Bible. That’s a pretty loaded question, in fact it was prefaced with, “how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you.” Not only is it loaded, but it’s also misleading. Many people wrongly equate believing that the Bible is the Word of God and believing that every word is true. At the same time, believing that the Bible is the Word of God also isn’t the same as believing that every word applies to you. But that’s a nuance that is often ignored in the public debate about the influence of Christianity on many political issues, namely evolution and homosexuality. The way the argument goes is that if you believe the Bible is the Word of God then therefore you believe every word is true and you are a strict creationist. At the same time, you also therefore believe that every word applies to us today and thus are homophobic based on the Levitical Law calling homosexuality an “abomination.” See how suddenly by being “prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pt 3:15) now has painted you into a corner on two very hot political topics? Like the questioner said, “how you answer this question will tell us everything you need to know about you.”

But that’s just not true. Just because I believe the Bible is the Word of God doesn’t mean I take every word literally. It’s obvious that some is poetry and some is allegorical. And I admit that my faith isn’t strong enough to take a literal view of creation. When it comes to homosexuality, unfortunately many christians (intentional little c) quote Leviticus to condemn homosexuality. I sure hope they don’t eat shrimp because that too, is an abomination according to Levitical Law. And since Jesus died “once for all” (Heb 10:10) and established a “new covenant” (Lk 22:20) and “fulfill[ed] them [the law]” (Mt 5:17) the Levitical Law no longer applies to us today. (After all, where’s our temple?)

But it’s intentional to not ask the specific questions regarding these issues. Instead the question is framed to require candidates to dance around their faith. So how did the candidates do tonight? Well, Mayor Giuliani answered the question pretty much like I did. Governor Romney answered it directly saying he believed the Bible is the Word of God but then tripped all over himself to expand on that. And Governor Huckabee hit it out of the park. I’ll paraphrase: “Yes, I believe the Bible is God’s revelation to his people. And there are parts that are up to interpretation that are the center of debates. But there are parts that are so clear that everyone can agree on them, ‘love your neighbor’ and ‘what you’ve done for the least of these, you’ve done to me’. I think we can all agree in these principles. But we get too distracted by the other debates that we don’t live out what we do agree on.” (for direct quote, go here) Of course, would we expect any less from a minister?

Huckabee’s answer was honest and direct. And unlike either Giuliani or Romney, you could tell from his body language, his tone, and the words themselves, that he really meant it. And I have to respect that. I saw him on “Real Time with Bill Maher” and he held up pretty well against attacks on his creationist stance. He said point blank that it doesn’t matter what he thinks about that issue because it doesn’t affect how he would govern. And Bill Maher couldn’t say anything against that, other than going off on a rant against Christianity as a whole.

While this entry might look like a political endorsement, it’s not. Instead, it’s a lesson on exactly how we, as Ambassadors of Christ, should “be prepared to give an answer… with gentleness and respect.”

And I can say that with a clear conscience without fear of the PC police… for now anyway.

Thanksgiving is easily my favorite holiday. I grew up in retail so Christmas wasn’t the least bit fun. But Thanksgiving (with Black Friday after of course) was a chance to close shop for a day and spend the time with family. We would often host a big feast at our church with family from out of town, our employees, our neighbors, and the close friends of the family that were, really, family. The advantage of growing up in a small town, I guess. I can’t imagine doing something like that today. But I do pray that someday my family can host a Thanksgiving like I remember growing up.

Thanksgiving, to me, isn’t the least bit religious. There’s no doctrine behind it like the birth or resurrection of my Savior. It’s simply a time to stop the world for a moment and enjoy the blessings in our lives, wherever we believe they originated from. And even though the folklore is rooted in Puritan religious tradition, the symbols of the holiday are turkeys, cornucopias, gourds, and leaves in all the fall colors. Anyone can celebrate this holiday. And it’s not just Christians who celebrate it.

But yet, there are some who feel that there is a War on Thanksgiving like there is a War on Christmas, with bumper stickers that say “remember to thank HIM”. If it was me, I’d play off the slogan of “Keep Christ in Christmas” with something like “Keep the Thanks in Thanksgiving.” I don’t think there’s a reason for the Christian Right to be paranoid about the religious roots of Thanksgiving eroding in the name of Political Correctness. But I do think it’s right to remind everyone why we celebrate this holiday. We are blessed in this country. The poorest among us are rich compared to much of the world. We celebrate freedoms that few others share. And despite how screwed up our country can seem at times, thousands still come to this country regularly to seek a better life.

Abraham Lincoln established Thanksgiving as a national holiday in 1863. It is worth it to look to his words to remind us why we celebrate this holiday today.

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great
things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who while dealing with
us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set
apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving
and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. (full text here)

And while we are called to give thanks for our blessings, we are also called to remember those less fortunate:

And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to
him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble
penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender
care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers…

Today, let’s remember to Keep the Thanks in Thanksgiving.

On Tuesday, the Governor of Georgia held an all-faith rally to pray for rain. If you haven’t heard, Georgia is suffering an unprecedented drought and a call for everyone in the state to pray for relief wouldn’t be unheard of. But to hold it on the capitol steps? Is that going too far? Like my title says, if there really is a separation of Church and State, where’s the line? Was it crossed when Congressmen and women sang God Bless America on the steps of the US Capitol following September 11? Is it crossed when the president suggests we pray for the victims of a natural disaster?

There were a few protesters, but not as substantial as I would’ve expected. But there was an online debate on one of the message boards I frequent over whether this sets a bad precedent (of course, in order for that to be the case this would have to be the first time something like this has ever happened). The person who started the thread, about halfway through the debate, stated that he was afraid of what this country will look like in 20 years if such violations of the First Amendment are allowed to continue. I hate to break it to him, but there was a nationwide vigil when the Apollo 13 mission failed. And that was more than 20 years ago. Have we been sliding down the slippery slope ever since? Of course not. That wasn’t the first such event and it certainly wasn’t the last. I already mentioned 9/11. And while that spike of patriotism and religion might have alarmed the most paranoid Church/State activists, a majority of those who rushed to their churches to pray, hold vigil, donate blood, or just take communion for the first time in years have since dropped back out into the world of sleeping in on Sundays or staying home to watch football.

But were the prayers effective? Well, it did rain believe it or not. Although the weather service did predict rain. But this whole event reminds me of a common anecdote of the girl who, when her town gathered to pray for rain to end a drought, was the only one who brought an umbrella. Relate this to Mark 11:24, “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” So I wonder, of all the people who showed up, did anyone think to bring an umbrella?

So Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani the other day. To quote Adam Sandler in one of my all-time favorite movies, “Well, whoopidee dooo!” Meanwhile, Sen Sam Brownback, I guess the standard bearer for Christianity in the Senate, has endorsed John McCain. Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, has endorsed Mike Huckabee (so did Chuck Norris FWIW). And a couple of weeks ago, Bob Jones endorsed Mitt Romney. All that while Dr. James Dobson and other evangelical leaders threaten to endorse a third party if the Republicans fail to nominate a pro-life candidate (see this post below). Do these differing opinions mean anything? Is it a harbinger of the collapse of the Religious Right?

Not really. It’s really more reflective of a reality of Christians overlooked by political “experts.” Remember, there are hundreds of different denominations split over things as important as whether or not you have Sunday School. Do you honestly think if Christians can’t be united under Jesus that some politician can unite them? And this is a good thing, really. I’d rather have a fractured “christian” political base than one united on only one or two issues. I’d rather not be shoe-horned into a political party just because of my faith. And I especially don’t want dishonest politicians pandering to me in the name of my Lord with the aim to be elected to office, not to bring Him glory.

There are a lot of people surprised by Pat Robertson’s endorsement. After all, Rudy doesn’t have the most conservative record when it comes to abortion and gay rights. However, this isn’t an indication of Robertson becoming less narrow minded. Instead, it represents his strong and very public stance on the Global War on Terror. As much as it seems he says some ridiculous things like Hurricane Katrina being about homosexuality, he talks much more frequently and more firmly about terrorism. So this news shouldn’t be taken as an encouraging sign of the Christian Right, but instead an endorsement of a 21st Century Crusade.

But again, these figureheads don’t speak for me. And I don’t pledge allegiance to any doctrine based on their words, but on God’s alone. There is some discussion online that this endorsement will drive moderates away from Giuliani. I don’t think so. I just think reality is finally exposing the mythology of the “value voter”. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. (For a counter argument on the state of the evangelical voter, see this article)

I love these, I really do. Especially when they take a Christian theme and end with something like, “if you really love God, you’ll forward this to 500 people. I won’t know if you forward it or not, but God will.” But seriously, they are usually encouraging (at least until that last sentence) or are pontificating on an issue or issues I somewhat agree with. In fact, because I often agree in principle with many of these emails I tried to start one several years ago citing statistics about the number of so-called Christians in this country versus the number who read their Bible or attend church regularly, the numbers of teen-pregnancies and abortions, and the percentage of the population who are addicted to drugs or alcohol. I was curious to see if I’d ever get it back and what transformations it would take before it got back to me. But it never did. Perhaps it hit too close to home. Or perhaps I failed to attribute my rant to a celebrity.

I just got one of these. Maybe you’ve seen it. It’s titled, “Paul Harvey on Prayer.” I’m always suspicious whenever I see one of these credited to someone famous. So I checked it out on Snopes and sure enough, it’s not true. It is a real article, but not by Paul Harvey.

What gets my goat, is that even though I agree with the thoughts contained therein and the desire to forward it to the whole world, at some point some well-intended Christian flat out lied when he or she originated this email. And for all the times it’s been forwarded, how many Christians have actually checked to see if what is written is true or if it is credited to the right author? In fact, this particular email dates back to 2000. So just think about how many times it’s been forwarded, or how many times it’s shown up in your inbox, in those seven years!

Here’s my email in all it’s glory (minus the Meg-or-so of graphics that came with):

Last week it was reported that leaders on the Christian right agreed that if either party fails to nominate a pro-life candidate, they would throw their support behind a third party. The biggest problem I have with this stance (and the Christian right movement in general) is that it draws a line in the sand relative to only two, very narrow, issues with the attitude of you’re either with us or against us. In two interviews I saw with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, he painted these issues as, “non-negotiable” and, “black and white.” These two issues? Abortion and gay-marriage of course.

The problem with taking a stand on a platform of two issues, is that it considerably narrows your base, rendering it ineffective. In a more plural government, where there are many parties such as the Green Party, Communist Party, Labour Party, etc, that is fine because they often form coalitions on issues outside of their platform. But the American government is a two party system, and with good reason. The public frequently complains about the extremes of each party and how Congress is unable to compromise in the middle. This is the point of a two party system. The framers of the Constitution didn’t want extremists an opportunity to seize control over any branch of the government. They provided a system where there will always be a dissenting voice. When it comes to issues near and dear to a particular party, it requires compromise in order to receive favor from the opposition party. The complaint that nothing ever happens in Congress is actually a good thing. We don’t want Congress doing a lot. If our Senators and Representatives can’t reach a compromise on an issue, that is better than approving something on the fringes of either side. Now I admit that lately there seems to be an overwhelming unwillingness to compromise and meet in the middle with many issues, most visibly immigration reform. But the lack of compromise keeps the debate going.

By narrowing all you care about to two issues and giving an ultimatum to the major parties eliminates any possibility for each side to meet in the middle. And a majority of Americans are in the middle on most, if not all, issues. Many Christians, I would argue, oppose abortion but aren’t necessarily in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned. Similarly, I would argue that most Christians oppose gay-marriage, but wouldn’t support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting it.

So a two-issue party isn’t the answer. History shows that in the two-plus decades conservative Christian voters have been rallying around the pro-life banner, there has been little to show for it on a national scale. The issue has created the “litmus test” for judges and political candidates. It is the first question asked of any Republican running for president or really just about any other office. And it is what is keeping the “Christian Right” from supporting either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. And what has that gotten us? Not much. And the reason is that the issue isn’t a political one. Even when a candidate is chosen based on who they would nominate to the Supreme Court, that judge still has to be approved by a divided Congress. So how much power does a President or a single Congressperson really have? The Constitution intended for not a lot.

On the issue of gay-marriage, that’s even stickier. That’s why some would favor a Constitutional Amendment. Because that’s the only way an all-out prohibition would stick without being overturned by the courts. There needs to be a compelling public interest in limiting the legal right to marry. Such is the case for polygamy, pedophilia, and common-law marriage. And despite your personal views on the issue, such a case has not yet been made when it comes to gay-marriage.

So no matter a candidate’s view on any single issue, he or she will always face political opposition, the separation of powers, and constitutionality. That’s why I could care less about a candidate’s view on those two issues. In the end, they really can’t make that much difference.

I believe the battle for the “culture of life” is not a political one, but a spiritual one and is therefore not fought in Washington, but in the heart and soul of the common individual. And the way it is fought is by preaching and living the Gospel and, “watch[ing] your life and doctrine closely. Persever[ing] in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”

As for a third party, I admit that part of me longs for a legitimate “Christian” party with a tent big enough to include both the social gospel and the culture of life. One that is beyond only two issues, but also addresses poverty, the importance of family, the culture of greed so evident in this country, sex permeating our culture and influencing our children, and on and on. Yet, there’s a reason we still have, after over 200 years, only two parties. We need the debate. And we need to prevent radicals on all sides from gaining too much political power.

Well, what do you think? Is it the means by which you believe you are saved? Whether your doctrine is based on sola scriptura or apostolic tradition? Do you speak where the Bible speaks and silent where the Bible is silent, or is it the other way around? If you’re faith-alone, grace-alone, Calvinist, Swedenborgian, or Arminian? Are you premillennial, postmillennial, or
amillennial?

Or is it how you vote? Your stance on the “big two” wedge issues, abortion and gay marriage? Whether you subscribe to the social gospel or the culture of life?

Do you need the Ten Commandments hanging somewhere in your house or a crucifix instead? Do you have a family Bible, or one held together by duct-tape that you read every day? Do you pray with your head down or hands raised? Are you sold-out, evangelistic, and fruitful?

There are literally thousands of Christian denominations out there divided over issues such as these and some even more mundane like whether or not your church building has a kitchen. This is despite Paul’s admonishment to, “3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:3-6) Count the “ones” in this passage and compare that to the cafeteria of choices we have when it comes to choosing a church.

Yet Jesus was very clear in telling us what is really important when asked, 36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Mt 22:36-40)

So what is a “true” Christian? I would argue one who loves God with all their hearts, mind, soul and strength, and who love their neighbors as themselves. I couldn’t tell you if someone I pass by on the street loves God with all their heart. Or even the person I sit next to at church every Sunday. Only God knows the answer to that one. But loving your neighbor as yourself is more evident in the way we live our lives.

My wife gave birth to our second child and first daughter a week ago today. Since then there’s been a deluge of visits, phone calls, gifts and prayers from brothers and sisters in our church. Not to mention a steady diet of home cooked food prepared out of the goodness of someone else’s heart. (Honestly if not for that, we’d be living off of fast food as we’re too much of zombies to do much else.) Many of those who have brought us their specialty dish we’re not necessarily close to. But they are loving their neighbor nonetheless. This is despite the fact that a couple of our best friends gave birth to their firstborn four days prior and they have been the recipients of the same warmth and service. It’s not as if our church is full of people with the means to do this on a regular basis. And it’s not as if this level of love and selflessness is apparent on a weekly basis when I see their faces on Sunday. Yet I know that when I step into church tomorrow I will be greeted warmly with many congratulations, hearty hugs, and sincere smiles. I will feel at home and I will feel surrounded by genuine Christians who truly love their neighbors as themselves.

As an ironic headline to follow up my last post, the IRS has officially dropped its investigation of a Pasadena Episcopal church while the church wants a formal apology. What was the IRS investigating? A sermon a couple of weeks before the 2004 election that was against the war in Iraq. Huh? The IRS investigating a church about a political sermon, how does that work?

A little background on what this is about. Churches file with the IRS as 501(c)(3) organizations, or a “tax-exempt non-profits.” This designation prohibits churches, and other non-profit groups, from explicitly participating in political campaigns or implicitly endorsing one particular candidate over another. This rule stems from Lyndon B Johnson’s 1954 Senate campaign that was facing opposition from non-profit groups. At the time, churches were already tax-exempt and this amendment to the tax code wasn’t directed towards churches but rather politically active non-profit groups (think the historical equivalent of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth or MoveOn.org). Yet because churches fell under the same tax code as those groups the political restriction applied to them as well. But, despite the growing entanglement between churches and politics, rarely does the IRS actually cite a particular church. But while one could quickly side with a church, regardless of the topic preached, it is a little known fact that a church does not have to file as a 501(c)(3). The only real impact not having “non profit” status would have would be that parishioners wouldn’t be able to deduct church contributions on their tax forms. For megachurches with very large incomes, it would also be a significant tax burden. But for a local church, it wouldn’t make much difference.

Despite this, there was a bit of an uproar when this investigation first became public. And the sermon in question was a hot topic: The Iraq War. It did seem like the IRS came at this from out of the blue with a biased political agenda, despite being a non-partisan government bureaucracy. So I do think the IRS was poking its head where it didn’t belong.

On the other hand, I question whether such preaching is really edifying. Does preaching on political issues build up “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God [to] become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13)? In other words, would preaching about the Iraq war help someone in attendance to become more Christlike if already a Christian or lead one to Christ if not? Not to mention that the purpose of meeting as an assembly of believers is to worship. Is this worship, or is it just grandstanding?

As for the topic itself, there are two main camps with most people falling somewhere in between. One camp is across the board pacifist, not just opposing war but also opposing military service. That side can look back in history to Roman soldiers who were required to serve in the Roman army but would not pledge allegiance to Caesar. Some would refuse to be crowned with laurels, a homage to Ares, the god of war. The other camp looks at what is happening in the Middle East and reads Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation and concludes that war, especially in the Middle East, will hasten Jesus’ return. Never mind that the same was preached up to two decades ago about Russia. Nevertheless, I was quite nervous when Syria and Israel were trading rockets a year ago and one of the regions affected was Megiddo (where we get the word “Armageddon”).

So what would be acceptable? To me, a sermon on the above differences in opinion, with scriptures to support both, would certainly be relevant to a church service. But pontificating on an increasingly unpopular war on the other hand, would not. We need to be careful as Christ’s body to use our worship to encourage one another, grow in faith, become more Christlike and to glorify God. Our religion should inform our politics, not the other way around.

Ok, it’s been another three-ish weeks since my last post. At least I’m consistent. The problem I run into is that I see a headline or something comes to me and the wheels in my head start turning. I spend a lot of time doing research, I get distracted, I don’t get online for a long time, and when I finally do get a minute either I’ve forgotten what had me so riled up in the first place or the headline that caught my attention is no longer relevant. And then here we are, three weeks later.

Most recently, I was wanting to post about Elvira Arellano and the use of churches as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. I was studying my Bible about the role of sanctuary cities and a word study on refuge. Then time flies, and while the illegal immigration debate is still going on (and likely will so long as it continues to be politicized without any desire from either side for a real solution) this story kinda went away. Well, other than the president of Mexico offering to send her to the US to be an ambassador and would therefore be afforded all the rights and privileges of a Mexican citizen in the United States. But the post wasn’t going to be about her, but about what role should our churches play in this debate? And that issue has come up again.

This week, the city of Simi Valley sent a bill of $40,000.00 to a local church for the police required to keep order during a protest outside their doors. The protest wasn’t organized by them, wasn’t planned by them, and really wasn’t even participated in by them. But the rationale was that since their actions, by allowing an illegal immigrant to seek refuge in their church, they incited the protest and that they should be the ones held responsible. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

If this holds up, it sets a dangerous precedent for the church. Would a church be held financially responsible if there’s a protest on their stance against homosexuality? Or what if a synagogue is vandalized with anti-Semitic tagging, would you hold them responsible? Fortunately, from what I’ve read most agree that this is an infringement on that church’s First Amendment right and a ploy to passive-aggressively stake their ground on the illegal immigration debate.

But that’s not really the point of this either. Is this something we, the church, Christ’s ambassadors, should be getting involved in? There’s no legal standard for a church being a sanctuary for fugitives. Rather it’s an unwritten rule, kinda like fighting on Holy Ground in Highlander. But what’s the history behind it? Obviously our country began as a refuge for many seeking religious freedom. The motivation behind the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was to keep the government from dictating a state religion so any faith could be practiced freely. Churches were central as sanctuaries pre-abolition just as they were involved during the Civil Rights Movement. So there’s historical precedent. But is there Biblical precedent?

When settling in Israel, the refugees from Egypt were given instructions by God to set aside “sanctuary cities”. These were cities where one could flee if accused of murder so that their case could be heard by the elders before they were killed in revenge. The fine print though, was that they had to be innocent. Romans instructs us that we should obey the law of the land because every authority on Earth is there but for the grace of God. So is it right for a church to be a sanctuary for someone breaking the law, even if we don’t agree with that law?

Another refugee from authorities wrote many Psalms about God being his only refuge. David was being hunted down and though he lived in caves and some towns let him hide, he knew that his only refuge was God Almighty.

But we are also commanded not to “oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9) And let’s not forget about the Good Samaritan, a foreigner. We also read in James, “15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (James 2:15-16)

So what should we do? Where’s the line between giving to a “foreigner” in need and giving them employment? Where’s the line between being sympathetic to illegal immigrants and offering your church as a sanctuary? First, we need to heed to existing laws. Second, we need to reach out to meet the needs of those who are here illegally. They’re here for a reason, after all; the economy in Mexico is an absolute mess. Finally third, we need to be careful not to skate on the thin ice of the hot political topic de jour. We need to let our lights shine, be the salt of the earth, and represent Christ in all we do. My question for all those “safe churches”, are you doing everything you can to enable the immigrant you’re harboring to get on a path to citizenship? What are the circumstances of him or her facing deportation (immigration officers have their hands too full to want to deport someone ‘just because’)? Are you just seeking headlines?

Yes, families are affected and depending on where you live, chances are there’s someone in your congregation who is here illegally. But the church as an institution exists to meet the needs of its parishioners. In this case, that means helping them gain citizenship, legally. Sanctuary in the Bible requires innocence, and unfortunately none of us on either side of this debate are wholly innocent.