Mother Teresa, we need you now. . .

A few of you have asked my opinion of the recent appearance of our two presidential hopefuls at the land of all things purpose-ful. From what I saw, it appeared that we fundamentally learned nothing new of either candidate. Obama seemed to run right down the left hand of the dial, with McCain down the right.

Obama said some pretty striking things, of which you can imagine my response. First, I don't fundamentally hold to an individual's right to life from conception as a matter of 'faith'. It is a matter of scientific fact and clear medical evidence, to state this pro-life position as a matter of faith (and so somehow not to be an issue of legislative action as other matters of life and death) is obfuscation and manipulation of the highest order.

Obama was asked when, in his view, a baby gets human rights. His response was fascinating:

"Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade."

Obama is a legislator, civic leader, and running for the highest office in our land and must speak clearly on what is still the most important human rights issue facing our land. This defining moral issue is without a doubt well within the pay grade of our commander in chief. In reality Sen. Obama has made his view clear in every forum thus far. Senator Obama went on to say that he 'believes' in Roe v. Wade, thus making it clear that he denies the human rights of the fetus through to term. He has campaigned unequivocally AGAINST the rights of the unborn and has promised this campaign to continue. How in the world can an American citizen accept such a manipulative and ridiculous answer- regardless of your position on the life of the unborn?

The real issue that I had with the forum, of course, had more to do with the right reverend Rick Warren. Actually, I felt he did a 'good job' as far as all that goes. He moderated well, asked some very helpful questions and was fair and balanced, just like FOX news. The problem with all this is that our pastor-teachers are not called to be debate moderators, or 'forum' providers for political hopefuls. They are to preach the gospel, to oppose sin and injustice, and confront governors and leaders with the truth of God's Word. I am reminded of the famous prayer breakfast when the diminutive and elderly Mother Teresa stood up among a crowd of clergymen and chastised President Bill Clinton for his woeful position on the issue of abortion. She refused the religous stature that the powers and principalities offered and instead chose the cause of the least of these. That Pastor Warren abdicated the prophetic nature of his office at such an opportunity is sad, to say the least. Though it must be argued that such prophetic abdication is the very reason why Saddleback had this opportunity in the first place.

The Old Worn Out Drum

I'll continue to bang the old worn out drum for the cause of the unborn as THE singular moral, social, and political issue of our day.

John Piper on One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society :

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for
office.

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters.It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.


Doug Groothuis on Recovering from Fetus Fatigue:

Evangelicals, for God's sake, please wake up. Remember the least, the last, and the lost: the millions of unborn human beings who hang in the balance (Matthew 25:31-46). No, this is not the only issue, but it is a titanic issue that cannot be ignored. Rouse yourself to recover from fetus fatigue. God is watching.

Gene Edward Veith says that what a candidate believes about abortion tells us how he will treat other issues.

Scott Klusendorf on why children should be free to smoke in pro-choice America.

Politics is Politics

An interesting, and frustrating, article on the so-called younger evangelicals over at the NY Times.

"They [our younger evangelicals] say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.

“Evangelicalism is becoming somewhat less coherent as a movement or as an identity,” said Christian Smith, a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame. “Younger people don’t even want the label anymore. They don’t believe the main goal of the church is to be political.”
About 17 percent of the nation’s 55 million adult evangelicals are between the ages of 18 and 29, and many are troubled by the methods of the religious right and its close ties to the Republican Party.

Ok, now here is what I don't understand. In the first paragraph above we discover the desire of younger evangelicals to broaden and increase the political agenda to what are obviously more 'left wing' issues (environment, 'the poor', etc.). But, lo and behold, we discover in the very next paragraph that these same younger evangelicals don't believe the main goal of the church is to be political. So, which is it? More politics or less politics? You can't have your cake and eat it too, guys. It is plain that there is specific sort of politicking that the new, fresh, young evangelicals will allow. I wish at least we'd be honest on this point.

This sort of facile grandstanding regarding 'the methods of the religious right and its close ties to the Republican party' means nothing to me. In what way are these methods more troubling than the methods of Wallis' 'religious left'? Why are we not troubled by the close ties of the religious left to the Democratic Party?

And, I will continue to insist that the slaughter of innocent babies is an issue of primary importance for every candidate and a litmus test for justice, righteousness, and compassion for any party. It trumps all and is an issue of singular importance above all others. I simply cannot endorse or vote for any candidate who loves 'the poor' and yet endorses the right of its citizens to have their children (other citizens) dismembered, suctioned from the womb, and discarded as so much garbage. How in the world can we morally compare climate change politics with the abomination of state sanctioned homosexual marriage (and the collapse of the family which is the heart and soul of any nation)? Yes, put in flourescent bulbs, but let's be careful to have some moral perspective here.

For the most part, and forgive my cynicism, these emerging pastors are speaking to trends, appealling to the masses (at least the latte drinking hipster ones), and losing their prophetic voice in the process. You can't say that you are against abortion and believe homosexuality is a sin, but then refuse to address such sins as they are encroaching upon our lives and communities at every turn!

If we discovered tomorrow that John McCain was a card carrying member of the Klan (do they carry cards?) and an avowed racist, for the most part this country would quickly turn into a single issue nation. If Obama revealed that he did in fact support his former pastor's sentiments and politics, and made Farakhan his cheif political strategist- we would become a single issue country. Why are these issue of race more important than the issue of abortion? But the fact of the matter is, we have one party and one candidate that openly affirms and endorses the right of a nation to kill babies. The other candidate and party has fought against this travesty (though my affections for the Republican party and her poster boy are similar to Pastor Bayly's). These facts are plain. These are matters of morality, character, righteousness, and justice. For us to blithely put the issue of infanticide alongside issues of climate change and the minimum wage is, in my mind, pure foolishness (to say nothing of the double talk of our younger evangelicals on such religious politicking).

And, for the record- I am what you might call a 'younger evangelical'. Sadly no one has polled me as of yet.

Abortion is the Moral Equivalent of Murder

My Dad made an important correction to some sloppy thinking on my part in my last post. Regarding Jim Wallis' statement that 'abortion is not the moral equivalent issue to slavery' I said that abortion was indeed the contemporary moral equivalent issue to slavery, and should be opposed morally, ethically, and with all the political means at our disposal. I was only half right.

My Dad comments:

"Abortion is not the moral equivalent of slavery. Abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. Both prenatal and postnatal homicide are 100% fatal. Slavery on the other hand, while frought with death and suffering, and though a clear moral evil, does not quite measure up to the evil of abortion. The comparison is also something of an anachronism. I understand slavery in a society 200 years ago. I have no understanding whatsoever of abortion in a society as "advanced" as we are supposed to be."

Well put. I stand corrected.

Wallis on Abortion and Poverty

Christianity Today recently interviewed Jim Wallis, the champion of the religious 'evangelical' left. It is a very revealing article. I will most likely interact with it a bit in the near future. But for now, I'd like to point out just one flaw in his thinking.

Wallis was asked if his views regarding the criminalization of abortion were out of step with the position of Wilberforce that 'protecting slaves without criminalizing slavery was unjust'. He refused to answer a plain 'justice' question with the same obfuscation we always see from the left on this issue. "Stop the politicking and actually reduce the number of abortions", is the cry. But why is there such a concern for political action on behalf of the poor, or in matters of global warming and environmentalism- but, in this area- an area of crystal clear moral ramifications (which is far more than can be said of the cause of environmentalism), the political process is hopeless. The answer we must rather hear is this: "yes, abortion- the murder of the unborn- is criminal, evil, and must be outlawed like any other clearly criminal and evil activity in a just society."

Wallis says this of the work of Wilberforce and the parallel issues of our day:

"I don't think that abortion is the moral equivalent issue to slavery that Wilberforce dealt with. I think that poverty is the new slavery. Poverty and global inequality are the fundamental moral issues of our time. That's my judgment."

On what basis is such a judgment made? Can we truly say that poverty (however Wallis defines this) which has its root in such a wide array of problems, causes, and issues is anywhere as clear a moral problem as global infanticide? I do not know any who maintain that 'poverty' should be enforced legally, or should be perpetuated (though of course it is perpetuated in a variety of ways). Such a judgment certainly cannot be a pragmatic one. Pragmatically (utilitarian concerns seem to prevail when our morality collapses), even on the basis of Wallis' own statistics in the article (30,000 children are dying every day because of poverty and disease)- poverty doesn't hold a candle to the evil of abortion on a global scale. Globally, 126,000 children die everyday of abortion. 87 per minute. 1.4 every second.

Abortion is the moral equivalent to slavery. And there is need of more men and women who would stand as Wilberforce did.

The Question of Character

Just to spread the love all round I thought I'd offer some choice words regarding nominee McCain. He has a firm grip on the Republican ticket and the endorsement of President Bush. He is a 'moderate' to say the least, and his pro-life commitments are sketchy. It'd be good to address the claim to 'character' that is blithely tossed about on both sides of the fight. Consider our President's endorsement of Senator McCain:

"John showed incredible courage and strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment and that is exactly what we need in a president," he said. "Somebody who can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger."

Undoubtedly our President is making a reference to the courage and strength necessary to survive through the brutal POW camp where McCain was detained for several years during the Vietnam war. And such survival takes immense courage and determination. McCain proved himself a soldier of the highest order and a leader among men.

But there is another crucible of a man's life that must be considered before we offer up a verdict just yet. In order to be a leader in the church a man's marriage and homelife is to be examined. Paul tell's Timothy that an elder should be 'the husband of one wife' or a 'one-woman man'. He must manage his home well if he is to manage and lead in God's house.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "But the church is different than the state." Or, "if we held all our leaders to such standards, we'd have few leaders indeed."

To the first statement I say, "Well, yes and no." Yes, leading in the state does not require the same qualifications as leading in the church. But, no, I would aver that there are issues of character qualification in a leader and in a man that are at work regardless of the context. The character of a man and leader is tested in a unique and crucial way in the realm of marriage and family. Commitment and fidelity in marriage is the basic covenant responsibility of a man and is absolutely crucial to society. Responsibility (beyond mere financial provision) to love and nurture children is a display of integrity and temperance in a man. In these areas, should we really require less of those who lead our nation than those who lead our communities (our church communities or otherwise)?

Regarding the second concern that standards of character will unrealistically bind us and leave us without any candidates at all. This sort of fatalistic pragmatism will never do. Citizens in a free republic should never resign themselves to allowing scoundrels to lead them. Raise the standard and oust the fools and the wicked. Of what use are the ideals of a free society if all other ideals are sacrificed to acheive them?

Republicans are notorious for raising the question of character. And Democrats have been historically known to dodge the question. But it is standard PR to parade spouses and families of Republicans and Democrats alike during the campaign . Why? Because the public wants to see that you can maintain some basic commitments in life. If you can't manage them, or at least if you can't even manage the appearance of them, then what kind of leader would you be? We demand this of our leaders, and our leaders pay out the nose to PR firms to secure this image, because we intuitively understand the importance of such things. If only we would dig deeper than a glossy publicity photo to see if such commitments are real or not.

All that being said, I think that we should not be so quick to allow Citizen McCain a pass in the character department. At the end of his life he will answer to God for (most likely) repeated infidelity in his first marriage (and has been questioned recently regarding possible infidelity in his current marriage). He abandoned his marriage and vows to his wife while pursuing a beauty queen some 18 years his junior. This is reprehensible behavior and brings a man's character into question. If you want the whole story, you can read about McCain's early years here. Here are is a sad statement made by McCain's former wife from the article:

"The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."

McCain has expressed remorse for his past with candor. For this I am glad. And I hope that his failures from the past have formed character through repentance and change. Nonetheless, such failures as infidelity and abandonment of an invalid wife and one's children have lasting consequences. Should they bar one from laying hold to the position of highest leadership in the land? I actually think so. Will it keep me from casting my vote to McCain as the lesser of evils? Good question. These are all issues deserving thought and discussion. And such issues must certainly be under consideration when we examine the character of our leaders.

Kristof's Favorite Evangelicals

My Dad, Pastor Mike Braun, offers some thoughts regarding Nicholas Kristof's latest OpEd piece for the New York Times. Read the piece, then read on below.

This afternoon my daughter sent me the URL to an Op Ed piece entitled "Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love" which appeared n the NY Times on February 3, 2008. It was sent to her by a friend and she kindly passed it on to me. I must confess that when I saw the author's name my initial enthusiasm was somewhat abated.

Nicholas Kristof once again took his pen in hand and ventured onto the playing fields of the Op Ed section of the Times. Most everyone agrees that this venue hardly constitutes a level playing field. Nevertheless Mr. Kristof's decidedly left leaning stance appears quite balanced when framed in the skewed windows of our nation's "paper of record." The Times, a paper proudly claiming to bring its reader "all the news that's fit to print," appears to be convinced that any viewpoints not presented therein are unworthy of the ink it would take to print them. Almost uniformly contributors to the Times' Op Ed pages on any regular basis show a decided liberal bias. They require very little evidence to convince themselves of the fact they are not only brighter than their adversaries, but superior in their eclectic moralities. The Times' self congratulatory viewpoint often turns to Mr. Kristof as its champion. He is benevolent, if condescending, and oh so tolerant … to a point. St. Nicholas believes his positions take the moral high ground so often they do not require oxygen. Like many east coast liberal writers, Mr. Krisof is so pleased to be correct that he often, with all due beneficence, dispatches dispensations of grace to those who occupy lesser stations in life. This time the supplicants receiving his literary indulgences happen to be a few Christian evangelicals. That is, he is willing to acknowledge certain evangelicals if they march to his unchallenged agenda. The items of that agenda, in his eyes at least, are manifestly superior in their morality to all the other concerns of those who would align themselves to the right of his throne which proudly sets quite far to the left of the political spectrum. So, self assured of his correctness, Mr. Kristof is not above bestowing from time to time faint praises upon those less enlightened than he. Noblesse oblige. Thus he looks upon a few evangelicals worthy of his love.

Liberals, Mr. K. intones, "believe deeply in tolerance." This may come as a surprise to the countless conservatives who have been shouted down on major university campuses around the country, physically intimidated and even hit in the face with the ubiquitous pie. Neither should the myriad of conservative academics that have been denied their just credits and tenure be forgotten in this rush to baptize the left in the soothing waters of toleration. The chairman of a major university's department of religion once told me, without blinking an eye, that he would never appoint a self professed evangelical Christian to his faculty for no other reason than that he was an evangelical. Sic semper liberal tolerance. So when Mr. Kristof says "scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant," all manner of red flags begin to wave before me. My caution was quickly rewarded when it became obvious that Mr. Kristof reserved tolerance for the religious right only if they focused on acceptable moral priorities: "poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria and" (are you ready?) "genocide in Darfur." One wonders if genocide elsewhere, say in the abortion chambers of the United States, is acceptable? I'm sure other diseases such as yellow fever and gonorrhea could easily be added to Mr. Kristof's fab five list plus one along with things like fetal research and socialized medicine. However, it is clear that to Mr. Kristof issues such as the advocacy of premarital celibacy or opposition to homosexual marriage, or efforts to restrict pornography when it masquerades as free speech and artistic expression, are non-issues. They are not pragmatically useful to a secular society though they are inherently more closely aligned to evangelical beliefs than the issues Mr. Kristof favors. Such evangelical concerns are beneath his standards of tolerance and unworthy of his love, even though they are clearly issues anchored in Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

Mr. Kristof proves this observation in his praise of the tired radicalism of Jim Wallis whose biggest claim to being an evangelical is that he came out of Chicago and from among the corridors of Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. Mr. Wallis, nonetheless, merits Mr. Kristof's "love" because he finds climate change and poverty more compelling moral concerns than the abortion deaths of 1.2 million American infants yearly. Mr. Kristof is delighted that the "purpose driven" pastor Rick Warren is willing to put the American social blight of promiscuity and sexual insanity behind the need for AIDS awareness in South Africa. But God help, no pun intended, any and all evangelicals who may favor a different moral priority than the one espoused by Mr. Kristof. And, by the way, when did Mr. Kristof reserve the right to define a more acceptable evangelical moral agenda? Its bad enough that CBS is attempting to that with its questionable poll data. Mr. Kristof makes his contentions for what is "more moral" out of nothing save his own view point, and that the view point, not of an evangelical Christian, but of a sort of benign non-Christian secular pagan. Thus, with a back handed note of gratitude to a few non-conforming emerging church types, Mr. Kristof brings his mailed fist down once again on the tired head of Pat Robertson and the deceased pate of poor Jerry Falwell.

Yes, Jerry Falwell, the evangelical liberals loved to hate. Like the remains of Oliver Cromwell, who was disinterred in order to be more properly punished, Mr. Kristof resurrected Rev. Falwell's statement that AIDS was "God's judgment on promiscuity." This dictum, St. Nicholas solemnly noted, "constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse." One wonders just what bathhouses Mr. Kristof frequents to draw such a conclusion. Is he also in possession of statistics showing AIDS running rampant among those who restrict their sexual activity to monogamous marriage? Save for the intervenous drug users, the larger number of whom are sexually promiscuous anyway, and the statistically insignificant number of those infected from tainted blood supplies, Rev. Falwell's observation deserves consideration regardless of the opinion one may have as to its messenger.

When stripped of its contemporary facade Mr. Kristof's view is nothing more than the tired liberal opposition to evangelical Christianity and its heart felt mission to preach the Gospel seeking the salvation of people's eternal souls. It is another attempt to reduce the evangelical agenda in order to place it on a par with many other groups who, ignoring the soul, seek only to alleviate social evils and provide material relief. Admittedly Christ called for his disciples to give "cups of cold water" but it was always to be done under the aegis and clear articulation of His Divine Name. Mr. Kristof seeks a utilitarian marginalization of biblical Christianity. It is the same liberal song and dance that attempted to delegitimize Christian foreign missions at the beginning of the 20th century. It was sought then and is still desired by many today, to replace missionary evangelists and preachers with the more politically correct, and to the liberal mind at least, more noble medical professionals or anthropologists or sociologists. Mr. Kristof would prefer to send Margaret Meade back to Samoa instead of Billy Graham. This is his right. But it hardly qualifies him to determine who the more acceptable evangelical should be. I am not worried about the New York Times being deluded, they are already there. I am, however, concerned with the so-called evangelicals who would take Mr. Kristof's viewpoint seriously and question the urgency of Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations through baptism and teaching. It is this command that explains Jesus' statement that he came to earth not to bring peace but a sword. The Gospel will inevitably divide people. That is only desirable if it is the truth. But, the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be labeled false simply because it does what Jesus said it would do and refuses to march in step with the New York Times. The message of Christ is the sword of the Spirit, but Mr. Kristof fails to get the point.

Answer: Pat Robertson, Rudy Guiliani, and Doug Wilson

Question: Who are three guys I'd love to see in a WWF cage match?

No, actually- I wanted to point you to Doug Wilson's great response to the recent endorsement of Rudy Guiliani by Pat Robertson.

My sentiments exactly.

Women in Combat

Last week in my sermon I said that as I preached through 1 Corinthians 11 my main focus would be upon the church and the home-the two covenantal frameworks which I am called to shepherd and speak into. But, this is not to say that the truth of God regarding men and women does not reach into other 'secular' realms (though I am loathe to make such sharp disctinctions between the sacred and the secular). I am not convinced that 1 Corinthians 11:3 must be translated 'the head of a wife is her husband'- the literal translation is 'the head of the woman is man'. I believe that the natural application, and most common application, will be within that most basic male/female relationship: marriage. But, these truths are profound and far reaching, and they are hard wired into us as men and women. Therefore, we will find them at work in the arenas of the workplace, politics, and, of course in the military. I just find it extremely difficult to say that the reality of our complementarianism in the home and the church will not reach beyond. First of all- complementarianism is the natural way of things (it is how God made us, and generally it is who we are as male and female, however much we try to deny it or level the playing field). Secondly, it is very hard for us to make application of these truths in our homes and churches without them impacting other corners of our lives.

So, on this issue of whether or not women should serve in field combat- I commend to you a few articles that I have found helpful. I don't necessarily agree with all of what Piper and Wilson say, respectively, but that is a given. I do believe they speak with good biblical sense on this issue. You can read Piper's latest World magazine piece here and a great article from Doug Wilson's Credenda Agenda here. The CBMW organization's Danvers Statement has a piece on women in combat here.

The Same God?

Hating to burst our happy ecumenical bubble, but I'd like to direct you to a helpful piece at the evangelical outpost on President Bush's woeful (and oft repeated) theological assesment of true religion.

Building Kingdoms

Whether you are President Bush compromising clear Christian commands for the sake of diplomacy or a Senator pounding the pulpit while stumping for the presidency- every one is building a kingdom. Be assured, though, whichever side of the red and blue fence you are one- neither of these resembles the Kingdom of God.

The Gospel According to Francis? Indians?

The Boston Globe reports on the latest debate at Dartmouth. Democratic candidates responded to questions about their favorite bible verse and whether they were rooting for the Yankees or Red Sox. Here's what they came up with:

Joe Biden: Christ's warning about the Pharisees from the gospel according to John; Yankees.
Hillary Clinton: The golden rule from the gospel according to Luke; Yankees.
Chris Dodd: The parable of the Good Samaritan from Luke; Sox.
John Edwards: Christ's admonition to help the least among us from the gospel according to Matthew; Sox.
Mike Gravel: Love as the most important value, apparently from Paul's letter to the Corinthians; Sox.
Dennis Kucinich: St. Francis's prayer to make us instruments of peace; Cleveland Indians.
Barack Obama: Sermon on the Mount from the gospel according to Matthew; White Sox.
Bill Richardson: Sermon on the Mount from Matthew; Sox.

The Candidates and Their Positions

Here's an interesting table charting the 2008 Presidential Candidates' positions on a variety of issues. I am not entirely sure of it's accuracy, but from what I was able to track it seemed dead on.

Coercion and Statism = Love and Compassion?

A couple of interesting articles here and here on Michael Moore's ability to propagandize and hype the problem and lead us into the typical leftist solution: statist coercion in all things. And philosopher J.P. Moreland writes a nice piece on Moore's bold claim that Jesus would espouse state-regulated universalized health care.

Could you get elected?

Check out a Pew survey from last February. According to the survey, 25% of people are less likely to support a candidate who has been a minister. Bummer. Guess I'll keep my day job.

Although, you'll notice that 22% are more likely to support a candidate who attended a prestigious university. Go Gators!

HT: Evangelical Outpost

Evangelicalism and the New Politics of Personality

I was directed to an interesting article in Harper's by my brother Tim over at BaylyBlog. Tim's post was commenting on the pathetic responses of the Democratic candidates to the question of women registering for the draft. The rather scathing assesment of Rudy's political career by Kevin Baker in the latest Harper's is evidence enough that some of our leading 'republican' hopefuls aren't much of an alternative for those who see a difference between men and women and despise the idea that our mothers, daughters, and sisters should stand in our place in defense of our country (ah, but that is not my point in this post!).

I was struck by one of Baker's introductory statement's regarding the new 'post ideological' age of politics:

"In the new politics the cadidate is everything. The post ideological party distinguishes itself from its rivals not through any particular program or deep moral conviction so much as by the character and charisma of its particular leader - its Sarkozy, or its Berlusconi, or its Clinton - and by its brand selling strategies."

It is interesting how such a statement may stand as an indictment of the current state of evangelical Christianity as well. More and more our churches and our 'movements' are not defined by any ideological, doctrinal, or moral framework but rather by the personality that is sold to us. These leaders themselves ARE the brand, and the publishing houses, mega-church power structures, and market savvy gurus are the might who make right.

I was reading a rather famous and extremely popular bible study guru's latest study materials recently. I was struck at how middle of the road it was, how bereft of real doctrinal clarity, how lacking in any real exegetical work, and how bland it was in application. I had to wonder why this was so popular? The answer of course lies in ourselves to a large degree. But there is, I believe, a more sinister force at work, as cynical and dark as that sounds.

The deal is, this person is marketed flawlessly. Upon entering the local bookstore I felt drawn to the beautiful hair, the sparkling white teeth, the gleam of pastoral love and joy in the eye. The display was sharp, slick, and good looking - overpowering and dwarfing all other materials in its shadow. I felt in my bones a deep longing to purchase this book and fix my life! And of course, this happens in a variety of ways, with a host of teachers, leaders, and Christian self help gurus.

We need to be very concerned with our 'post ideological' and 'personality driven' church. We can fight it by establishing our lives in the midst of covenant relationships under biblical authority and teaching in the local church. This sort of community and leadership should never be replaced by the latest title (and shiny personality) being peddled to us in all its polished glory over at Zondervan.

Politics and the Pulpit

The Evangelical Outpost has a great evaluation of David Gushee's "Rules for Evangelical Politics".
I am perplexed by such 'rules' that seem to be handed down from on high. Yes, as pastors we must be careful that we are not lording our authority and influence over the flock. Yet, we have a duty to inform the hearts and minds of our people with the truth of God's Word. As Carter says, "Political choices are almost always moral choices." We are all thankful for the 'political' and prophetic voice of the Rev. Martin Luther King. But, somehow, not so thankful for the 'political' and prophetic voice of the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Why is it that guys like Mclaren, Campolo, and Donald Miller find it so easy to shred the 'religious right' for their so-called political pandering, while simutaneously pushing a leftist and decidedly 'liberal' agenda of their own?

We need to be concerned when our pastors must follow the rules of politically correct social engagement at the expense of truth, integrity, and prophetic power in the pulpit (regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum).

Changing History and Eliminating Israel

"...the case against Israel currently being made on university campuses, in the media, and throughout the world relies on willful distrotions of the historical record, beginning with the first arrival of Europeans in Palestine near the end of the nineteenth century and continuing throughout the U.N. partition, the establishment of the Jewish state, and the wars between the Arab states and Israel, and culminating in the ongoing terrorism and responses to it. The historical record must be set straight so as to heed the philosopher Santayana's warning that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it . . .

. . . it is impossible to understand the conflict in the Middle East without accepting the reality that from the very beginning the strategy of the Arab leadership has been to eliminate the existence of any Jewish state, and indeed any substantial Jewish population, in what is now Israel. Even Professor Edward Said, the Palestinians' most prominent academic champion, has acknowledged that "the whole of Palestinian nationalism was based on driving all Israelis [by which he means Jews] out." This is a simple fact not subject to reasonable dispute. . . Various tactics have been employed toward this end, including the mendacious rewriting of the history of the immigration of Jewish refugees into Palestine, as well as the demographic history of the Arabs of Palestine. Other tactics have included the targeting of vulnerable Jewish civilians beginning in the 1920s, the Palestinian support for Hitler and Nazi genocide in the 1930s and 1940s, and the violent opposition to the two-state solution proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, then by the United Nations in 1948. . ." (Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, pp. 6-7)

Confessions of a Drowning Man

[Blogger Note: What follows is another insightful, stirring, and, dare I say, prophetic post from our snowy pated theologian in residence, pastor emeritus, elder statesman, most right [winged] reverend, all around nice guy, warrior and solemn keeper of low-mid-high-folk-fine-and funk culture, Mike Braun - known more importantly to me and four others as Dad, to 12 little ones {lucky 13 is on the way!} as Grandpa.]

A flood of questions and impressions have rushed through my mind since the execution of Saddam Hussein. Saddam's departure took place on the first day of Eid al-Adha on the Sunni calendar. Eid al-Adha is a feast that commemorates Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his illegitimate son Ishmael, an attempt thwarted by divine intervention so states the Koran. Actually the ancient record of Moses recorded that the son in question was not Ishmael but Isaac. But Muhammad, the author of the Koran, rarely bothered himself with such trivial historical accuracies. It appears Saddam Hussein was not favored by divine intervention at his moment of truth, but I digress.

Was it wise to sully a "holy day" with an execution? It is not necessarily a problem. Mr. Hussein, as the NY Times often referred to him, died on the day before Eid al-Adha according to the Shi'ite calendar though all Sunnis know Shi'ite calendars are not worth the paper they're printed on. Thus while many Sunnis were busy concluding their pre-feast pilgrimage by casting seven stones at Satan, the Shi'ites were free to turn their attentions elsewhere, namely to the very non-symbolic hanging of Saddam, a real live devil, if there ever was one. By the way, it is not that Muslims really stone Satan, Islamic apologists are quick to explain, it is more a symbolic renunciation of the devil. One is mindful of the touching act of faith performed by Michael Corleone who renounced the works of the devil at his godson's baptism. Much like the Godfather, many Muslims celebrated their holy day plotting the slow and painful deaths of their enemies, particularly Jews, while ceremonially rejecting the works of Satan. Renouncing Satan while embracing the wholesale slaughter of infidels, particularly Jews, is quite harmonious with the religion of The Prophet.

It seems fitting to me for Shiites to get the privilege of supervising the execution of Saddam since the only charge the Iraqis could make stick on the old tyrant was the murder of a relatively few number of Shi'ites, 148 to be exact. (A mere drop in the Iraqi bucket!) Those unfortunate Shi'ites, all 148 of them, were few in comparison to the millions of Kurds Saddam poisoned, bombed, starved and/or shot. The capital charge also seemed light compared to the violence inflicted upon those Mr. Hussein strangled with his bare hands for exercise and the others tortured to death by his sons for his and their mutual entertainment.

Amid the necrotic predilections of Iraqi politics and religion stands Moqtada Al Sadr, whose name was heard repeatedly shouted by Saddam's executioners over the infamous cell phone recording of the event. Sadr appears to be the Shi'ite of choice in Iraq these days. He would undoubtedly be seen in vodka ads on the pages of the Iraqi equivalents to Time Magazine and G.Q. were he only to allow himself an indulgence in the finer spirits. But no, Sadr prefers Jihad, the death of all Jews, and the occasional militia kidnapping and beheading to the ingestion of liquid intoxicants. Such abstinence befits a young Ayatolah on the move. One lesson stands out in the dispatch of Saddam Hussein to his alloted virgins or plotted damnations, depending on your religious inclinations. The coalition government of Nouri Maliki may lack the muscle to put Saddam to death but Moqtada Al Sadr did not. But hey, we can't expect everything from the new government of Iraq, can we? I mean, they do, after all, with the encouragement of our State Department, promise in their new constitution universal health care for all Iraqis. And, if any nation ever needed such a benefit, it is that one whose citizens take life and limb in hand each time they walk down the streets of Baghdad.

And so, in the Tsunami of my thoughts, amid the flotsam and jetsam swirling about me, such conundrums rise up briefly then plunge mercifully downward seeking solace, it seems, in my subconscious mind. The insanity of the Islamic world meets the insipidity of the liberal Western world! The Times, the BBC, The French and all other champions of the dying West lament the barbarity of capital punishment even the well deserved hanging of Saddam. (They never miss a trick do they?) It’s hard to keep your head above water when those about you bewail the death of an evil tyrant as the obscenity of choice for the day. Even Charles Krauthammer was ringing his hands. Frankly, Charles, I'm just glad he's dead! Hang how uncivilized the ceremony was! No pun intended. I was ready to cheer lustily when Saddam finally sank from sight beneath the trap door but then CNN, NBC, et. al. began making waves over the "tragedy" of Saddam's execution. Why, Katie Couric was near to tears! I almost choked. The moaning over Saddam's execution, like the crocodile tears shed for the abused terrorists in Guantanamo, like the moral indignation for the 3,000 young heroes who have fallen in battle for their country in Iraq, has a faint odor of mendacity about it, to quote Big Daddy in Williams' "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof." That odor is starting to collectively stink to high heaven. When will enough be enough?

There was a time in our country when certain things were worth dying for. There was a time when our society used to firmly and rightly defend the Biblical judgment: "Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." But no longer, it seems, are such things politically correct. What is going to happen when a culture who delights in cruel, indiscriminate death collides with a culture who can no longer take a solemn pride in the death of its heroes and carry out a death sentence on the wicked? Before the battle of Tours in the face of an advancing Islam, men called on God for deliverance and laid down their lives for their families and country. Again, they cried to heaven and took a costly but successful stand at the gates of Vienna against the Turks. Apparently their prayers were heard and each time the Moslem invader was turned back. I fear we can expect little divine favor for our cause today now that the West has become more civilized than its God.

One Punk's Twisted Version of Christian Love

Our beloved webmastergeekdude sent me a link at cnn.com with the commentary of Jay Bakker (son of the infamous and irrepressible glam evangelists of yore, Jim and Tammy Faye) and some other guy with emo hair. Go read it: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/bakker.brown.commentary/index.html

A blessed distraction from my ever pressing spiritual duties and a little exercise in discernment for all of us.

Let's consider a few things:

1. Both these guys look like they haven't been up before noon since high school. I know, I know, God looks on the inside...but still, seriously, are those mugshots?

2. Why do these dudes have a voice on CNN? Because Jay is a cultural novelty. We must remember that Jay is a self established, self proclaimed, accountable to no one sort of pastor who has a national voice as a reality show personality (though, I hear the Sundance channel's show tracking Jay's life "One Punk Under God" is quite engrossing). I dare say we mustn't take these guys' cultural and ecclesiological analysis all that serously.

3. As my webmastergeekdude said, 'I guess yelling about sin is a greater transgession than sin.'

4. Jay and Marc close their rant by quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7, "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude..." So, is this exhortation from the Word to be applied only to the 'religious right' or is it to be applied to a couple of 'punks' who open their invective with curses as well?

5. Have they read the gospels? Their summary of the life and teachings of Jesus is facile and twisted, to say the least. Their assesment of the interpretation and content of the parables is out of line with Jesus' clear teaching on his use of parables (check it out, Matthew 13:10-17). Also, go buy a copy of John Piper's newest book, What Jesus Demands from the World.

6. Jesus, Paul, John, James, and Peter all clearly stood against immorality and murder- in our day, gay marriage and abortion are two pressing issues of legalized immorality and murder (amongst other things, but certainly the collapse of marriage and the death of 1.3 million innocents on our doorstep is a critical issue that we should, uh, yell about. Wouldn't you yell if a doctor came at your 2 year old with a scalpel and a vacuum? I would. Hell yeah I would). It is, in my estimation, biblical and apostolic to stand against these two things. And it is biblical and apostolic to stand against them with a loud voice. It is also biblical to stand against them with grace and love in our fellowships, which is what I see more than anything in evangelical Christianity. I think these guys' evaluation of the compassion of the evangelical church is unfair and unsubstantiated.

7. It is a statistical reality that for the most part conservatives and Christians give money, help the poor, and love people sacrificially far more than the left and non Christians. So, their point is...?

8. Jay and Marc said they witnessed the 'dark side of religion'. I assume, at least for Jay, this is a reference to the wickedness of his parents and their awful tele-evangelist-empire. What does this have to do with abortion and gay marriage? The dark side of religion they saw was not Christians standing for truth and righteousness, but a couple of freaks bilking old ladies out of their social security checks. Let's get our 'dark sides' straight. The Christian community should have stood firmly against the Bakker's then and held them accountable, and Christians today should stand firmly against this new, revised, and punkified Bakker today and hold him accountable.

9. And what, exactly, is the point of the article? Are Christians really not to speak to moral issues in a free republic? Are pastors not to call their people to be engaged civically? Or, are we for speaking truth and love and grace when it comes to the poor, or the environment, but not when it comes to killing babies? How so? What is the logic there?

Ok, ok. I told you in the beginning not to take these guys seriously, and here I am with 9 points. Alright here's #10 to make it even:

10. I'll directly quote Jay and Marc here, "...look at what Jesus and his followers stood for in his time and what Christianity stands for today. Then come to your own conclusion." Don't take those punk's word for it, or this punk's word for it. Just go to the Word.

Back to Psalm 134 for me.