I was listening to NPR Friday morning when they interviewed Illinois senator Barak Obama. I had just pulled into the gas station and I ended up sitting in my car to listen to the interview. The topic was a recent speech given by Obama in which he admitted that the Democtratic Party has done a poor job in reaching out to “people of faith,” particularly evangelical Christians.

Obama’s speech was to Call to Renewal, “a group of churches and faith-based organizations working to end poverty.” In that speech, Obama said: “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives, in the lives of the American people. I think it’s time that we joined a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern pluralistic society.” Obama responds to the question “Why have you chosen this moment to weigh in to this issue:”

“I think there’s an interesting opportunity right now. Partly because you’re starting to see changes in leadership within the evangelical community. The traditional ‘fire and brimstone leaders,’ the Jerry Fallwel’s and the Pat Robertson’s are starting to give way to leaders like Rick Warren or T.D. Jakes who still have conservative views when it comes to certain social issues but are also opening up to issues like environmentalism or Darfur, the AIDS crisis in Africa and part of what I have wanted to make sure of is that those of us who consider ourselves ‘progressive,’ that we are not somehow abandoning the opportunity to work with people of all faiths to bring about American renewal.”

Obama remarks that he wants to “figure out how we can stop using religion as a divisive force in the body politic.” In other words, he wants the evangelical Christian vote. Countering this idea that his words are simply calculated, Obama argues that:

“One of the wonderful things about coming to Washington is realizing that everything you do is perceived as calculation. So I can’t really spend a lot of time worrying about how my words are interpreted, all I can do is make those words as true as possible.”

Cutting to the core of his argument, Obama argues that, regarding issues of faith,

“Democrats need to show up. I think it’s important that we don’t just abandon the field. If we are present in those forums and we’re engaged in a debate about our commitments when it comes to the poor, or our belief that we’re all sinners and we might want to look at the speck in our own eye before before we look at the speck in someone else’s eye, look at the log in our own. Then, potentially at least, people start broadening their conceptions of faith.”

I’ll be honest here, and I’m sure for regular readers this will come as no surprise, Obama’s interview greatly troubles me for several reasons. As the interview goes on, if there were any doubts, it becomes apparent that Obama is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual union and that his views on these issues will not change. The fact that he doesn’t understand that those issues alone ought to prevent evangelical Christians from voting for him is a rebuke to us that we have not been able to clearly communicate.

Notice something else. Obama never mentions or articulates any position of personal faith. the closest he comes is to say that he must make his “words as true as possible.” What does this mean? Where is the admonition that his words (faith) are lived out and consistent? Obama doesn’t understand the “evangelical” position and he doesn’t want to, but more deeply, the fact that he is able to communicate the idea that simply using a few words and “reaching out” is enough demonstrates how poorly Christians in America actually live out our faith.

In a statement that I’m sure would make Rod Dreher bristle, Obama hints that issues like “environmentalism or Darfur, the AIDS crisis in Africa” are somehow liberal issues. Again, this is a rebuke to American Christians. Obama doesn’t understand the holistic nature of faith in Christ because most professing American Christians don’t understand it. In a nation in which 83% claim to be Christian, churches must take the blame for not calling people to live their faith out, for giving false assurance to non-Christians, for watering down our message, and to put it bluntly, for living like the world.

Obama makes it clear that he doesn’t understand the way someone’s faith in Christ should affect their every decision, driving them to help the poor, to protect the environment, to protect the unborn and preserve marriage. But Obama’s lack of understanding is not entirely his fault. What other conclusions could someone come to when observing the way most professing Christians in America live out their lives, as though their faith is an accessory item they bring out on the weekends and when it’s fashionable, but don’t expect me to wear it all the time, it’s just an accessory.

I can’t blame Obama for wanting votes. I can’t blame Obama for not understanding the radical nature of Christian salvation. But I can thank him for unintentionally rebuking many professing Christians by openly saying that he feels that if he just reaches out he can get their vote. What worries me is that he might just be right.

• Listen to NPR’s interview with Barak Obama.

Don’t get me wrong, I love this country. But I hate the fact that I have to assert that before I say anything else, especially as a Christian. We seem to have developed this idea that if you are an American Christian, then you are sworn to vote Republican and wear the “God Bless America” bumber sticker.

While I have trouble with much of Derek Webb’s newest album “Mockingbird,” I have been meditating on the chorus of his song “A King and a Kingdom” in light of recent speeches at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention. Webb sings:

my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it’s to a king & a kingdom

Why have I been meditating on these lines in light of the Southern Baptist Convention (the gathering of the denomination) you ask? Because the key speaker at this year’s event was Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. A Baptist Press piece covering Rice’s speech begins: “Without America’s moral leadership, the world could easily descend into chaos and despotism.” Rice continues:

“if we imagine a world without American leadership we are led inescapably to this solemn conclusion: If America does not serve great purposes, if we do not rally other nations to fight intolerance and support peace and defend freedom, and to help give all hope who suffer oppression, then our world will drift toward tragedy.”

Talk about a continued belief “manifest destiny.” Clear in Rice’s remarks is the conviction that it is up to America to solve the world’s problems. What’s more troubling is the way these beliefs are often attached to Christianity, with the Republican government as our battling-ram, we will secure freedom and democracy for the world, because that’s what’s right! I’m not so sure it is.

Several issues arise here. One is the belief that democracy is the only acceptable form of government and that it must be imposed on unsuspecting nations because we know what’s best for them. This is troubling to say the least because it is the famous “from is to ought” on a global scale. Because democracy is working here (which is in and of itself questionable), it ought to be applied everywhere. Democracy is not the only solution and we are simply arrogant when we impose it on other countries who may not be ready for it or simply may not want it.

This unshakable belief in democracy is also intimately tied to the second problem: America’s moral and social decline. Democracy will always ultimately appeal to the lowest common denominator in every sphere, including morality. We see this in the legalization of abortion, the move towards homosexual unions (they are not marriages) and the like. What’s interesting here is that if you travel abroad and talk to foreign people about America’s influence, one of the first things you will always here is the devaluing of tradition and family. Friends, that is our international legacy, importing commercialism and greed, undermining families and ignoring tradition. This is truly what we are exporting around the world.

As Christians we must learn to think biblically above all else. When the Republican party exalts greed, we must call them on it. When the Democrats exalt lust and devalue religion we must call them on it. When the Libertarians exalt personal choice, we must call them on it. We are truly outside of the political realm and we must learn to exert ourselves as Christians first and as Americans only when that is in line with Scripture.

I am tremendously troubled by Rice’s presence at America’s largest Protestant denomination’s annual gathering. The last thing we need is continued blurring of the lines between Christianity and Patriotism and a pat on the back for political morality jargon. We need to be jarred back into becoming and making disciples. Not until America’s Christians truly understand and live this will we be the “force for good” that America could be.

• Read the Baptist Press piece

Every once in a while I read a tremendously thought-provoking book. I find myself stopping every few pages, or even every few paragraphs to digest and process. Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth was one of those books and it looks as though Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Cons is shaping up to be one as well. All of that to say, expect quite a few posts in the coming weeks dealing with ideas presented in Dreher’s book, beginning today!

Let me preface just by giving a very broad overview of Dreher’s book. He argues that there is a large group of social, economic and political conservatives who simply don’t fit well within the Republican Party. He calls these people “Crunchy Cons,” drawing from the label of many earth/family/agriculture conscious people as “crunchy” and he notes that as soon as many say they are concerned with organic foods, free-range poultry and the like, many simply label them as liberal. Deeper still, Dreher is arguing that the shell the modern Republican Party wears is actually far removed from true conservative thouht, but more on that later.

At one point, Dreher remarks that “This should be a moment of triumph for organized conservatism in America. we have a Republican in the White House, Republicans are in control of both houses of Congress, and the forces of political liberalism are in disarray.” Yet, as Dreher concludes, “It’s a good time to be a Republican, all right . . . so why do I feel so lousy as a conservative, so uneasy about America’s future?”

Dreher follows with an interesting analogy, first noting, “For all our successes at the ballot box, the trajectory the country is on does not inspire confidence”:

“A few years ago, livestock scientist Temple Grandin discovered that many cattle being led to slaughter in a conventional straight-line chute would act up on their way to their demise, but if you presented them with a bovine via dolorosa in the form of a long, gentle curve, they’d move along without protest. The idea is that they couldn’t see far in front of them, and thought they were progressing safely.”

Following on this analogy, Dreher lists several areas of concern. For all the critique of John Kerry as a “flip flopper,” there is an amazing discongruity between what many political conservatives profess and what they live. For example, as Dreher notes, “We conservatives say we value the traditional family, but we don’t act like it. Both parents work in many families, leaving our kids to be raised by day care and the culture.” Or, looking at the broader cultural spectrum, he laments that “We complain that the entertainment media are coarsening our children, but we let them devour television, pop music, video games and other junk culture as if resistance were futile.” Dreher also complains that “We right-wingers grimace at the lust celebrated by mainstream culture, but we rarely stop to think that greed is no less deadly a sin.”

In other words, though “conservatism” has had many recent political successes, the fact that it is based on a shallow foundation ultimately means that the state of the country is no better. Truth be told, it doesn’t matter which party is in control because the “mainstream” is equally corrupt on both sides, simply erring on differing sides of the scale, but that is another discussion altogether.

Dreher’s fundamental argument is that true conservatism resembles very little of what the mainstream Republican Party has come to represent and that is why the country is no better off under Republican control, in fact we find soaring deficits and plummeting approval rates; indeed, something’s rotten in Denmark (or at least D.C.). Ultimately, the problem is that the (almost) purely economic approach to mainstream conservatism not only solves nothing, it creates problems, giving license to big business, alienating the poor.

Much of the problem stems from the fact that many look to conservatism to change people’s lives. Rather, true conservatism flows from a person’s life. Yet many have a legalistic approach to politics, arguing that if we can simply follow certain guidelines then everything will be alright. In the meantime, we sanction the neglect of the family, foster greed and destroy the environment. I’m not so sure it is a good time to be a Republican and we see the nation’s dissatisfaction apparently concurs.

While I won’t argue that everyone should adopt the moniker “Crunchy Con,” wear Birkenstocks (though I do) and homeschool (though we do), we must understand the disconnect between what true conservatism preaches and what mainstream conservatism lives.

• Read Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher
• Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey

Please pray for Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Governor Rounds has very publicly and very deliberately taken a stand against the court-imposed practice of abortion in America. Yahoo News reports that “The Republican governor of South Dakota on Monday signed a law banning nearly all abortions in the state, directly challenging the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of the practice 33 years ago.”

The Governor’s action cleared the way for continued legal battle, potentially headed for a newly configured Supreme Court. Yahoo says: “The measure, passed by the state legislature on February 24, would “eliminate most abortions in South Dakota,” Rounds said in approving the law.” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said “This law is a monumental setback for women in South Dakota and across the country.” Keenan also bemoans that “Anti-choice politicians in 11 other states are pushing similar bans.”

Now is the time for us to support those politicians willing to take stands for what is right. Far from being a “right” for women, abortion is murder. It was imposed on our country rather than asked for; it has never been nor will it ever be upheld by a consititutional vote (see my post here regarding the hypocricy of pro abortion supporters on this issue). We must show our support, raise up our prayers and extend our hands to protect the lives that cannot protect themselves.

Thank you, Governor Rounds. Send your own note of support to Governor Rounds.

• Read LaShawn Barbers post “Child Killing Law Challenged in South Dakota.”
• Read the Yahoo News coverage.
• Tell Governor Rounds that you’re praying for him.

Solidifying his position as one of the most influential professing Christians on the planet, Bono recently spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. Guests included the President and First Lady, King Abdullah and Ike and Trisha Thomas of Granbury, TX (I have to name-drop my church members because I certainly wasn’t there!).

Bono referenced the “Year of Jubilee” in his continued call to end poverty while quoting Leviticus 25:35, which reads: “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.”

Bono also quoted Luke 4:18: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” Bono had already directly alluded to or directly quoted more Scripture than many entire sermons.

While its easy to dismiss Bono’s continued grandstanding and publicity moves, it’s much more difficult to ignore his message, as much as we’d like to. It’s difficult to hear because, on many accounts, he’s right. When he says that “The church was slow” responding to AIDS, it’s hard to argue. While we must be wary of the message’s tendency towards religious pluralism (as Denny Burk rightly points out here), we must also remember that much of what he said truly needs to be heard.
It’s hard to take criticism from a rock star, but when the criticism is right, it matters not the source. For the most part, the modern church has not only been slow to respond to AIDS, but to many social plights. We have lost sight of the fact that the Gospel is for the whole person, the announcement of the reversal of the Fall to a hurting people.

Barring the exception of the “social gospel” movement, the evangelical church has largely failed in its outreach opportunities, whether the poor or the sick, or both. The result has largely been that these “ministries” have been taken over by the government, and the church has made little attempt to get them back where they belong.

If the Gospel is truly as big as Scripture claims, then why do we live it out so small? Christ’s love indwelling us ought to move us to love because God first loved us (1 John 4:19), to truly be His body, reaching out to those in need, if for no other reason, as Bono reminds, “History, like God, is watching what we do.”

• Read the President’s remarks at the recent National Prayer Breakfast.
• Read Bono’s remarks at the recent National Prayer Breakfast.
• Read The Maze of Bonoland by me.
• Read Overflow of the Heart? by me.

Yes, I’m still reading Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. No, I’m not an incredibly slow reader. I haven’t had much time to read consistently, and it’s an incredibly rich book with much to stop and consider. One such section has been chapter 10, entitled When America Met Christianity, Guess Who Won?

Many of the thoughts Pearcey examines dovetail amazingly well with a book that I read some time ago and have pulled out again to think on. That book, The Transformation of American Religion by Alan Wolfe actually fleshes out some of the points Pearcey introduces, even though Wolfe’s book was written a full year prior.

Wolfe, sounding some of the same themes as Pearcey, makes the assertion that (a quote I’ve used in several sermons): in every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture - and American culture has triumphed. Though we will look at Wolfe’s claims a bit more another day, we cannot escape the fact that at least two prominent writers (Pearcey a believer, Wolfe is not) have come to the same conclusion: American culture has tended to wreak havoc with the Christian faith.

Yet, what is particularly interesting in Pearcey’s chapter is a conclusion that she seems to imply without explicitly stating. Pearcey does an excellent job tracing the relationship between evangelicalism and the budding political philosophy of early America. From an early point, America has been infused with a radical individualism. The very idea of the autonomous and self-made nation would still be fresh in post-Revolutionary America. The very nation in which these believers found themselves came with a philosophy of autonomy and “breaking free.”

Though I am not here setting out to defend it, I openly profess the theological system that many refer to as Reformed Theology, to Doctrines of Grace to some, Calvinism to others. Whatever you choose to call it, I have become more and more convinced that, though not perfect, it is the system which most adequately deals with Scripture and puts forth the most comprehensive view of God, man, salvation and God’s purposes. It is a significant part of my spiritual life, and as such, I have often wondered why it is that this theological system seems to be the minority where it was once considered the norm.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, most historians agree that Reformed Doctrine was the norm, if not the majority. Yet, the tides have turned to say the least. What happened? Can the shift in thought be connected to the political and social thought that provided the very impetus for us to live in a “free” country?

Pearcey reminds us that we often filter thought through our personal experience. Though not the final arbitrator, experience plays an important role in our acceptance or rejection of thought patterns. Understanding this, Pearcey notes that it is the Arminian message that would have resonated with early Americans. The idea that “their salvation hung upon their own decision,” would have (and continues to) fit well with the everyday experience of a country increasingly encouraging its citizens to shape their own destinies.

On the other hand, the Calvinist minister would have preached to the congregation that they were morally corrupt and that their “free will” was bound within the constraints of their sin, preventing them from wanting to choose salvation for themselves. This would not have fit well with the congregation’s actual experience. They were no longer born into a static society, but rather, many of them were facing the opportunity of social advancement for the first time in their lives. It seemed that new possibilities were simply theirs for the taking; all that lacked was the exercise of their wills.

Everywhere we turn, it seems that, as Americans, we are faced with the notion that we are able to choose our own destinies. We celebrate the ’self-made’ man who has pulled himself up by the bootstraps against the odds. Isn’t the very notion behind the “American Dream” that anyone at anytime is able to fight the odds and gain the life they’ve always wanted? It seems that such ideas really began to flourish in post-Revolutionary America.

In the end, is it possible that we find ourselves in a religious climate that leans to Arminianism more for social and political concerns than theological ones? We would do well to at least consider that this is a possible and thus, examine what influences in our own lives affect our interpretations of Scripture.

Read 1776 by David McCullough.
Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
Read The Transformation of American Religion by Alan Wolfe.
Read The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner.
Read Debating Calvinism by James White and Dave Hunt.

I’m sure you’ve noticed, Nancy Pearcey and some of her thoughts have been making regular appearances here of late. Her book Total Truth is in my current reading rotation and many of her ideas are in my thought pattern.

While challenging Christians to first understand the need for and second formulate a complete Christian worldview, she touches on many apparent side-issues that could stand further exploration on their own. One of those side-issues is raised in the introduction to the book in a section entitled Politics is Not Enough.

Pearcey states that “in recent decades many Christians have responded to the moral and social decline in American society by embracing political activisim.” She points out that though “this heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, the impact remains far less than most had hoped.” The obvious question is why? Why has Christian political involvement not had the cultural impact we hoped it might. Because, Pearcey argues, we have failed to realize that “politics tends to reflect culture, not the other way around.”

This is an interesting perspective, and one that demands further thought. I (and I don’t think I’m alone) vote my conscience and I often vote based on issues; specific issues that I’ve already come to a conclusion on. I view politics as a tool to be used; a bludgeon to be swung on behalf of some other interest. In this scenario, Pearcey is exactly right: my activity in politics will directly reflect my (already determined) view of culture. Though I’m sure there are some, I doubt that most of us look to politics to formulate our positions; rather, we come to politics hoping to shape it in the image of our own pet causes.

If this is true (and I’m beginning to think it might be), then Christians must ask at least two initial questions: 1) how do we influence our culture if not through politics? and 2) should we withdraw from politics if it is not the force for positive change we have made it out to be?

1) Pearcey at least, argues that the first step to influencing the culture is to understand the scope of redemption. Using a Creation/Fall/Redemption grid, (customary to most Reformational world views), Pearcey argues that we must do away with the sacred/secular divide we have come to accept. If you are a believer, everything you do is to be understood through the filter of the Gospel. Does that mean I am to be a “Christian” car mechanic? What about a “Christian” plumber? Yes. All of life is to viewed through the lens of the Gospel.

We must strive to bring every thought captive to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5), understanding that in Him we are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17) and we must take seriously Paul’s admonition to do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Believers are now ambassadors of Christ, actively working to undo the effects of the Fall wherever possible. When we are truly being clothed in Christ’s image and striving to live that out in every aspect of life, we will have an impact. When we love because we were first loved (1 John 4:19), when we serve as Christ served (John 13:1-20), when we practice love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) we will be so different from our surroundings that people will notice.

The first step to influencing culture is to realize the full implications of salvation. Until American Christians come to a point where we actively seek to live out the Gospel at every level, we are robbing the very message we proclaim. We cannot claim to be new creatures and continue to live the way we always have. Until salvation is understood and lived, politics is simply a band-aid on an open wound. We may make small gains but we’re climbing up a landslide. Only the power of the Gospel unleashed in lives can have the impact we want.

2) Should Christians then withdraw from political involvement? I don’t think so. We need to understand that politics is not the savior, but that it can be used in His name. Consider the last election. The mainstream media absolutely did not know what to make about people voting “moral concerns” at the polls. The concept was simply foreign to them. When used wisely, politics may be an effective way of proclaiming the Christian moral vision for the world. This is not the same thing as theonomy.

Politics is a tool. It reinforces (or should) the God-given conscience in us all, enforcing right and wrong and it must be guided (as much as possible) by Scriptural principles. God has placed every government in its place (Romans 13) and we must be subject to them as long as they are inside Scriptural bounds. Our authorities help to keep us from hurting one another, from stealing and the like; all of which is certainly a God-given mandate. When viewed as a tool rather than as a solution, it is good that more Christians are pursuing this avenue. Reigns may be placed on the moral decline of society and people may be protected in the name of The Protector. Politics is a tool, but it’s just that; one tool among many.

Pearcey concludes that “the most effective work is done by ordinary Christians fulfilling God’s calling to reform culture within their local spheres of influence - their families, churches, schools, neighborhoods, work-laces, professional organizations, and civic institutions.” Affecting culture begins with you, not the voting booth.

Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
Read A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer.
Read what John Piper said in D.C. regarding politics.
Read Guidelines for Proper Political Involvement by Michael Horton.