Looking For The Jesus Connection: How did Jesus Fight the "Culture War?"

134 thoughts on “Looking For The Jesus Connection: How did Jesus Fight the "Culture War?"”

1. Pingback: DogfightAtBankstown
2. Pingback: Totem To Temple

3. Wow, Carol, if Jews worship God I’m not sure why Paul would say that they are cut off and damned. No one worships God apart from Christ. No one knows God apart from Christ. The whole point I was making is that the Jews in teh OT who we see have a relationship with God would have believed in Christ because they knew God and simply had insufficient revelation. Jews now don’t know God and reject Christ, thus proving that their God (a non-triune God–it’s one thing to not know God is triune and another to know and reject it) is not the true God. Otherwise, I guess you would reject that unbelieving Jews are not saved like the NT says.

   Secondly, all i need to say to your use of the OT is that Israel = the Church, not secular governments like America. The Church is to pay toward the poor and build up the community. Are you making a false connection?

   LikeLike

4. “When American Christians are “discriminated against”, we run for the lawyers and the press. When Rwandan Christians were slaughtered, they prayed and rejoiced. Who’s being more faithful to what Jesus really said?”

   The Americans, no question.

   LikeLike

5. tooaugust: ???? How did you get that out of my post?

   Yes, the whole point was that there was controversy over whether it was *moral* to pay taxes to Caesar because of all of that. Jesus’ reply was to render to Caesar what he could claim as their overlord. The focus of moral and spiritual concerns belonged elsewhere.

   The rest of my comment was on what the biblical perspective on ownership was. Read from the Torah onwards and it’s clear that the biblical perspective doesn’t particularly jive with our modern notions of private property. The understanding Israel had was that everything belonged to God and we were obligated to provide out of what God had given us to care for whoever in the community was in need (part of that giving included taxes paid to the temple and to the govt). The tax structure in ancient Israel was based on an understanding of communal obligation rather than today’s “It’s MY money. What’s in it for me?” attitude.

   (btw, I think Paul would be rather surprised to hear himself quoted in support of the idea that Jews don’t worship the God of Israel. It’s one thing to say that Jews have a wrong understanding of God, but to say they worship something other than God is one of those things I hear some Christians say that just makes no sense to me. Does having an incorrect or incomplete understanding of God makes them guilty of idolatry? If so, then we are all in trouble.)

   LikeLike

6. Carol, you think “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” means you should really render unto your community and not to Caesar at all? Wow, i think that is reading quite a bit into it. The whole point in 1st Century Palestine was that Caesar used the money for oppression of others (specifically the Jews), building elaborate houses and temples to false gods, support homosexual pedifiliac behavior in his palaces, war and self-pleasure. What in the world does that have to do with giving to community? There is not social welfare program in Rome. I think your reading Jesus through Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Moore.

   Faith, do the Jews believe Christ is the second Person of the Trinity, the Triune God? Does not John say that those who do not are anti-Christ. Just because Paul states that one day Jews may become Christians doesn’t mean that their religion is legit now. Paul even says at the beginning of his argument in Rom 9-11 that the Jews are cut off from God and are not saved. It is now, not in the OT, a different God they serve it they reject the Son (Gospel of John). I never said I was pro-homosexual marriage. I said we shouldn’t be making Christianity about legislating laws to prevent people from externally performing sinful behavior. None of you as of yet has answered whether or not all laws in the OT and NT should become secular laws, and why or why not. You seem to be picking this one out because it’s a part of the evangelical subculture, but it hasn’t seemed to come from your Biblical reading, since all of the other stuff has been left out.

   Gala, I don’t think voting a particular way is wrong based on the issues. I’m talking about holding Christian rallies, trying to convince others to vote a certain way on moral issues in order to make others moral. I realize as a Christian you would not vote for homosexual marriage, but why would you then vote at all? Why do you feel the need to go and vote against it? Do you think your changing behavior internally? Do you think people draw closer to God by not being “as bad” as they could? Both of these are contrary to what the Bible teaches. It seems to me that the problem in the last days (the days from Christ to the end) is that people will act like Christians (have an appearance of godliness) but not be Christians who derive their godliness from a relationship with God through the Gospel (but deny the power thereof).

   LikeLike

7. tooaugust:

   The biblical perspective is that the land, and our money, and everything else ultimately is God’s.

   Jesus said ‘render unto Caesar…’, meaning that we shouldn’t get all caught up in politics. (It was a controversy in 1st century Judaism as to whether is was lawful to pay taxes to the occupying Romans).

   And after considering that all we have is God’s, the next in line for it, biblically, is not ourselves but the community – particularly those most in need. Based on that, one can argue for against our govt’s policies on taxes and spending. But what we can’t argue from a biblical perspective is the line starting with ‘but it’s *my* money…’

   LikeLike

8. I vote knowing that I am in the Sight of God. Therefore it would be immoral to vote anyway other than the right way, which is to cast the ballot the way a Christian lives. As a Christian it is not my choice to do otherwise.

   And maybe legislating immoral behaviour will get the immoralists to think twice, maybe enter a church to see what God has to say. Maybe a priest/minister would walk up to this lost soul and maybe they would turn Christian.

   LikeLike

9. tooaugust- Married people do benefit financially ie. when their spouse can provide insurance benefits for them through their jobs. If you are pro gay marriage, although I do not understand it, it is of course your choice. There are some groups who are pushing to lower the age of consent, which with gay marriage is the next step in this cancerous growth. God bless those who are working to prevent these abominations- like The Thomas More Law Center and Priests for Life. Btw- The commandment you cited was handed down from Moses- if it came from a false god, then why would Christians follow the teaching, or Christ for that matter? As Christians, we are taught that the original olive branches will some day be grafted back on to the tree, and that we as Christians should not get puffed up with ourselves, as we can be removed from the olive tree just as easily as the original branches had been… and I do pray that I do not fall into that category. Thanks for your comments, and to iMonk for the excellent postings. God Bless!

   LikeLike

10. Greg, the founding fathers would be proud, but their sentiment, as well as yours, stems from an autonomous, secular humanist idea of freedom (particularly in the area of money). But the government is lord of the land and that lord owns everything on its land. That is a Biblical concept if you look to the ideas of government and land in the Bible (I realize some may disagree and so be it).

    Gala, Paul doesn’t use secular arguments. He uses secular proverbs and reinterprets them through the Gospel. What does that have to do with outlawing ungodly behavior? Did he stand on Mars Hill and tell everyone to lobby the procurator to outlaw idol worship? And people could lobby then you know. There were special interest groups even in the Roman Empire. My whole point is that our job as Christians is to convey the Gospel to people, not try to restrict their behavior externally (that is Pharisaical) through legislation. We are the transformers of men internally via the Gospel. Why have we become the preachers of law as though law can deliver anyone to God? Law is to protect harm done upon a victim, not make a criminal moral. Otherwise, I want you to apply your decree to everything, not just somethings. Outlaw all things that are sinful, not just homosexuality. Are you willing to do that?

    LikeLike

11. The great, extremely faithful, and genius minded Paul would use secular arguments to bring people to the Christian Faith.

    How could it possibly be our decision to not install laws that would ban certain practices that are inherently against the Law of God? This is not only criminal, but against our Christian teaching.

    LikeLike

12. …make that 3-plus months…

    LikeLike

13. tooaugust: “…so none of your tax dollars are yours at all…”

    Huh? Maybe my perspective isn’t “biblical” on this, but I don’t consider that I work 4-plus months a year for the government (the average time necessary for the average American to pay their tax oligation to all levels of government — this year, “Tax Freedom Day” was April 17th). While we may be “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” some of us consider this country’s tax policies to be confiscatory, and in violation of private property rights. In a republic, the government works for us, not the other way around. That we pay something like 35% of our income to the government is due to the fact that we allow this to occur…not because Caesar is receiving what is rightfully his.

    And even if we voluntarily allow the government to tax us at confiscatory rates, we still have the authority, through elected representatives, to change how government spends *our* money (theoretically).

    LikeLike

14. Carol, it does my heart good that two people who most likely differ on particular issues can agree on some of the big picture concerns. I’m impressed, if I may say so, that in your convictions, you exhibit a lot of integrity. Frankly, I think personal integrity is missing in much of what we see from both sides of the political divide. Maybe that’s the big difference we Christians can bring to the political debates in our country — a measure of integrity. In the final analysis, that’s probably more in line with Christ’s will than some particular position on some particular issue.

    Blessings to you.

    LikeLike

15. Greg,

    For two people from different political perspectives, I think we agree on an awful lot. (And for what it’s worth, Wallis makes me cringe sometimes too. And I send e-mail to sojourners to tell him so and why.)

    LikeLike

16. Faith, do you think Muslims or Jews, who work for the government, should get paid for taking off on their respective holidays? Isn’t that rewarding people for worshipping a false god? Isn’t that the sinful practice breaking commandment number one? Your tax dollars aren’t yours according to Christ. They belong to Caesar. They belong to government, not you. The government owns everything you have because it owns you. It simply allows you to live and use much of what you make for you, so none of your tax dollars are yours at all. (I’m sure that might be a weird and new idea for you, so we can discuss that if you want.)
    Secondly, I just wanted to ask why you thought homosexuality is wrong? I believe it is definitely wrong, but because I understand why the Bible condemns it. If you understood the reason why the behavior is sinful and against God, you might also realize that you are guilty of the same underlying sin (and probably have been rewarded financially for it as well–although I don’t know you so i could be wrong). This to me is a key hypocrisy in the evangelical movement. So let’s discuss these.

    LikeLike

17. I appreciate your comments, Carol. I have to admit that even though I fall more consistently on the right-center side of the political divide, there have often been times when I’ve heard a high-profile conservative Christian expounding on some issue that has made me cringe (the aforementioned Pat Robertson quote is a good example; as were the comments he and Falwell made after 9-11 that it was God’s judgment against a hedonistic America; Jesus didn’t die on the cross to give us the freedom to be idiots).

    I think part of the problem, if it can be called that, is that in America anyone has the right to say what they believe; in a sense, all opinions are of equal value in the marketplace of ideas, even though all opinions are not equal in terms of their “correctness.” So, Pat Robertson can get up and blab any time something tickles his fancy, and many of us cringe, but there is little we can do about it, because it’s a free country and Robertson has the right to say what he wants. In this, Robertson isn’t under anyone else’s authority to check his pronouncements out before he blabs them. Maybe he does check them out, but I suspect he checks them out with a council of “yes men” in his organization.

    There’s a certain degree of sophistication, maturity, discernment, diplomacy, and simple grace that is lacking in the political pontificating of Christians of all stripes. I may cringe at the fact that James Dobson may, at times, appear to be a mouthpiece of the Republican Party, but I also grind my teeth at some of Jim Wallis’ statements, which seem to me at times to be unadulterated Democratic-Party-lap-dog leftist pap. What we need in Christianity is a true prophet…someone who speaks about these things with the heart and mind of God. Frankly, the fact that I can’t think of anyone who fits this role probably means one doesn’t exist among American Christians.

    Consequently, I think we all struggle to find our own way in exercising our faith in regard to issues that touch on the public’s conscience, within the realm of politics. For myself, I have some pretty strong opinions about things; most of these opinions (I hope) are informed by my faith, and by what I understand of the character of God. But when I share my opinions, I try not to be so arrogant as to imply, “Thus says the Lord!” I’m just a guy (who happens to be a Christian trying to be faithful to Christ) who is exercising my constitutional right of free speech. In many cases, my faith and Christ’s Spirit within me may have more to do with how I say something, rather than what I say.

    One thing I’d like to see within the greater Christian community in America is more of an effort to bridge the ideological divide within our country. This divide is getting dangerously wide, with emotions often getting heated, and it seems to me that Christians of both conservative and more liberal persuasions should be talking to each other about the various hot-button issues in our society in a civil way, perhaps providing a positive example of how political debate should be conducted. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that some high-profile Christian stands up and says *this* is the way things should be, and another will stand up and say, no *this* is the way it should be….and the mainstream media loves watching Christians tear at each other’s throats. I’m sure there must be some venue or organization where this civil dialogue is going on, but I’m not aware of it.

    Generally speaking, as I’ve surveyed the great panorama of the American Christian church over the past 30-plus years, I despair that I don’t see much evidence of true Holy Spirit anointing upon what goes on. There is some such anointing to be sure, but personally, I think we are living through a very dry period, spiritually speaking, in this nation, and we’ve lost all ability to be led and empowered by Christ’s Spirit. Bottom line — we probably need a “Great Awakening” kind of revival throughout this country more than we need to break the filibuster on judicial nominations.

    LikeLike

18. tooaugust- I agree behaviorial habits can not be legislated- but should unhealthy, inappropriate, sinful behaviors be rewarded with legislation that is supported by our tax dollars? It would be like passing legislation that says if an individual chooses to lie on the job, they would still be entitled to benefits because lying is now an acceptable behavior, and although their reports to their boss are never accurate, they will still get paid despite their habit of lying, and despite the fact that the business would suffer from such a law.

    LikeLike

19. Greg,

    I think we basically agree on this. I think Christians certainly can be politically active. But, as it says in the bible, ‘all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable’. There are places where Christians should be politically active, providing a prophetic voice calling for justice. But there are places where being politically active, while certainly permissible, isn’t always profitable or even wise. In fact, there are even ways (like the Pat Robertson article you posted) in which Christian political activism can create a ‘stumbling block to the blind’ in that it makes us look like a bunch of fanatic nutcases and so drives people away from Christ.

    I think when we see places where people are naming themselves as Christians while engaging in the sort of activism that is unwise (or worse), we have a duty to point this out – to say publically that these people are not speaking for all Christians.

    btw, I always liked the way the Society of Friends (Quakers) used to do this. If a member of the community was sinning, they were approached privately. If they did not amend their ways, the Friends would publish a public notice that the Society of Friends ‘did not own’ this person because of the particular actions that were the problem. In this way they ensured that everyone knew that that person’s actions were not condoned by the Friends. However, this ‘disowning’ never meant breaking fellowship with the person in question. They might be barred from certain positions within the Society, but they were always welcome at meeting and everyone was supposed to go the extra mile in treating them with kindness in their daily lives. (It’s a shame that it was Puritan rather than Quaker ethics that formed so much of the basis for American culture).

    LikeLike

20. Faith, no one is being brought closer to God through the law. If we shouldn’t allow unbelievers to do evil, then should we outlaw lying? breaking the Sabbath? Not having Yahweh as their only God whom they worship? Why some laws to make them moral and not others? I would strongly argue that the law exists to protect the victim, not make the criminal moral. Otherwise, there seems to be an inconsistency and selective choosing of what will be outlawed according to preference. So, to me, abortion would be the only law important that we are discussing here because it protects a victim, not because it makes the mother moral. The Scripture seems to indicate that when men have the truth, because they are evil, they suppress it and do evil, so they must be regenerated in order to be closer to God. It is the Gospel that the Lord uses to accomplish this, not legislation.

    LikeLike

21. Jesus teaches us to pray for our enemy. So how much less would it be to take the misguided and show them the way legislatively.

    LikeLike

22. Can we all agree that we can do without this kind of boneheaded activism? —

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44086

    LikeLike

23. “When I hear a term like ‘Justice Sunday’ I expect something touching on the biblical notion of justice.”

    Carol, thanks for your comment. A agree 100% with you that when expressing concerns for “justice” that Christians should lift their gaze from one or two pet issues. Justice should be a nearly sacred issue for all Christians, as I believe true justice flows from the character of God Himself. That much we should all agree on. And I also agree that Christians should be speaking out more forcefully on issues such as genocide in Darfur, or repression (particularly of religious and civil liberties) in a number of other countries. My comments were aimed more at the right, and I think the obligation, of Christians to speak their convictions…and that convictions informed by faith and the Bible don’t automatically disqualify someone from having and expressing an opinion. Your comments seem to be focused on making a big to-do about “Justice Sunday,” and while I certainly sympathesize with your comments, I nevertheless believe that if Christians want to gather to rally, as Christians, on something as arcane as the judicial confirmation process in the Senate, they should do so, but that we (the inclusive “we,” meaning all Christians) are remiss if that is as far as our activism goes.

    LikeLike

24. “Concerning the Republican delay on Clinton nominees, was that a delay or a full-on filibuster? Did the nominees make it out of committee? Who were the nominees and to what bench were they being appointed?”

    Senate Republicans make a big point that the Democrats’ use of the filibuster is unprecedented. The only recent historical parallel is the filibuster of LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas to the US Supreme Court. But in that case, there was never any indication that Fortas actually had the support of the majority in the Senate, and Fortas ultimately had his name withdrawn from consideration because he became embroiled in a financial scandal while his confirmation was pending.

    What the Republicans haven’t mentioned, nearly enough at least, is that Democrat Robert Byrd, who now so vocificerously opposes the overthrow of the Dems’ filibuster tactic by use of the “Nuclear Option,” himself used such an option to overcome the filibuster of the minority Republicans (on issues other than judicial nominations) when he was Majority Leader, no less than on four separate occasions. This is why many Republicans have called the “Nuclear Option” the “Byrd Option,” because he innovated the technique to overcome minority obstruction.

    LikeLike

25. Greg,

    There are, but I would disagree that the appointment of 10 out of some 200+ judges is one of them. I also think there are, in many of these cases, more issues than just Roe. v. Wade wrt the objections to the judges in question.

    When I hear a term like ‘Justice Sunday’ I expect something touching on the biblical notion of justice. You know, providing for the poor, the least, the disenfranchised. I could totally get behind a ‘Justice Sunday’ demanding we do something about the on-going genocide in Darfur. Or a ‘Justice Sunday’ demanding help for the 40+ million people who work hard but are nevertheless uninsured. Or a ‘Justice Sunday’ for the victims of the recent massacre in Colombia…

    LikeLike

26. Well, now that I’ve finally been able to access the full article, I say, “Nicely done, Michael.” Well-balanced comments. And, as someone who has worked in politics in California, both as a staff person in the legislature, and in the legislative division of the governor’s office, I can tell you I have often struggled with the same thoughts you’ve expressed here. But I must also tell you that after 30 years of such “tension,” I still go back and forth on the “inappropriate” and the “absolutely essential” nature of Christian political activism.

    I will say this about many of the comments here on this thread: While the universal Christian church serves no secular master, there’s a disturbing theme within some of the comments that to flex our collective political muscle, based on our faith convictions, on the hot political topics of the day is somehow beneath our spiritual calling. I stand by my earlier comments where I argue for a more guilt-free exercise of our rights, not just as Christians, but as Christians in America.

    LikeLike

27. Carol M. — “a lot fo the rest of us see a concerted effort by (some, not you) conservative Christians to demonize anyone who disagrees with them.”

    I tend to agree with you, but in spite of my respect for your comment, aren’t there some issues which are indeed so black-and-white that an appeal for the moral equivalency of all opinions makes no sense?

    LikeLike

28. “The church, as a church, has no political power without ceding its identity and loyalty to the Kingdom of God for some political influence in Caesar’s kingdom.”

    First of all, the link to the entire article didn’t work (probably something wrong at my end), so I wasn’t able to read the article in its entirety. But taking the above comment at face value, who is “the church”? I don’t consider any Christian talking head to speak for me, or for the “church universal.” As far as I’m concerned, both James Dobson and Jim Wallis speak for themselves, not for me, or for the wider “church.”

    While the above statement is true in regard to “the church,” as a member of the church universal, and also as an American with certain rights of participation in the politics of policy making, I have every right to express myself, vote, and participate in the process of government as the next person, and to use as the basis of my political convictions my faith. This doesn’t mean I wrap my vote in the Bible, but it does mean my politics are as informed by my faith as I have the wisdom to so apply my faith. Let’s face it: the main reason the Democrats are obstructing a number of Pres. Bush’s judicial nominees is that they want to keep abortion legal. While I think the Roe v. Wade decision was both a moral and legal abomination, I consider the renegade nature of the federal judiciary to be way more devastating than simply the continued maintenance of the Roe decision. But as far as the Democrats are concerned here, their main opposition to Bush on judicial nominations comes down to abortion. And abortion is an issue, like slavery before it, embedded in a debate between “right and wrong.” For a Christian, living in a nation where freedom of speech and freedom to vote are sacrosanct, to dodge such an issue of right-vs-wrong, based upon the excuse that such issues are “below us,” is baloney.

    When we try to compare or apply how people in Jesus’ day, or in the first century, or throughout most of the history of Western Civilization, engaged in political and social debate (or ignored those debates) with how we should so engage in those debates today, we’re comparing the proverbial oranges to apples. Remember…throughout most of our history, the church in the west existed in societies where true freedom of expression and freedom of conscience haven’t widely existed. To go limp on the issue of judicial nominations, and the obstruction against nominees who have religious convictions, when many of our spiritual forefathers lost their fortunes, careers, freedom, and sometimes their lives fighting against such things as the slave trade or slavery itself (a hot political debate in the late 18th and early 19th centuries), particularly when “going limp” comes from spiritualizing our refusal to take a position, I don’t know how we’re actually giving glory to God. We should be thankful we’ve been placed in a nation like America, and that we still have the freedom to exercise the full franchise of freedom granted by our laws and traditions. To say our calling is to a path above the fray is to consign ourselves to second-class citizenship in the nation in which we live, and, I think, does a disservice to God who placed us in this time and in this place.

    LikeLike

29. tooaugust- Thank you for your response. So long as we can vote yea or nay as to what our tax dollars are supporting, voting against laws that would allow others to make wrong decisions in the eyes of God is our duty to Him, assuming we have that option in a candidate. We should make it as difficult as possible for our fellow man to distance themselves from Him. Do strongly agree with you that abolishing abortion and its spawn, embryonic stem cell research, should be the most important decision maker for a Christian.

    LikeLike

30. Faith, the fight for souls in through the Gospel, not the law. People dead in sin will not be transformed by law (Mosaic or Constitutional). Instead, an unbeliever who is dead in sin needs to be regenerated in order to do what is pleasing to God. I do think that the Church needs to take its stand on homosexuality within the community of those claiming to be Christians, but that has nothing to do with the secular state and those who are not believers. What say you?

    LikeLike

31. tooaugust- Regarding the person “dead in sin”- we have to remember that there is always hope for a soul while on this earth. As Christians we are obliged to do our best to uphold Christ’s teachings in order that others might not be led astray- like voting against abortion AND gay marriage. It is not always easy, but we have the Crucifix as our example and reminder of what Jesus did to save us ALL- His fight for souls is not over yet, and He is counting on us and our persistent assistance for aid in His battle.

    LikeLike

32. BTW – If you will forgive the promotional, I have a talk on this entitled “Citizenship in Exile” available as streaming audio or MP3 download on my own site:

    http://www.abbotgregory.com/sermons.htm

    Pax vobiscum,
    Michael+

    LikeLike

33. Just a couple of thoughts…

    1) One of my biggest problems with pseudo-students of Yoder and Hauerwas is an overly naive reference to the political praxis of the historical Jesus as a model for our own. Too often it leads to a political quietism because it too easily equates the oppressed minority milleu of the First Century Christians with the American (or European, etc.) Church today.

    Like it or not, we live in a post-Constantinian era where the Church possesses a providential political power. The question is not a matter of “either/or” (i.e. whether we corporately act as empowered cultural agents or refrain from such action), but “how” we wield power with a cruciform integrity.

    2) One of the neglected biblical themes in these types of discussions is the Hebrew tradition of “hokmah” (“wisdom” or “skill”). The wisdom literature of the Hebrew scriptures (and indeed the whole of the Bible) instructs us in how to speak and act in ways that are “apt” to the situation. Such a wisdom might lead us to “answer a fool according to his folly” on one day and “not answer a fool according to his folly” on another day depending on the wise ends that one has in mind. It is true that for us the “end” is not a simple “telos” but rather the “eschatos” of the Kingdom of God, but that end may lead us to legitimately protest on behalf of human dignity or lobby on behalf of the cultural integrity of the family.

    The problem with Justice Sunday, in my opinion, has less to do with the responsible use of political power in general and more to do with the particular wisdom of how this event was conceived, planned, and executed. By so brazenly cozying up with the Republicans, we have by all appearances become indistinguishable and thus have lost a crucial dimension of our prophetic voice. Perhaps if we were more vocal on the ridiculously shallow theology undergirding much of President Bush’s political identity, perhaps if we were less willing to excuse for the policies the brought us into war with Iraq, we would be able to speak with more integrity on these other questions.

    If we are seeking a model of what I advocate here, following the example of Pope John Paul II as he followed Christ would be much preferable than attempting to squeeze ourselves into the culture and politics of the First Century Roman Empire.

    Simply put, Justice Sunday wasn’t so nearly heterodox as it was hopelessly assinine and foolish.

    Michael+

    LikeLike

34. Just wanted to comment on a couple of things.

    1. Good article. I think one thing has to be addressed though. Why is it that everyone sees the Church being used by the Republican party, but no one sees the Church using the Republican party for its purposes in government?

    2. I saw someone ask why we should outlaw abortion. I don’t believe in outlawing things to make people moral, so I don’t care if homosexuals marry or redefine marriage (unbelievers go to hell whether they are hetero or homosexual). But abortion is murder. I don’t want it outlawed to make those who would commit it moral anymore than outlawing child abuse is meant to make the abuser moral. There is a difference between abortion and gay rights. One is the Church doing good (saving a life, restricting harm placed upon another) and the other is seeking to make a person who is dead in sin act like he is alive. Obviously, Christians ought to do good in the world, so the first should be part of what the Christian does in our culture. If utilizing the Republican party to do so, so be it. I would use the democrats if they were pro-life. For this reason, I think the individual Christian should also be involved more in poverty issues as well in their politics, but obviously saving someone’s life trumps making someone’s life better.

    Just some thoughts.

    LikeLike

35. Dan,

    The Lamott quote was

    “…you can safely assume you’ve created
    God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

    As much as you see a concerted effort to run conservative Christians out of the public square, a lot fo the rest of us see a conserted effort by (some, not you) conservative Christians to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. That’s also a silencing tactic. Both efforts at dividing and tossing mud at others need to be resisted.

    LikeLike

36. Carol

    The Lamott quote is gone, sorry I missed it. I’ve read both of her non-fiction books– the story of her conversion is great. I think it is the only time I have ever read r heard someone’s conversion testimony and laughed so hard I was hurting.

    LikeLike

37. Carol,

    You asked “So because secularists slur conservative Christians, it’s okay for conservative Christians to slur other Christians?”

    I don’t think I ever said that. I do believe that much of the “Christians are dangerous totalitarians” theme of some of (not yours) the reactions to Justice Sunday is part of a cooridnated effort to drive conservative Christians out of the public square. The other way for those who were convinced that they lost the last election because of the “moral values” voters to deal with the problem would have been to engage with the issues that concern folks who fit that label. Hillary Clinton is smart enough to be heading in that direction, and even though I would not vote for her, I have no doubt that she is every bit the sincere mainstream Methodist she claims to be. All I am saying when pointing out the emerging dominionist slur is that the engagement alternative has been rejected by much of the media.

    And, BTW, I am in full agreement with the post above about the duty to go after the real extremists. I jumped all over the minister who runs Jollyblogger for posting a headline on the Schiavo affair that could have been written by Randall Terry.

    The old Chinese curse– may you live in interesting times– holds.

    LikeLike

38. aduff wrote: “My question is how are Christians supposed to react to something like this? Are we to circle the wagons to make sure that we aren’t portrayed in a negative light? Are we supposed to sit back and just take the abuse? […] I think that often times when the secular world comes out yelling about how bad Christians are they have some basis for their anger.”

    You’ve hit the nail on the head on that one, aduff, and that’s why I answer your question this way: the way Christians should react to slanderous stereotypes is to find those Christians who actually _fit_ the foul stereotypes — they’re out there, and we all know it — and take the fight to them.

    When the nutballs at Operation Rescue bomb abortion clinics (or approve of those who do), all we do is sit at home and whine, “But they don’t represent the rest of us! Someone go on TV and make it clear that we’re not like that!” What we _should_ do is have 8,000,000 Christians jamming the phonelines at talk shows around the country. Or better still, on the terrorists’ doorstep with picket signs that say “You’re No Followers Of Christ.”

    The “world at large” believes that, because we’re silent, we’re either complicit with them or too afraid or confused to say anything. If any of those things are true, then I’d say we’re just as guilty as Pilate — washing our hands as Christ’s character is slaughtered.

    It’s time that those of us who don’t follow Pat Robertson and his ilk start making some noise of our own.

    LikeLike

39. Brian,

    Yes, it’s me from CHR. You posted the original link to iMonk, so you have no one but yourself to blame!

    You know where I’m coming from here, I hope. You said above that Christians don’t have to sit quietly and suffer defamation. Remember that that also goes for non-conservative Christians who feel they and their faith are being defamed by the religious right.

    I also want to ask you to try and broaden your worldview a bit. So much of your post and that of others here seems to assume that the social/moral concerns of the right really are the only ones we should care about. Progressives don’t have any agenda beyond those? Only if you tune out the voices of progressives.

    Dan,

    So because secularists slur conservative Christians, it’s okay for conservative Christians to slur other Christians? (And please don’t come back and say something like ‘but they started it!’ I’m a Mom, so you know what my reaction to that is going be. 🙂 )

    I guarantee you that for every one of those articles, I can find something equivalent or worse form a conservative Christian media source ‘putting horns’ on anyone who is not part of their camp. And that is my objection to Justice Sunday and it’s like. NOT that churches are participating in politics. I think that can be fine. It’s HOW the churches are participating – by declaring everyone on the opposite side of a political issue to be enemies. The Anne Lamott quote at the top of BHT today says it all.

    LikeLike

40. Aduff:

    I don’t think I advocated doing anything about the dominionist slur; there is nothing wrong with being alert to the metanarratives the media try to impose, just as I would be with anyones metanarratives.

    Otherwise, what Brian said.

    LikeLike

41. >>Are we supposed to sit back and just take the abuse? I don’t know, but I get uncomfortable with the idea that we should fight for our “right” to not be marginalized or defamed. I don’t see Christ fighting for his “rights”. <<

    As a counter-example I would point to Paul, in Acts 21-28. The entire last 7 chapters of Acts is spent in one courtroom or another as Paul defends the gospel from those who would falsely accuse it.

    Jesus had one job, and Paul had another. The mere fact that Jesus remained silent, does not mean that all other Christians, in all times and all places, are to remain silent. We were given specific instructions by Jesus as to what we should do WHEN, not if, we were brought before judges and magistrates.

    No, we do not need to suffer defamation in silence — but in everything we do, we must bring glory to Him. And sometimes that means remembering that surrendered lives will have many times the impact of whatever we say.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.

    LikeLike

42. Dan said:

    But, I do think there is a concnetrated effort on the left that has emerged since the election to portray Chrisitan conservatives as Dominionists, etc.

    My question is how are Christians supposed to react to something like this? Are we to circle the wagons to make sure that we aren’t portrayed in a negative light? Are we supposed to sit back and just take the abuse? I don’t know, but I get uncomfortable with the idea that we should fight for our “right” to not be marginalized or defamed. I don’t see Christ fighting for his “rights”.

    I think that often times when the secular world comes out yelling about how bad Christians are they have some basis for their anger. When I hear claims like “Christians are just a bunch of Dominionists”, by God’s grace, I don’t get defensive. I get introspective and ask myself is this really how we portray ourselves? If so, is this consistent with how God wants us to live?

    LikeLike

43. Carol:

    What Brian said.

    Re: the emerging, coming to a main stream media outlet near you, dominionist slur:

    http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200504280758.asp

    I go to a Baptist church that ordains women, and has for years (I am not sure exactly when the decision was made, as I was living in Orlando for most of the 90’s, but I’m fine with it.) I’m probably, politically, one of the most conservative people in the church, but my theology is eclectic and questioning. We stay together because we love Jesus and are committed to his service. As our pastor says, a busy Baptist is better than a busybody. It is a funny old world.

    LikeLike

44. I would like to address Carol’s question:

    “Where have you been living that the religious right are the ones marginalized?”

    I, personally, live in Washington D.C. In the larger culture — the culture of ABC, Maureen Dowd, Hollywood, in short of every aspect of mainstream American culture that matters — Conservative Christians are marginalized. Belittled. Mocked. Made to be “Ned Flanders” on “The Simpsons” TV show. Called “Poor, uneducated and easy to command” in newspaper editorials. Made to be the villains in cheesy TV dramas.

    Conservative Christians — who comprise 20% of the electoral vote — are indeed marginalized by the larger culture.

    You are in a difficult situation, for as a progressive Christian, you are a minority among a minority! “Christian” America is every bit as liable to groupthink as “Mainstream” America. If Mainstream America’s “groupthink” is that Christians are dimwitted, “Christian” America has a lot of trouble separating the progressive agenda from those elements — abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia — that we have grown to detest. In fact, one sometimes wonders what is LEFT of the progressive agenda if you take out all the bits that defy Biblical morality.

    If you are, as I believe, a liberal (or “progressive”, if you prefer) Christian, you’re caught in the middle. Christians (the majority of whom are conservative, for far too many liberals have simply abandoned the faith) will tend to tar you with the same brush as the rest of the mainstream culture — as a sellout to the forces of darkness. Meanwhile, the mainstream culture wishes to tar you with the same brush as the rest of the “Christians” — as some caveperson who wants women in burkhas or whatever.

    Remaining true to your principles — as a progressive and a Christian — will not be easy. Especially since the majority of progressives and the majority of Christians are pulling away from each other as fast as they can.

    This is not, btw, entirely due to the Christians. It is in the political interest of people who do not like Christianity to tar all Christians with the same brush –as right-wing neanderthals, the better to marginalize their faith and beliefs. Left-wing Christians are marginalized by both sides — by right-wing Christians because of their left-wing politics, by left-wing seculars because of their Christian faith. The position of being a progressive/liberal Christian becomes increasingly untenable.

    But so? It’s always been difficult to stay sane in a mad world. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”.

    If it makes you feel better, I struggle with some of those issues as a renegade charismatic. I find myself trapped in a world where charisma increasingly means “health and wealth” silliness — but the only alternative are reformed types who don’t believe in charisma at all! I don’t accept either perspective, and I am marginalized by both communities.

    What can I say? We both have to walk where our consciences lead us — and sometimes that means having mud thrown at us by BOTH sides. The one thing we can take comfort in is that God accepts our profession of faith, and He will accept us when no one else will.

    I will pray for ya. BTW, are you the Carol I know from CHR?

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.

    LikeLike

45. Carol:

    Look, I do understand how you feel, I have clients on both sides of the culture wars and right now everybody is, at best, on edge.

    But, I do think there is a concnetrated effort on the left that has emerged since the election to portray Chrisitan conservatives as Dominionists, etc. There was a recent article in Rolling Stone to that effect, Reason magazine had a piece written by someone who was so well informed on the subject that he thought Rushdoony was still alive, the current Harpers has a spread of articles on the same subject, and there is going to be a big conference aimed at getting media types to attend at NYU so that journalists can learn that we all want to stone homosexuals. See
    http://www.opencenter.org/Trainings/Religious_Right_Agenda.html

    Please understand, I do not put you, Michael or anyone on this thread in that category. I do think you ought to read what you see in the media that puts horns on conservative Christians as perhaps– just perhaps– influenced in tone, if not substance, by a deliberate political strategy aimed at marginalizing conservative Christians.

    I find myself in kind of a funny situation– I have done tax law for non-profits for over 20 years, have clients of all sorts of political beliefs, most of whom are religious affiliated in some way or other, and virtually all of whom, in one way or another, have wanted to participate in the public square in one way or another, consistent with their tax status, since way before I ever started practicing law. And they have. And, by and large, balancing the good and bad I have seen, society is better for it.

    Believe me, Justice Sunday was not the first political rally to be held in a Church, nor will it be the last. Looked at historically, the only thing new here is the media hype. (There is an excellent, largely overlooked in the United States, prize winning biography of Lincoln by Richard Carwardine, a prof at Oxford, that details what the Methodist church did to reelect Lincoln in 1864; if any of my clients had done 5% of what was done for Lincoln back then, the prisons would be full of preachers.)

    Be not afraid! 🙂 This, too, shall pass. OR not. 🙂 But, I do know that the lamb wins in the end.

    LikeLike

46. Marilyn,
    Bush seems to agree with you.

    President Bush (in his speech last night) said that he thought the issue behind the blocking of Pryor’s nomination was his judicial philosophy, not his religious beliefs. Makes sense to me.

    LikeLike

47. dWhen a person becomes a U.S. Supreme Court Judge, an oath is taken to ‘uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.” If that oath in some way collides with one’s religious views, a huge dilemma exists. That is what Pryor was facing when his nomination came up for consideration. The issue is only peripherally about his Catholicism; it is more directly about whether he would be mentally and morally capable of putting his personal views on the back burner in order to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The feeling was that he wouldn’t be able to.

    Only in the most technical sense is that decision in any way a religious test. A religious test would be if the questioner had asked “are you religious?” and upon getting an answer in the affirmative, had disqualified Pryor.

    It would be just as unconstitutional if the anwer to the question were ‘no’, but try to get elected dog catcher if your answer is ‘no,’ and you’ll quickly find out that the voters in America clearly do have a religious test for all political candidates.

    LikeLike

48. Dan,

    I disagree. I think ‘those people’ (I am one of them) have every right to be offended. And it’s hardly a shock and fear reaction. It’s a fed-up, straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back reaction.

    Where have you been living that the religious right are the ones marginalized? For over a decade now the common assumption in the MSM and from the right has been that they speak for Real Christians (TM), and the rest of us either don’t exist, or aren’t sincere in our faith.

    LikeLike

49. Carol,

    Yes. But that doesn’t mean such people necessarily should be offended. Perhaps they have been so used to being able to marginalize the “religious right,” “fundamentalists,” etc. that they are just reacting with shock and fear that they might be on the “losing” side?

    That does not explain everything, and I think Michael is absolutley sincere in his concerns about how this climate affects the church, but I think it does explain a lot of what, to me, is the high visceral content of the reactions to justice Sunday that I have seen, and I think that is what Kondrake is saying is going to hurt the critics of the event in the long run.

    To make the point another way, Michaels post, and many of the comments here, including yours, have content, but most of what has appeared in the secular media is all emotion.

    LikeLike

50. Dan,

    I think the author of that article misses the point entirely. In fact, he may even pour fuel on the flames wrt why religious people with progressive political views are reacting so strongly against Justice Sunday. This event said that anyone who opposed these judges was ‘against people of faith’. It’s the same line progressive Christians (and Jews, etc.) have been hearing since the election: we don’t count and we can’t possibly be considered people of faith if we disagree with GWB or the GOP. Worse yet, it now seems that disagreement means being actively excommunicated from the ‘people of faith’ and identified as enemies.

    Can’t you see why a lot of people are offended by that and why it is causing a backlash among religious people who are politically liberal and even moderate?

    LikeLike

51. thanks. i’ve gotten really tired of seeing the church bastardized by politics, left and right. when it seals itself to the political mechanisms, it becomes less than the Gospel, and less than than the church.

    LikeLike

52. Carol,

    I don’t disagree with much of what you say (though I would say that Wallace’s change of heart happened to be in his political interestsat the time, since he coludn’t be elected governor without black votes– that said, I do think that his heart was truly changed, and the why is speculation.)

    But I do fundamentally disagree with this:

    “On the other hand, you have a political rally intended at least in part to pour derision on the opposition and rev up the ‘base’ against them.

    To me, that’s a big difference. I also think it’s the reason the Civil rights movement did change hearts and change the nation, while Justice Sunday is more likely to generate a backlash.”

    The backlash started on November 4. the day after the left figured out that secularism was in trouble. (Remember Gary Wills NY Times column titled “The End of the Enlightenment”?)

    Second, I have read all of the transcripts from Justice Sunday, and I don’t find what you say to be there in any particularly large measure.

    Third, politics ain’t beanbag, any time, any where. I admire MLK greatly, but he was not a saint– he was a tough inside gut fighter when he had to be. Unless the Church stays out of the political sphere at alll times, in all places, then it has to get its hands dirty.

    There was nothing exceptional about Justice Sunday, except the reaction to it, which was nonetheless predictable. Take a look at Mort Kondrake’s (a Democrat, though not comfortable with the moveon/Michael Moore tone of the party today) column:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_28_05_MK.html

    A lot of the negative reaction is totally visceral, and there really isn’t much to be done about that. But, as ARchbishop Chaput says in the column I posted from yesterday, what else is new, and we can’t let that intimidate us.

    LikeLike

53. Dan,

    Thanks.

    I do think MLK hoped to change the hearts of people like Bull Connor, even though he realized it was unlikely. (In the end, Wallace’s heart was changed, so it wasn’t impossible!)

    I understand a bit of where you are coming from though. I’m a bit younger than you and a northerner, but I lived in Va for many years and my uncle has served churches in the South most of his life. (He was also a Freedom Rider. And I know his group always prayed for the people opposing them.)

    I think that even if publicity were a big part of MLK’s strategy, the behavior and speech that drew that publicity are what set it apart from something like Justice Sunday. On one hand, you have people peacefully and prayerfully going into a situation where they know they will be met with derision and probably violence. They quietly stand before that violence, offering their suffering as a witness to justice. On the other hand, you have a political rally intended at least in part to pour derision on the opposition and rev up the ‘base’ against them.

    To me, that’s a big difference. I also think it’s the reason the Civil rights movement did change hearts and change the nation, while Justice Sunday is more likely to generate a backlash.

    LikeLike

54. Brian:

    “you seem to believe that change can only occur when the stubborn and hard-hearted bitter enders are convinced.”

    Not at all. Change in America on civil rights occurred because MLK and others, bravely and courageously, used their bodies to change the hearts and minds of actors in the political system who then enacted laws that put the force of the state at work to change the behavior of the southern power structure (i.e., people like Bull Connor), regardless of where their hearts were. In a free society, that is called politics. In America, non-violence could work; if King and Gandhi had tried non-violence in Mao’s China, they would have been killed. King and Gandhi were both political pragmatists, first and foremost. Not to deny that they changed hearts, but they were both leaders of movements and promoted what worked.

    LikeLike

55. 2 points:

    “King and those close to him played a masterful political campaign. They did not change hearts, at least not ones that were already hardened.”

    They did change MINE.

    In other words, they changed the hearts of those who were not hardened but they failed to change the hearts of those who were. This is a feat, I remind you, that eluded Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jesus as well. Not even Jesus could convince the Pharisees to see with their eyes and hear with their ears. Only God can convince the stubborn, and he doesn’t often do that.

    So I don’t believe your point holds water here.

    “They were non-violent, but King knew they would be met with violence. ”

    Jesus was non-violent, but when he went to Jerusalem he also knew he would be met with violence. That did not stop him.

    For that matter, when the apostles proclaimed their faith — now and since then — they knew they would be met with violence, persecution, death. That did not stop them either.

    MLK’s actions were perfectly consistent with this tradition.

    By contrast, you seem to believe that change can only occur when the stubborn and hard-hearted bitter enders are convinced. It doesn’t work that way. Even God could not persuade the bitter-enders without violating their wills, and he doesn’t do that. Sometimes change must occur even when humans say “NO!” with all their might.

    African-American civil rights was one such struggle.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.

    LikeLike

56. Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were never officially filibustered; their votes were delayed by anonymous GOP objections. I won’t defend it, but it’s not the same thing as a systemic filibuster on the part of the Democrats.

    LikeLike

57. iMonk:

    My final post on the substance of the thread involves a quote from Archbishop Chaput of Denver (I hope B16 makes him a Cardinal; maybe, since he is a full blooded Qmerican Indian, he would be 3rd world enough to be considered for the next papal vacancy) :

    “One of the lessons from last year that too many American Catholics still donÂ’t want to face is that itÂ’s OK to be Catholic in todayÂ’s public square as long as we donÂ’t try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as weÂ’re suitably embarrassed by all those “primitive” Catholic teachings; as long as we shut up about abortion and other sensitive moral issues and allow ourselves to be tutored in the ways of “polite” secular culture by experts who have little or no respect for the Christian faith that guides our lives.

    The reason Pope Benedict XVI will get no media honeymoon is simple. ItÂ’s the same reason he instantly won the hearts of committed Catholics, worried the lukewarm and angered the proud and disaffected. He actually believes that what Jesus Christ and His Church teach is true, and that the soul of the world depends on the ChurchÂ’s faithful witness. ”

    Read the whole thing, it is short. http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=127&s=2&a=2937

    Three short points:
    (1) There is a lot of anti-Catholicism going on both above nd below the surface in the whole “culture wars”, not just in the judicil confirmtion wars. Like you, growing up I heard all sorts of negative, hateful remrks made against Csatholics, not least from Baptist pulpits. It is pennance, and the right thing to do under any version of the BF&M, for Baptist churches to take a stand against that sort of thing, and that is part of what went on at Justice Sunday.

    (2) I consider the culture war terminology to be of very limited usefullnes; it has become a label on both sides. If you want to engage on issues like who should sit on a Federal Appeals Court, where judges have to follow Supreme Court precedent, you have to get into the muck. Conservatives did not make it that way. No appointee to a Federal Appeals Court who has cleared the Judiciary Committee has ever been blocked by a filibuster. (That sentence is carefully structured, and is exactly factual.) That is an escalation. Should a Church stay out of the fight becuase it has become nasty? (BTW, I don’t consider your distinction between the Church and individual Christians to be determinative of anything, nor do I think the Archbishop would. Of course, reasonable minds could differ.)

    (3)If you accept the proposition that the world depends on the church’s faithful witness, how can you draw the line at the political arena, or in favor of engaging in some issues but not others? I have honestly never been able to figure out a principled way to draw that line. Will the church get some things wrong, and will that hurt its witness? Yep. That is another problem I don’t have a solution far.

    Issac:

    Reading Letter from the Birmingham Jail back in the 60’s changed my life. But, from reading more about the history of what King actually did when the rubber hit the road, he did not give a rat’s hind end about Bull O’Connor’s heart– he just wanted to manipulate him into situations where he would give King the TV shots and still photos he needed. Bull Connor went to his grave hating blacks, as far as history tells us.

    LikeLike

58. Dan,

    No problem.

    I would encourage you to read some of Dr. King’s writings. He makes it pretty clear (piggybacking from Gandhi) that the point of civil disobedience is to change the heart of the oppressor, to show just how wrong his opression is. Is it good politics? Certainly. But, at least in his writing, the main consideration is to change hearts before the social institution.

    I’m a southerner, too, by the way, so we’re working from the same past.

    LikeLike

59. Dan said:
    “Sorry for the misunderstanding”

    Awww…Well isn’t that sweet :). Until I read this thread I thought a ‘filibuster’ was some kind of cream-filled pastry. Yum.

    LikeLike

60. Geeeeez Michael……chill out. You might want to think about taking a few days off to rest. Not everyone is out to get you and I think you invite a whole bunch of the criticism that you receive. I also believe you are somewhat antagonistic with some of the words you throw out. Your blog though. But, your becoming known around the blogosphere as paranoid/schizo.
    Just relax! You seem to be able to dish it out and not take it. Is that a backwoods Kentucky thing? 🙂

    Moderator Note: For more free psychiatric advice, write Scott at the address below. He is known around the blogosphere as an amateur psychiatrist, and if I say so myself, he can diagnose disorders accurately over the net with the best of them. 🙂 Hopefully, your insurance will cover his services.

    LikeLike

61. iMonk:

    Oh, it was the Amish line. Sorry. I should have put a smiley face after that one, and perhaps an explanation. When I finished reading all three volumes of Wright’s trilogy that ends with Resurrection of the Son of God last year, I reacted very strongly, and had some of the same thoughts you have expressed here. I read two of Kraybill’s books about the Amish and Mennonites, and stuff from the radical Reformation I could find from the web. Initially, your article here reminded me a little bit of where my thoughts were heading back then.

    But, as with most things, time– and reading more of Wright– restored perspective.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    LikeLike

62. Issac and Carrol,

    Sorry, but I have been tied up a good bit this afternoon. I take your point, and in retrospect, I suppose you could make some sort of what the law professors like to call a “neutral principle” out of it. But don’t you think that requires 20/20 hindsight?

    I lived through the civil rights struggles, and growing up in the border South as I did, I never saw the worst. But, what I recall was pretty bad, and what I have read since, which covers one long bookshelf in my library, confirms my then current impression: King and those close to him played a masterful political campaign. They did not change hearts, at least not ones that were already hardened. King turned the children loose in Birmingham to be beaten, firehosed and attacked by dogs becuase he knew his campaign was losing steam and he also knew the national media was present. He was counting on the pictures and headlines to drive people in the northeast, who already supported him, nuts, and he did. That, to me, is “hardball.” And just to be clear, those children came out of a Church building. They were non-violent, but King knew they would be met with violence.

    Trying to come up with tests and factors that can aid us in determining when or when not the Church ought to get involved in the politicl arena is, I think, more profitable than taking a blanket position of isolation, like some pietists have historically done, or condemning only one side.

    I do think that some, probably many, evangelicals fighting the culture wars are going to be disappointed. The Supreme Court is a 200 year plus old institution, and once a judge gets appointed, he or she becomes first and foremost an institutional loyalist. The last thing that is going to happen is for a decision like Roe to be overturned solely because of a personnel change.

    The best argument, in my opinion, against Justice Sunday is that it is wasted effort. Bush is going to get his judges, and the Supreme Court is only going to change marginally (though not totally insignificantly.)

    LikeLike

63. OK Dan….I hear you. You ought to understand all the more why I do not intend to have personal discussions about whether I am Amish. If you know what I have been through on here, Michael Spencer shouldn’t be on the agenda.

    I will admit, Dan, that it’s puzzling to me how that 1) disagreements with what I write, 2) turn into questions to me about my personal choices, faith, practice, etc.

    Do you see what mean? (Asking sincerely)

    LikeLike

64. “to accuse me of promoting N.T. Wright and his lefty causes and to start personally insulting me ”

    I said no such thing. Take a deep breath. Count to 10. Get a second opinion?

    I happen to LIKE Wright, its just that he does in fact have a POLITICAL agenda. From my theological perspective, he is totally within the Orthodox ballpark. His forthcoming “Fresh Perspective” book on Paul will make that clear, as he has said in interviews. As a biblical exegist, Wright is great, as a historian, well, he is better than most theologians, and much more interesting than almost anyone else writing Church history.

    And, I happen to be in sympathy with most of the posts you have put up on this particular page in the last few months, particularly the recent ones about Catholocism, Merton, etc. I just think this particular topic is weak, remarkably so considering the well thought out positions in earlier posts that have kept me coming back here. That is not a personal attack. My theology is not AT ALL Calvinist, so I’m not a White troll.

    LikeLike

65. Dan,

    “I have posted a lot to this thread becuase I think your argument is sloppy, and fails to deal with perfectly plausible counterarguments.”

    I have, however, dealt with the counterarguments, in a way I think extrapolates from what Michael was talking about, and gotten no response from you. Not my blog, of course, but I think I’ve (more or less) applied Michael’s criticisms to what you were saying.

    LikeLike

66. I’ll say it again Dan: I asked you not to make it personal, and you continue ignoring me.

    LikeLike

67. imonk said:

    “Those of you who can turn any discussion into an endorsement of the “lefty” agenda ought to be ashamed of yourselves.”

    When you won’t condemn “hardball” tactics used by the Church in struggles that the left now views as good, then I have to think an endorsement of lefty causes MIGHT be what is going on. BUT, far from attacking you, I said I did not know what you wanted, and pointed to N. T. Wright’s naive parroting of the anti-globalization malarkey as my example. Wright simply can’t stand American conservative Christian activism;asked about abortion in a recent interview, he managed to turn the question into an attack on pro-life activists for not fighting for third world debt relief.

    I have posted a lot to this thread becuase I think your argument is sloppy, and fails to deal with perfectly plausible counterarguments. Your position is not totally unreasonable, if you apply it to all Church involvement in politics. I have never, however, attacked you personally in any way. In my professional life, I am well paid for, among other things, how I use words, and I have never said anything directed at you personally. I don’t know you well enough to do so, except I would now say, with ample jsutification, that you are overly sensitive.

    LikeLike

68. Jeremy:

    I didn’t mean to imply at all that you were demonizing anyone. I meant to agree with you. And I do wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve written here.

    My comment about demonizing an opponent was about how I draw a line wrt faith and political action. That is, I’m trying to expalin why I can admire MLK Jr’s work for Civil Rights, but get queasy thinking about “Justice Sunday”. In one case, everyone was lifted up and the agenda was truly to better the whole country. In the other, anyone on the other side of the issue -or in the other political party- was practically accused of being a bigoted atheist. (And I don’t mean that as a slam against all conservatives. Certainly there are cases where liberals do the same sort of thing.)

    LikeLike

69. Thanks. That’s ok. I was just adding some thoughts but it’s gotten quite involved (the thread I mean) so I’ll bow out now.

    LikeLike

70. Catez….didn’t mean to offend. My apologies.

    LikeLike

71. Carol:
    “What I find disturbing is what Jeremy characterized as the whoring of the church to the GOP…If you can’t persue whatever agenda (liberal or conservative) without resorting to demonizing your political opponents, it seems to me that that should be a good signal that what you are doing has a lot less to do with Christ than with worldly power.”

    Umm, I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here, I think you think I am demonizing Republicans?? In case you missed it, I am one (at least at this moment, for the time being). I am (fairly) conservative, and worked for a Republican Senator. My comment is/was an observation from my experience on the inside. In fact, I took an informal “poll” in my work on the Hill and out of 8 GOP staffers who I asked so far, all of them looked at this so called “Justice Sunday” as purely a political move, not a move with the desire to elect “proper” judges to stem the decay of culture and bring about a restoration of society. In case you missed it, Frist is planning to run for president 2008, not to mention there are quite a few vulnerable GOP Senators now who could cost the GOP the Senate. What a perfect opportunity to rally the troops and give paybacks to the evangelical community by not only fighting for conservative judges, but broadcasting a video reminding them the GOP is doing so.

    Maybe I’ve grown cynical up here inside the beltway, or more realistic to the power of gov. to bring about cultural change. What I meant by my “whoring” comment is that it saddens me to think not only that the Body of Christ is being used to further the political agenda of the GOP (reminder: I am Republican!!!), but that it has forsaken the power of Christ (the day-in-day out loving by each follower of Christ of the world around them) and His Way/Kingdom for the meager table scraps of political power.

    Anyway, maybe this will spark some thoughts…
    -jeremy

    LikeLike

72. “Read the essay. I asked if we had considered HOW Jesus engaged in the culture war. I said he most definately DID. But how did he do it.”

    I think you were responding to me.

    1. My comments were polite.
    2. I read the essay.
    3. I believe if you read my comments you’ll see I answered your question already.

    Thanks.

    LikeLike

73. aduff –

    Had not heard of Miller till now. I’ve just done a quick Amazon search on him, and it looks interesting. Can’t say offhand when I’ll have a chance to read him though. But thanks for the recom anyways.

    LikeLike

74. Matt,

    It was a filibuster in the case of the ambassador.

    Furthermore, in March 2000, Senator Frist joined with former Senator Bill Smith (R-NH) to filibuster Judge Richard Paez’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit. So it has happened before, and in fact was done by the very people doing all the belly-aching now.

    LikeLike

75. Doug,
    I completely agree with your last comment. Have you ever read any Donald Miller? I’m reading Blue Like Jazz right now. I think you might appreciate his thought processes.

    LikeLike

76. Dan –

    I read the quote in context at the site you mentioned. I still don’t see anything that would cause me to change my point.

    What really gets me, the more I read it, is his bit that “through His law, and through His word, God is trying to tell us something for our good, for our health, for our Holiness.” Sure, but according to the Bible, all mankind *already* knows that God’s laws are good – and ignore them because they don’t *like* them (Romans 1-2). I myself am exhibit A in this regard, and I am a Christian (in my estimation). So what do we expect of non-believers? As Hank Hannegraff was fond of saying, “Don’t blame the pagans, they’re only fulfilling their job description.”

    What the culture warriors don’t get is that A) laws can’t force people to become moral; B) even where they do instil obedience, that this does NOT change the state of peoples’ hearts; and (most importantly) C) a friendly legal and political environment is NOT necessary for being a good Christian. It was no hinderance to the church in Roman times. And it seems to me that the best Christians in the world nowadays are those in areas where they have NO rights other than the right to be arrested, tortured, and killed at the whim of the state.

    I suspect that the drive to “take back America” really arises from a sense of frustration at the loss of cultural and political dominance by Christians, nominal or otherwise. Well, I say the sooner we recognize that we *are* living in a pagan country, and accept the role of missionaries and pilgrims rather than crusaders trying to “take back what was lost”, the sooner we will be more of what God intends the church to truly be.

    LikeLike

77. Carol:

    Fair point about previous filibusters, but bear in mind that filibustering an appellate court nominee has never happened before. Ambassadorships are different.

    Also, was it an outright filibuster or did the nominee die in committee?

    LikeLike

78. Dan:

    The nominee, James Hormel if you want to look it up, was for an ambassadorship. It probably would have passed on a straight up/down.

    I think you did miss the jist of my question. It wasn’t would *you* appoint someone with those views, but do you think someone with views like should be appointed without those views being questioned/scrutinized. It seems that your answer from the rest of the response is yes.

    Mine would have been no. Not all religious views can be excluded from scrutiny on the basis that suh questioning constitutes a religious test. To use an extreme example: If a member of the Aryan Nations – whose religious views are that non-Aryans aren’t really human and shouldn’t have rights – were nominated, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with a senator questioning whether he could uphold the law requiring equal treatement despite his religious views.

    LikeLike

79. Dan….I asked you to not get personal, and you have ignored my request. You are now insulting me, just to start something more enjoyable to you. I don’t run these comments to argue with you, and I won’t.

    To whoever mentioned Jesus engaging political groups: I never denied political engagement by Jesus. Read the essay. I asked if we had considered HOW Jesus engaged in the culture war. I said he most definately DID. But how did he do it.

    No one is going to posit an intelligble version of Jesus as a GOP or Democratic party activist. Why would anyone try?

    Those of you who can turn any discussion into an endorsement of the “lefty” agenda ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    LikeLike

80. Dan,

    The difference isn’t the “what,” the difference is in the “how.” It isn’t that the Culture War folk have picked lesser battles than civil rights; the difference is that Mohler and Co. (apparently) believe social change can come before a change of the heart, a true repentance. King, Gandhi, etc., all denied that as a possibility based on the Gospel. The FOF folk are forgetting that part of the equation, and that’s why they’ve run off the Christian activist rail, AFAIC.

    LikeLike

81. Doug:

    “I obviously don’t have all of this worked out, but I’m still thinking there is an intrinsic difference between civil/human rights kind of social action and the kind that Mohler is engaging in. I can’t quite put my finger on it, though.”

    Mohler would say there is no difference– being against abortion on demand, he would argue, is a human/civil rights concern. In fact, I am reasonably certain that he has said that.

    I’m not sure what iMonk wants, but Tom Wright is clearly doing his “history” to build a church that will struggle for his favorite lefty causes, like anti-globalization and third world debt relief, and it looks like he is having success, given the support he gets on the net.

    LikeLike

82. Hi Aduff,
    You said: “It was because they were self-righteous, proud, and were hurting God’s people with their unnecessary laws. He wasn’t harsh on them because they were advocating particular political ideas.”

    You see, I see the link between those statements. Their unnecessary laws were their particular political ideas. Include Herod in that. So it gets complicated.

    LikeLike

83. Dan,

    “Shumer then said that Pryor’s religious views were so deeply held that he could not be trusted to follow the law and uphold binding precedent. That is a religious test. ”

    Which, given the way a certain Alabama Supreme Court chief justice behaved, is not totally without precedent itself. However, Pryor’s actions in that affair belies Shumer’s concerns.

    Aduff,

    I think, as I said earlier, the difference is that King and the other Christian civil rights workers were working from a gospel context, moving people to repentance and personal change before the social change. Mohler and Company are working backwards, which seems to be the thrust of Michael’s piece.

    LikeLike

84. Sorry, my response was directed to Dan, not Doug…too many ‘D’ names out there 🙂

    LikeLike

85. Doug,
    I am, quite honestly, struggling with your question. I do recognize that, in the past, different churches have united and made a good (and I would say appropriate) stand against evil (civil rights). I’m trying to decide why I strongly agree with that kind of stand (I plan on making a career in human rights) and I don’t agree with what Mohler et. al. are doing.

    I haven’t quite put my finger on it, but I think it has something to do with the nature of what they are fighting. MLK Jr was fighting for the intrinsic value of the human because they are created by God in his image. People experienced real, tangible love from King because of what he was fighting. He really cared about people because God cared about people. Scripture tells us to seek justice and to take care of the powerless and oppressed. Maybe that’s why I’m comfortable with what King did.

    It appears to me that Dobson’s (Mohler, etc.) fight doesn’t communicate much love. It communicates an “us vs. them” mentality that is disturbing to me. I think the secular world sees the attempt at moralizing America as being self-righteous rather than loving.

    I obviously don’t have all of this worked out, but I’m still thinking there is an intrinsic difference between civil/human rights kind of social action and the kind that Mohler is engaging in. I can’t quite put my finger on it, though.

    Catez,
    I agree with you that this probably isn’t a simple issue.

    In looking at Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees you can see that he was often harsh with them, but I think you have to look at why he was harsh. It was because they were self-righteous, proud, and were hurting God’s people with their unnecessary laws. He wasn’t harsh on them because they were advocating particular political ideas.

    LikeLike

86. Carol:

    I am not familiar with a gay judicial nominee being filibustered, but I will take your word for it. Would the nomination have passed on an up or down vote?

    As far as your question is concerned, I do not think a nominees religious views should even be the subject of questions. I consider Mormonism a cult, but if Mitt Romney were the GOP nominee, I would vote for him. I disagree with Joe Lieberman’s views on social issues, but he is a lawyer, has experience as a state attorney general, and I would urge my Senators, Frist and Alexander, to vote to confirm him if Bush or any subsequent President wanted to put him on the Supreme Court. As for your specific question, would I appoint someone who thought evangelicals were pervers, no, and if the appointment power were vested in me, I could appoint or not appoint someone for any reason whatsoever, the most likely one– certainly the one with the mosthistorical precedent– is that they agreed with me. Your question reminds me of lefties saying Condi Rice shouldn’t be Secretary of State becuase she was tooo close to Bush. What the heck, he should appoint Barbara Boxer? Give me a break. Or was there some logic to your question that I missed?

    Let’s be clear about what happened to Bill Pryor. Pryor was nominated for an appeals court position. An appeals court judge has to follow Supreme Court precedent. Bill Pryor swore that he would. Senator Schumer read from Catholic teaching on abortion, and asked him if those words stated his religious views. Pryor said yes. Shumer then said that Pryor’s religious views were so deeply held that he could not be trusted to follow the law and uphold binding precedent. That is a religious test.

    LikeLike

87. In 1993 a senior writer from the FRC defended filibusters. Why? because one was used to block an openly gay candidate. Senators are cowardly today because they use a filibuster to oppose a candidate, but were doing their jobs a decade ago by doing the same thing?

    What I find disturbing is not that Christians are involved in politics – certainly we have a calling to be salt and light and that sometimes involves speaking truth to power and working for social justice. What I find disturbing is what Jeremy characterized as the whoring of the church to the GOP. And along with that the absolutely slanderous characterization of all Democrats as against people of faith. If you can’t persue whatever agenda (liberal or conservative) without resorting to demonizing your political opponents, it seems to me that that should be a good signal that what you are doing has a lot less to do with Christ than with worldly power.

    Dan: I don’t know Pryor, and maybe he really should be appointed. I honestly don’t know. But I would like you to answer my question. If a judicial candidate expressed deeply held religious beliefs that all evangelicals were particularly perverse and perhaps even a danger to the moral fiber of the nation, do you think he should be appointed to the bench? Why/why not?

    LikeLike

88. Dan, I think the difference between what the Black Churches in the ’60s, the Doris Day Catholic social action movement and FOF et al., is that the former did their work within the context of a Gospel ministry, whereas Dobson and Mohler are working within a context of simply ‘winning’ the game.

    IOWs, the nonviolent political movements of the ’60s were based on Gandhi’s notion that by suffering we move people to social change through repentance and heart change. Dr. King, John Lewis, Jonathon Daniels all suffered with the intention of changing the heart of the people causing the suffering, and then having the social change. Where Mohler and Dobson run off the rails is that they’re calling for a social change that will cause a heart change. To put it more succicntly, they’re thinking we can make more Christians if we had a policy change.

    So, to take Bill Pryor as an example: if we were to adopt the Gandhi/King method of social change, he’d withdraw the nomination, and thentake the sum total of the income, benefits, speaking fees, etc. that would come with his being a federal appeals judge and donate it to Catholic Charities.

    I’m not familiar with the British abolitionist movement, but I would argue the American abolitionist movement adopted the Mohler/Falwell method of policy first, heart second, and that’s why they were largely unsuccesful in the abolition of slavery prior to the Civil War.

    LikeLike

89. Giving your post more thought – there were those occasions when Jesus quite openly took issue with political leaders. The Pharisees exerted religious and political control – and Jesus said some pretty straight things to them publicly. He also referred to Herod as “that fox”. I’m not putting those examples forward as an apologetic for haranguing political leaders. But if I look closely at what Jesus did – well there were those occasions when he spoke his mind. In particular when the leaders in question were opposing the counter-culture Kingdom. So I think this is more complex than it may appear. I’m not so sure collapsing it into an individualistic response is the answer. And I’m not sure holding rallies in churches is either. But looking at Jesus – yes, I do see examples of him engaging the culture quite openly and directly – and he didn’t beat around the bush.

    LikeLike

90. Doug:

    In fairness to Mohler, I posted part of his conclusion. You can find a copy of his whole speech and see if he fills in your logical leap (I think he does, but so what?) at http://www.radioblogger.com/

    Permalinks aren’t enabled so you will have to scroll down a good bit.

    LikeLike

91. We don’t have a two party system where I am. It works fine. It’s definitely not tyranny. Do I like everything that happens? No. But the Right mistreated people so badly they were soundly dumped and are still recovering. On the other hand – instead of a left party holding sway unchallenged we have a center-right party in coalition (and with mostly Christians in it). Interesting that – more and more non-Christians vote for that mainly Christian party. Because they make sense, don’t yell, and aren’t demagogues. They have policies in language people understand. So if you like your two party first-past-the-post system I’m not trying to change your mind. You haven’t changed mine on proportional representation either.
    Most importantly – neither of those options is intrinsically “Christian”. Just comes down to preference.

    LikeLike

92. And what I am having trouble wiht, aduff, and Michael won’t answer me, is does his analysis mean that it was wrong for the church to be involved in ending slavery, securing the rights of our black brothers and sisters, etc? Is it politics itself that is wrong, is it the cause, or is it having to associate with allies who aren’t fashionable? (I wonder if the definition of a militant Episcopalian– someone who will do anything for the Lord as long as it isn’t tacky– applies here; some are just uncomfortable being associated with Falwell, Dobson, et. al.)

    You want scripture to support Christian invovlement in politics? Well, the Catholic Church can give you lots of scripture and tons of exegis supporting church involvement in social action. I’ve read some of it in the last decade, and found it very eye opening. For me, it is basic “image of God” theology. God created the world,he found it good, politics helps hold the world together and should provide safety for all, and the church should help see that society derives the benefits from the social system that God intends for us to enjoy . If that isn’t enough for you, so be it. but if your question is more than a rhetorical device, you can find a lot of material that might help you find an answer.
    It could even be different than mine, and tht would be OK.

    LikeLike

93. What aduff said.

    Mohler leaps in the space of two sentences from our “being salt and light” to demanding a Senate vote on judicial nominees. Evil Kenievel, you’ve got yourself come competition.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing the judicial system fixed, but to claim that this political drive is a function of “showing God’s love and contending for His righteousness” smacks of a real confusion between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of men.

    LikeLike

94. From Mohler’s remarks (posted by Dan):

    And we, as Christians, need to be active in the public sphere, not just to impose some kind of worldview or ideology, but to be salt and light. Because that’s not my idea, that’s how we were commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ.

    This is the very leap of logic I’m having trouble with. When Jesus said we were to be salt and light what was he talking about? If you look at the gospel accounts of this statement you see that he was talking not about social action, but about having grace and love for those around us. Paul’s use of “salt” in Colossians 4:6 underscores this understanding.

    I keep hearing that “we have to be in the fight”, “this is part of our heritage”, “we have to protect our rights”, but I have yet to hear a good Biblical justification for the amount of focus on, and types of methods for, political action that are being espoused by people like Mohler.

    LikeLike

95. From the conclusion of Al Mohler’s remarks Sunday:

    As evangelical Christians, our main concern is the citizenship that is ours in Heaven, that has been purchased by our Savior. But we also understand that we have a responsibility on this Earth, so long as we are alive, until the Lord returns, to show God’s love, and to contend for God’s righteousness. And to tell this world that throught His law, and through His word, God is trying to tell us something for our good, for our health, for our Holiness. And we, as Christians, need to be active in the public sphere, not just to impose some kind of worldview or ideology, but to be salt and light. Because that’s not my idea, that’s how we were commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to speak at Christian citizens. What we demand is an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. It is nothing less than cowardice for a minority in the Senate to block these people from the vote they so richly deserve. Let’s get them that vote, and we will stand with the American people with the results. God bless you”

    Michael, as you are searching for some where to land as you pull back from Calvinism, have you considered the Amish?

    LikeLike

96. I can hear you about the issues of christians being involved in politics, or any other “cause” other than Jesus himself, however, because of my finding Christ in a country, Germany, which experienced non-protest Nazi power…I believe that both can work – social protest based on prayer, and if needed confrontation based on scriptural principles…and those who intercede. Whether you are democrat or republican…the bases of who we really are is Christ. Yes, pray, and ask him what we are to do….Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was an example of a saint, who before us, showed us Christ…and at the same time protest for his’ name. Just the beginning of my heart’s thoughts…

    LikeLike

97. Tremendous column Chet. Thanks.

    LikeLike

98. OSO….

    How do you get from the ministry of Jesus to the statement….”Christians need to change the political system?”

    LikeLike

99. Michael,

    Thanks for the great article. Check out this recent Los Angeles Times piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-hitt26apr26,1,736155.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
    He has a unique perspective on the whole thing that I think many who read your work would appreciate.

    Chet

    LikeLike

100. >This is where Christians could really help America – by trying to change the political system.
     !!!!!!!!!!!! 😮 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     LikeLike

101. I’m here to annoy you all again.

     I have been following this event for about 2 weeks now, reading articles from the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times. Since these papers are not delivered to my front door here in Australia, I have been reading them on the net ;).

     Here’s my problem.

     Are evangelical Christians in America trying to enforce Christian morality upon the rest of America? That seems to be one of my issues here. Of course abortion and homosexuality are sins, but does that demand that laws be passed that punish it based upon the Biblical witness?

     You see, for me, faith and obedience are linked together. To be involved in homosexual activity is sinful. But then, so is being a devout Muslim. God sees them both as sin. Surely if Christians are fighting for a system of law that enforces Biblical morality, then surely Christians should throw religious freedom away and prevent Islam, Buddhism, Atheism and others from existing in American society. They’re all sins aren’t they?

     Another important issue is that of focus. What is the focus of all this? It is upon law, it is upon making sure that people abide by God’s laws. So where is the Gospel in all this?

     As a good Calvinist I believe in T – Total Depravity. People are incapable of obeying God. They are slaves to sin. That’s why so many people in our society (in America and here in Australia too), are greedy, corrupt, sexually promiscuous and selfish. Laws that promote Christian morality are therefore bound to fail.

     As a good Calvinist I also believe in U – Unconditional Election. People can only be regenerated by the Holy Spirit when they hear the message of the Gospel. Because of the Spirit in their life, it is now possible for them to live Godly lives and turn from their sins.

     This is why I don’t support Dobson and others (and obviously their Australian equivalents). Their focus is on the wrong thing. What they focus upon is good, but ultimately the good is the enemy of the best.

     Moreover, what these Christians end up preaching is salvation by works. It is already happening. At the risk of being excoriated by Brother imonk, the fact that a conservative Roman Catholic leader was involved in the debate is telling. I have also read that FOF has formal ties with Mormon organisations. How can evangelicals make formal ties with groups that deny the fundamental truths of the Christian faith? Simple – the Gospel is not important to these groups.

     Unbelievers who hear the Gospel message from Christians who are living righteous lives have a powerful effect. That’s what I think God wants us to do. “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good works and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2.12).

     That’s NOT what’s happening here. Tom DeLay is, among others, leading this fight but evidence is stacking up against him about those Indian casinos. Ralph Reed is also implicated in this. Dobson, too, is involved. Keeping their conduct honourable? I doubt it.

     So how should Christians be involved in political debate? For one thing, there should be a questioning of first principles – WHY is it that the political system lends certain activities to occur? The alignment of conservative Christianity with the Republican party is a case in point – surely there should be a better way than simply telling your congregation to vote Republican.

     This is where Christians could really help America – by trying to change the political system. The many amendments to the constitution show that change is often necessary. Taking away the current system of nominating candidates may be one of these solutions. Maybe judges should be picked randomly from a host of candidates (whose broad criteria is determined by legislation). Maybe judges, once selected for the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, are limited to a term of between 5-10 years.

     Thinking outside the box may also be necessary too. Is there some way that pro-lifers and pro-choicers can come to a mutually agreeable agreement that does not compromise their positions? You bet there is. I’ve worked one out.

     Whatever the solutions are, the thing is that Christians should fight for whichever one allows society to change via the proclamation of the Gospel, and prevents Christians (and other special interest groups, including other religious groups) from involving themselves too deeply into a political process that can oftentimes taint them and lead them to believing that the “means justifies the ends”.

     LikeLike

102. Jeremy,

     As long as book recommendations are in order, let me plug “The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice” by Philip Jenkins. I think that reading that puts the lynching of Bill Pryor in a perspective that most folks haven’t considered. Jenkins, by the way, is an Anglican, and I am a Baptist.

     Good luck with your mission.

     LikeLike

103. Great post and comments. Commenters have valid points on both sides, which usually means the truth is somewhere in between. Dan is correct on the political stances of the Wright. Apparently, the Bishop doesn’t seem to think his overtly political pronouncements impede the Kingdom, and I would tend to agree. It seems like a large leap to equate the first century political situation in occupied Palestine to a twenty first century situation in a two party republic democracy… call it the Tom Wright doctrine.

     Ephesians 5:1-13 is instructive here. Paul is addressing the Ephensian Church to expose the unfruitful works of darkness (in this case sexual immorality) as the Church is light. The Church can fairly apply Paul’s teaching to many issues that have some political element like abortion, marriage and judicial nominations.

     I think we would all agree the issue of the Church and politics/activism is one that needs to be openly and thoroughly discussed within the Church.

     Keep up the great writing!

     LikeLike

104. Jeremy:

     The Thomas/Dobson book is very good. I do not disagree that many Christians expect way too much from politics. I just don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to get judges confirmed who have “strongly held bleiefs” that happen to be religious. Nor, in years past, was there anything wrong with the church opposing slavery, opposing racial discrimination, or, as N. T. Wright and other liberal Christians (and their churches, I might add– Rowan Williams released an anti-globalization diatribe today)want to do, forgiving third world debt and telling everyone how bad US led globalization is.

     It is a mighty leap from Jesus’ refusal to advance a narrow Jewish nationalism
     to saying the church should disengage from politics. I am not at all confident that Jesus would have refused to join Martin Luther King in Selma, William Wilberforce in Clapham, or, for that matter, Thoreau in jail when he refused to pay his taxes to support the Mexican war even though I don’t recall Thoreau’s protest as being attributable to Christian belief.

     I have tried to stay away from substantive comment about underlying issues about the culture wars, since I think this fight is what it started out as– confirming judges. But, let’s face it, what is really at stake here for the secularists is abortion politics. I happen to think their fears are largely groundless, in that I do not believe that the Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe.

     They might, however, with some personnel changes, do things like uphold the partial birth abortion bill. Just because Jesus wouldn’t support violent revolution against the Romans does not mean he wouldn’t have a dog in that fight. Between murdering a viable fetus and not, he might choose life, and he might not object to peaceful political involvement by his church in that struggle. I have not seen what Tom Wright says about that, but he has proposed a model of the church that Michael seems to build on, and Wright clearly and vigorously supports the church being involved in political struggles that he does support.

     It seems, really, to be question of whose ox is being gored. Michael, I do not mean this personally, but I grew up in the south during the civil rights struggle. Your post reminds me of too many that I heard coming from white preachers back in those days. FOrtunately, a very brqve Baptist preacher in our community, Charles Trentham, took to his pulpit in 1958 after a school bombing in a neighboring community, said the church had to stand for racial reconciliation and obedience to the law, basically shamed most of the “respectable” ministers in town into agreeing with him, and we avoided more violence.

     Yes, bad things can happen when the Church engages in political squabbles, and even in a good cause you can pick up some allies you would just as soon not have like Falwell, Dobson and Mohler, but good things can happen, too– and from all I have read, Martin Luther King was not easy for many of his white allies to work with.

     LikeLike

105. The post at 9:11 pm attributed to Matt was from me. My bad.

     LikeLike

106. Dan wrote: “And Jeremy, being taken into account as just another interest group is better than being ignored totally, which was, for the left, the good old days.”

     My point here is that we are viewed and USED like any other interest group on the Hill: American Tobacco Growers of America, AARP, MoveOn.org, Sierra Club, etc… all wanting something, all vying for something (a place at the table, a few words in an appropriation bill for funding, a bill banning something, a bill promoting something, etc…)

     As I mentioned, individual Christians being active for the cause of Christ in government (whether voting, writing/calling, and especially working as staffers) is far different than the Body of Christ (as the sole representative/ambassador/voice of Jesus in this reality) seeking to bring about societal/cultural change. The last time I flipped to Romans, the power for salvation, life transformation, and especially cultural reconciliation (the idea of restoring something to the way it was originally intended to be, i.e. according to the Way of Christ) lies squarly in the gospel (which I am CERTAIN you realize and I am again not trying to be condesending, only trying to make a point), not the dnc platform nor the republican party.

     A great book on the whole discussion of the church’s role in politics is “Blinded by Might” by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson. They were both super involved in the Moral Majority and I think you all would find it very instructive. No, it is not a tell all/bash Falwell book, but an honest look at the perils of seeking societal tranformation through the seduction of political power.

     Thanks for letting me join the conversation on this site, this is post #2 of many, I hope…

     -jeremy

     LikeLike

107. Matt:

     I keep them within the bounds of the tax code. (I represent his church and many other non-profits.) No laws are broken handing out voter guides (sample ballots) and taking voters to the polls. He cannot endorse a candidate from the pulpit without endangering his church’s tax exemption, and he does not do that.

     And I don’t think it is wrong, morally or religiously. The black church has been key to organizing black voters to participate in the political process and secure their civil rights. I am not a right wing zealot– just confirm Bill Pryor and I am a happy camper. But, according to iMonk, Jesus would disapprove, and I am sure my friend would like to know that.

     LikeLike

108. Dan – you probably should tell your buddy it’s wrong because, well, it is.

     LikeLike

109. Funny kind of thread. I guess I need to print it out and take it to my AME minister buddy when we have our regular breakfast next week and tell him it is wrong for his church to distribute sample ballots, all marked for Democrats, and give people rides to the polls. I have just come to the chapter in Mark Noll’s “Rise of Evangelicalism” book that talks about evangelicals taking on slavery. I guess that was a dark moment in the history of the church. And I sure must have read all those books about the civil rights struggle wrong– I thought they said that the involvement of the black and liberal white churches was a good thing.

     And Jeremy, being taken into account as just another interest group is better than being ignored totally, which was, for the left, the good old days.

     LikeLike

110. Wow! What can I say except the loudest AMEN I can muster. Thank you so much. I will link this to my microscopic readership. It’s also heartening to see other kindred spirits out there who haven’t bought into the lies being passed around as “Christian” these days. Michael, thanks for stickin’ around! This theologically conservative Calvinist, who is anything but politically, still needs to know that there are others out there who see past this world’s false dichotomies, whether from the left or the right. Rock on!

     LikeLike

111. Folks, I am a former Capitol Hill staffer and current “missionary” on Capitol Hill who was just today learning with a staffer from Christ’s parable on the yeast and dough. This essay is timly and I have a few things to say regarding this Justice Sunday and Christian activism in general…

     First, without being condisending, if you all think “we are winning” or making progress using the tactics of CC, FOF, Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, et al, you are naive. Over the course of the past 2 decades, especially during the 80’s MM fiasco and current rencor, the church has reduced itself to one more interest group vying for money, attention, and legislation. That is how we are viewed up here, and that reputation falls squarely on our shoulders.

     Second, EVEN WORSE, we are now a tool for the political machine. This Justice Sunday has confirmed EVERYTHING that I have feared has happened to the church: WE HAVE WHORED OURSELVES TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Sorry for the all caps, I am not intending to shout, but I hope you see this point, especially from the perspective of a former Republican, very concervative university student and congressional staffer.

     Lastly, on to the yeast…I was teaching/learning with a Hill staffer who is an aid to a Congressman and a growing believer. We were chatting how Jesus relates HIS Kingdom and reality to this very tiny, normal, insignificant sand-size element. Yet, the power unleashed in this small/insignificant element expands the dough. One of the lines of thinking we were chatting about is how the Church (NOT individual Christians, that’s a seperate discussion) try and change socity through shouting, attention, PR, POWER, etc…all means that are very different from the metaphor of yeast. The power of the Way of Christ (yeast) is so much different: that power is Love. It is much more difficult and seemingly insignificant to invest our lives into people, serve them for the sake of servanthood, and love people regardless or faith community, sin, ideology, political persuasion, etc… Sure, it is behind the scenes, counter-cultural, small, NORMAL, but it seems like that is what Jesus wants us to do. It seems like if we Christians are SOOOO concerned with seeing the reality of God invade the American landscape (ie cultural change), we should be yeast.

     Anyway, these are just some thoughts of a young minister on the Hill who is fed up with how the Church conducts itself. I wish we would stop seeking the power of this world and seek the power of Jesus: love. This is what I am teaching the staffers I disciple on the Hill to focus on: not the debate, argumentation, and logic or conservative, Republican, Right-wing blather/ideology, but being Jesus to people on the Hill for societal change. Hopefully, following Jesus in this aspect of His Way (Love) will begin to bring about a change in the Hill-world, for the good of America.

     -jeremy

     LikeLike

112. Totem to Temple:

     For “religious right” in your first paragraph, try substituting “William Wilberforce” or “Martin Luther King.” Still make sense to you?

     LikeLike

113. Great article Michael

     When will the Religious right ever figure out that when a church decides that politics is the only means to ‘usher in God’s way’ that the church has began denying the ominpotent, omnipresent, providential, and sovereign God that they preach about every Sunday morning.

     Everytime I see one of these theopolitical rallies, the more I know why God allowed the events of Acts 26 (especially verse 28) to happen.

     LikeLike

114. Carol M:

     Nice try, but Pryor cancelled a family vacation– he has young children. I used to live in Orlando, and can well remember the shocked complaints (published in the liberal local paper) of parents staying at hotels near the attractions during gay pride week when, as one of myriad examples, an elevator door at their hotel opened to reveal to their 5 and 9 year old one man on his knees performing fellatio on another. And that doesn’t even touch on what goes on around the hotel swimming pools.

     Mike– I don’t think I said anything personal, at least I did not mean to. The Montgomery bus boycott was pretty hard ball, too; I’m sure that jobs were lost in stores because of the boycott of the Birmingham stores. (both actions organized in churches) It was no doubt hardball for the abolotionist churches to send rifles to the free soil settlers of Kansas to defend themselves.
     Should the church have stayed out of these fights if, in their best judgment at the time, it took hardball tactics to be effective?

     Oh, and the incumbent Bishop of Durham uses his pulpit and position to campaign for third world debt relief (which, absent a change in thirld world governments–which the Bishop would probably say we should not ask for because of the possibility that George Bush might overthrow one–is meaningless) and the war in Iraq. As much as I think he is just being a typical soft hearted and empty headed liberal on those issues, I have absolutely no problem with him doing so, and that has not stopped me from ordering all of the New Testament for Everyone series that are in print. The last two came last week.

     I’m sorry, unless you are willing to say that churches should not be involved in any political issues ever, and that all such involvement in the past was wrong, I can’t see singling out actions designed to lift an unconstitutional ban on people like Bill Pryor. And if I seem really adamant on this issue, I am; I know Bill PRyor personally, and he would be a great judge who would no doubt surprise some of his supporters.
     (The same would be true of Miguel Estrad, who I have met, but don’t know all that well except for what I have reqd in the media and from his partners)

     I do not doubt your intentions, and there is no doubt that the Kingdom of God is much to be wihed for and worked for by churchs, but being opposed religious persecution has always been part of my core Baptist faith, and Bill Pryor was not confirmed becuase he was a conservative Catholic. If he had made it clear that he did not take the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality seriously, he would have been confirmed. Imposition of that kind of standard is a threat to religious liberty.

     LikeLike

115. I just got a phone call from FOF with a recorded message survey wondering if I knew about democratic filibusting. I hung up after the second question, they were all loaded.

     Thanks for the well thought out essay, it’s really refreshing.

     LikeLike

116. iMonk, very helpful. I’m going to link to this. Thanks for a thoughtful essay.

     LikeLike

117. I’m not sure I entirely disagree with expressing contempt for someone who cancels a vacation because a lot of gay people will be at the destination. That doesn’t sound like ‘Christian principles’ to me. (As I understand Christian principles, he should have more inclined to go in order to be a witness of God’s love to folks he considers lost in sin.) What it does sound like is evidence that he is inclined to treat gays differently – and detrimentally. And I can certainly understand questioning the appointment of a judge who seems predisposed to treat one class of citizen differently from others.

     Now before everyone jumps all over me for that, imagine a judicial nominee cancelled a family vacation because there was going to be an evangelical Christian event at the destination. Imagine that he did this because of ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ that evangelical Christianity was blasphemous and perverse and he did not want his children exposed to an evangelical Christian event. Would you want that guy appointed to the bench? If you went to court and he was the judge would you feel comfortable that his decisions would be impartial if he knew you were an evangelical Christian?

     Brian: Absolutely right. 🙂

     LikeLike

118. Michael, Great piece.

     The freight train of status quo will not be stopped, especially not by American Pop-Christianity.

     When the church takes on the state, who will be attracted to the gospel? Where will the down trodden go?

     LikeLike

119. “[Jesus] proclaimed and enacted that Kingdom in his ministry, never making any compromises on which was the Kingdom that demanded the most loyalty.”

     I think this is getting to crux of the matter. Jesus didn’t compromise and we shouldn’t either. This is what separates the support of issues from support of candidates or parties, in my opinion. As a church (or in this context as a local church) are to be about the business of worshipping God and bringing glory to our King, Jesus. So a church can rise up against a particular issue (slavery, abortion, etc.) with the humble confidence that their stance on this issue is Christ-exalting. However, once the church puts its stamp of approval on a particular candidate or party, it seems to me that all bets are off. Because of the compromising nature of American politics, we cannot be assured that the goal of that candidate or party will ALWAYS be to glorify Christ. Let’s be honest, that isn’t the goal of any party. As individuals we can (and should) prayerfully consider which candidates or parties to support. But this is a far cry from putting a label on someone that says “Officially Approved by the Church of Jesus Christ”, as so many are trying to do these days. Aligning the church so closely with individuals or parties has the inherent danger of giving the church (yet another) black eye should they, in the future, make decisions that are contrary to loyalty to the Kingdom. My two cents…

     LikeLike

120. Dan…

     I don’t want to argue or get personal. Please.

     It’s difficult to work this out in a culture that is so unlike the Biblical situations. We can clearly see the counter culture that Jesus is creating and that exists in Acts and the epistles. We do not see political action. My essay suggests that Jesus did have options: the Pharisees, Sadduccees, Essenes and Zealots were all political options for Jesus.

     I do believe that Christians can speak truth to power without adopting worldly methods or losing their identity. Many Christians have done so. I am uneasy with “churches” speaking for the Christians in the pews on anything other than the most obvious moral issues. Especially in our society, we may agree on moral issues, but disagree on how these are to be handled with specific laws and enforcements.

     It is today’s “culture war Christian” who must explain the connection between political hardball and the Methods/message of Jesus.

     LikeLike

121. Michael:

     From the 2000 BF&M:

     “The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.”

     William Pryor has been penalized for not being a cafeteria Catholic, but a believing Catholic. I was reared in a Baptist church that, perhaps unusually, spent a lot of time teaching about the old anti-Baptists who were martyred in Europe, and how Baptists were the leading fighters in Virginia for the precursor of our First Amendment. Jefferson’s letter containing his famous reference to the “wall of separation” was addressed to an association of Baptist Churches, not individual Baptists.

     Is it wrong for an individual, autonomous, Baptist church to take a stand when Christians are effectively barred from public office? Was it wrong for black churches and too few white churches to struggle for civil rights in the 60’s?Was it wrong for British dissenting churches and mnay American churches to fight for abolition of slavery and the slave trade? Or is it just the so called culture war you object to?

     LikeLike

122. It’s the ISS, right? ‘Cos, when was the last time you saw a dog eat peanut butter? Precisely. And everyone knows that cats can’t eat space stations; that’s just silly! So there. The ISS. All the way. (And people wonder why I took against the SAT as soon as I saw it…)

     Good essay. We’re in the middle of a general election over here and of course, the usual suspects are making the usual noises about the usual issues — I’ll try to remember your essay next time a fellow believer asks me why I don’t think voting Conservative is the automatically correct option.

     LikeLike

123. “The church, as a church, has no political power without ceding its identity and loyalty to the Kingdom of God for some political influence in Caesar’s kingdom.”

     Well said. I seem to recall *someone* offering Jesus dominion over the world and Jesus refusing it. Unfortunately, the church has sometimes fallen for that temptation.

     Thanks for another worthwhile essay.

     LikeLike

124. Dan….I join you in your statement, except for the last phrases. The church, as a church, has no political power without ceding its identity and loyalty to the Kingdom of God for some political influence in Caesar’s kingdom.

     The essay is about how Jesus fought the culture war. I have no issue with Christians who believe the culture war must be fought. I just don’t see Jesus fighting the culture war in these terms.

     Plus, I am rather surprised that we apparently have some new readings of what Christians are supposed to do when persecuted for Jesus’ sake 🙂

     LikeLike

125. Michael, it is a fact that William Pryor, a devout Catholic who happens to agree with his church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, was filibustered because of his “deeply held beliefs” to quote Chuck Shumer. I watched the confirmation hearings– he was also treated with contempt by Russ Feingold for canceling a family vacation to Disneyworld because it coincided with gay pride week.

     Chrisitans are called on to be salt and light to the world. When religous tests, unconstitutional as they are, are applied to keep believers of any faith from public office, this CBF Baptist expects his CHURCH, as a church, to stand up and protest.

     LikeLike

126. Michael, have you read “Against Christianity” by Peter Leithart? Many of the ideas you’ve expressed are very in-line with what he has to say. I think Christians often forget that we are the City of God; we are not even on the same playing field as the world’s market of competing ideologies.

     LikeLike

127. Sorry, link didn’t work!

     http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/article_agendaforchange.shtml

     LikeLike

128. Michael,

     You might be interested in this post from Ekklesia (an anabaptist-ish political think-tank in the UK):

     Subverting the manifestos

     LikeLike

129. Two points.

     1) Brian said, “IMO, Jesus is against people being disqualified for public office on the basis of being his followers. Not only is it a slap in his face, it’s also a violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.””

     From the strict viewpoint of justice, yes, Jesus *might* say that people should not be disqualified from being public servants. But He *did* say to expect discrimination and persecution for being His followers, and to *rejoice* in the fact.

     When American Christians are “discriminated against”, we run for the lawyers and the press. When Rwandan Christians were slaughtered, they prayed and rejoiced. Who’s being more faithful to what Jesus really said?

     2) Brian said, “He may be for individual nominees, but not because they’re Republicans. I don’t think he cares about that label at all. I think he cares more about their hearts and whether they will faithfully exercise their duties.Similarly, I don’t think he dislikes the Democrats for opposing Rep judges … I think he dislikes Democrats opposing Rep judges *because of their faith*.”

     There *are* Chrisians who are Democrats, who strongly believe that the Christian faith demands certain aspects of social justice. Not just “mainline liberals” – a friend of mine who’s a Reformed Baptist Calvinist is one of them! I strongly disagree with his politics, but I cannot see Jesus looking at him and not seeing someone whose heart is His and wants to faithfully discharge His duty. And I’m pretty sure he wasn’t too impressed with “Justice Weekend”…

     LikeLike

130. I’m afraid I must disagree with you slightly.

     You said …

     “Therefore, Jesus is for Republican judges being approved, and Jesus is against the Democratic filibuster against people of faith.”

     First of all, I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or serious, but I will assume the second for the sake of argument.

     If so, I think only the second clause is correct.

     IMO, Jesus is against people being disqualified for public office on the basis of being his followers. Not only is it a slap in his face, it’s also a violation of Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

     However, just because he’s AGAINST the blocking of Christian judges, doesn’t mean he’s FOR Republican nominees.

     He may be for individual nominees, but not because they’re Republicans. I don’t think he cares about that label at all. I think he cares more about their hearts and whether they will faithfully exercise their duties.

     Similarly, I don’t think he dislikes the Democrats for opposing Rep judges … I think he dislikes Democrats opposing Rep judges *because of their faith*. Democrats opposing Rep judges because, e.g., they are corporate stooges, probably doesn’t bother him at all.

     Respectfully,

     Brian P.

     LikeLike

131. Great post. For the church to be so closely aligned with one party and label is detrimental to the gospel and it belittles those who love Christ and have a different perspective on justice. I want to recommend “God’s Politics” by Jim Wallis which gives a totally different perspective to the issue.

     LikeLike

132. Nicely said.

     LikeLike

133. Good stuff, as usual. One caveat: Concerning the Republican delay on Clinton nominees, was that a delay or a full-on filibuster? Did the nominees make it out of committee? Who were the nominees and to what bench were they being appointed? There are some fair sources – National Review, the Atlantic – that have never mentioned this, and I’ve got to think if it were on par with what the Dems are doing now, they’d say so.

     LikeLike

134. A brave, clear and beautiful post. I happen to be a Democrat, but your logic and deeper Gospel view is a lesson for all of us. Kingdom is the key focus and “Jesus plus anything is a subtraction”. As always, Thanks Michael.

     LikeLike