Looking For The Jesus Connection: How did Jesus Fight the “Culture War?”
April 25th, 2005 by iMonk
Information about Justice Sunday at Highview Baptist Chruch can be found at the Lexington Herald Leader. Baptist Press is covering the same story, with a Q&A as well. And for irony’s sake, this story is on the same page. More recent coverage is here. :-/
I’m pretty good at seeing connections. I took the Graduate Record Examination twice, and I remember questions like this:
“Dog is to peanut butter, as cat is to _______________.”
a. Apple butter b. Martha Stewart c. The International Space Station.
I won’t tell you what the answer is, but I got it right.
So when confronted with what Jesus has to do with a Democratic filibuster of Republican judicial nominees, you may struggle with the connection. But the Internet Monk is here to help you. It goes something like this:
Jesus is Lord. He teaches us to live by Biblical values. Christians, i.e. “people of faith,” want to apply those Biblical values to public life, especially here in America where we have the right to do so. Judges affect our public lives by their many rulings on important issues, especially issues related to life and marriage. Republicans have nominated judges that are people of faith, and their rulings won’t go against what people of faith know is right and good. But the Democrats are against people of faith, and are using filibusters and other tactics to stop those Republican nominated judges from being approved. They are not just stalling the process; they are actively disqualifying these judges over issues of religious faith, and that’s wrong. Therefore, Jesus is for Republican judges being approved, and Jesus is against the Democratic filibuster against people of faith.
Not only can I see these connections, I want to go a step further. I have no problem at all with American Christians who line up their own political involvments this way. Faith has real world implications, and America is a country that allows participation in the political process in many different ways. I think an honest reading of the New Testament would move anyone with an appreciation for the sovereignty of God in history to vote and be politically aware. Christians have supported many just and right causes in American political life as an expression of their faith, from abolition to abortion to civil rights. People who are offended that Christians apply Christian values to public life are historically and culturally naive. The contribution of people of faith- of all kinds, but especially Christians- is immense.
Further, even with all its problems, I am still a believer in the two-party system. I’m not offended by talk of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, or the United States of Canada and JesusLand. It’s not that the two-party system works so well. Uh…no. It’s simply that I am convinced a multi-party system, or any other system, would fare much worse, especially in their long term effects on important freedoms. I am willing to live with the comedy, tragedy, corruption, abuse and stupidity of the two party system rather than the shorter routes to tyranny that would replace it.
So I am not surprised at, nor particularly opposed to, a political system that tends towards two poles as opposed to one or fifteen. Yes, it can get ugly, and it frequently cruises on “stupid.” I resist, in print and in life, being pushed into all that any one “team” stands for. Still, I’m not fundamentally opposed to James Dobson whipping up his troops against the Democrats, talking politics, participating in the political debate or playing to win. None of this really has my attention today.
I’m writing because of those connections we started with, especially the connection to Jesus. You have to be careful with those connections to Jesus. It’s like this dog I see all the time.
On my way in to town from where I live, there is a store, Sharp’s grocery. Nice little store run by good people. A few weeks ago, I was driving past Sharp’s and this dog came running after my car as hard as he could chase it. In the days to come, I noticed the dog crouching behind cars parked at the store, and waiting for the next car to drive by so he could give chase. The dog is obsessed with chasing cars, and stalks cars like he’s going to catch one and drag it back to the store’s porch for a a meal.
What is the connection between the dog and the store? Just driving by, I could easily draw several conclusions. Maybe the dog has nothing to do with the store at all. Or perhaps the owner of the store bought the dog and trained him to chase cars. Maybe the dog is oblivious to all the owner’s attempts to stop his car chasing behavior, but the owner is too fond of the dog to get rid of him. To get the whole story, I would have to stop and talk to the owner of the store, and find out the truth.
I’d love to talk with Jesus about what he thought about what was going on at the Highview Baptist Church Justice Sunday Rally. I’d like to know what is his connection. Just driving by, it looks like he’s in favor of all of it. But so far, all I can do is listen to scripture, and the connections are muddled.
Is the James Dobson version of the “Judeo-Christian” worldview the worldview of Jesus?
If Jesus were in Louisville, would he be at the Justice Sunday rally, urging the church to work against the Democrats?
What would Jesus have said about the Republican delays of Clinton judicial nominees? Would he have supported those delays because those judges were friendlier to issues of life and marriage, and the issue wasn’t “people of faith?”
What would Jesus have said about putting the entire rally in the context of his church? Would he want to be identified with the victory of one party and the defeat of another? Would he have sent his disciples- his pastors and ministers- to do this work, and to urge his church to be the backbone of the battle?
What would Jesus think about the “Culture War” Christian who has now come to the forefront of conservative evangelicalism? What would Jesus say about the culture war spirituality that is shaping more and more evangelical life and thought? (We are saved by faith in Jesus, and being Republicans against abortion and gay marriage.) How would Jesus see our use of the “Biblical Worldview” to make a Jesus connection with the overtly politicized agendas of both parties? Is the spirituality and behavior of the “Culture War Christian” a reflection of Jesus himself? Or is it something else? What is the connection between the Gospel and “Victory in the Culture War?”
Does Jesus want Christians to see Democrats- even pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage Democrats- as the “enemies of people of faith?”
I’m doing a sermon series on “Lessons From The Ministry of Jesus.” This Lord’s Day I asked if Jesus knew anything about a culture war? Of course, he did. Israel was losing the culture war to paganism. The Greco-Roman culture of the first century was ascending, and Israel was oppressed and in chaos. All around Jesus were voices saying “Here’s how to fight and win the culture war, so that Israel - not Rome, not the pagans- will be the winners.”
The Pharisees had a program. Jesus rejected it. The Zealots had a program. Jesus rejected it as well. The Essenes had a program. Jesus rejected that. The Sadducees had a program, and Jesus rejected that. There were cynics who did nothing. Jesus didn’t join them. What did he do? Read the Gospels, especially the early chapters, and take notes. Here’s how Jesus fought the culture war of his time:
He established a Counter Culture: God’s Kingdom available now, directly, in and through Jesus, lived out through discipleship and the church.
He proclaimed the Kingdom of God, now, present in power. The Kingdom was centered around Jesus, himself; not around a political program. He proclaimed and enacted that Kingdom in his ministry, never making any compromises on which was the Kingdom that demanded the most loyalty. While others had Kingdom schemes and Kingdom politics, Jesus said the Kingdom had arrived in himself. When they tried to make him King by force, he hid. When they greeted him as King at the beginning of Passover week, he completely overturned their expectations.
He called disciples. Men loyal to himself who believed Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting for. Men willing to stake all their future and fortunes on Jesus as the answer to their questions of security, power and hope. Their certainty about Jesus opened the door to a whole new understanding of what God was like, and how God’s Kingdom would come into the world. He called men and women to a kind of community where loyalty to Jesus and love for one another took priority over every other kind of community, cause or family. He remade Israel, the people of God, in the image of his own community of disciples. He created a church that was a counter culture community; a sign of the Kingdom’s presence in the midst of history, even when it was two or three in a village.
He taught a way of life that radically redefined the boundaries of theTorah. Love for enemies. Prayer for persecutors. Nonviolence. Justice. Compassion. Sacrificial action. All these things were in the law, but they were now clearly seen in a “living word,” Jesus himself.
He erased boundaries and redefined human beings in relationship to himself and his Father. Gentiles were included. Those formerly viewed as unclean were included. Women were included. Enemies were reconciled. Jesus didn’t just teach about Prodigals, he enacted the story over and over. He called tax collectors as disciples, made immoral women the subjects of particular forgiveness and blessed children. He proclaimed an Israel where the exile was over in personal terms, and sinners were invited to enjoy the forgiveness of sins that came from a God no longer separating himself, but drawing near.
Jesus saw this as a compelling vision of a culture within a world of cultures. The church was God’s project, his field, his temple, his body. He saw the Kingdom of God in gatherings of two and three, not in marching armies. His attention to the last, least, lost, little and even the dead showed that the power of God’s Kingdom was present in surprising new ways. His Kingdom was not of this world, yet it was in the world it was not of. It was not a Kingdom with worldly objectives or methods, but it was a Kingdom with wisdom even the wisest of the age couldn’t understand. The greatest of Israel’s teachers couldn’t see it without being born again.
If you keep reading in the Gospels, you know that Jesus took his culture war all the way to a final confrontation, and asked his disciples to be willing to do the same- all on the premise that God’s victory would arise beyond the death of Jesus and everyone who was loyal to him and his Kingdom. The ultimate Kingdom power move was raising Jesus from death and defeat, and trusting God to finally bring the Kingdom through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was part of a culture war, and he “fought” that culture war purposefully for God’s way to prevail. This is undeniable. But what is the connection between Jesus and the “Culture War Christianity” on display in Louisville?
Scholars like Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright have made it clear that the distinction between “politics” and “religion” really vanishes in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus IS doing Kingdom politics. He IS challenging the status quo. He IS exerting power that affects culture and the state. But Jesus is not simply playing with labels. He is establishing a counter culture where Jesus is Lord of every realm: personal, private, religious and political.
For example, Jesus knew a bit about an unfair and hostile judiciary. Bad judges were common in Palestine. Jesus spoke of judges in many of his parables. Of course, Jesus was put on trial during his passion. Would Jesus have promoted the ideas that such judges were “the enemies” of God’s people?
It is hard to imagine that Jesus would have protested evil judges or evil rulers, not because their evil didn’t matter, but because Jesus accepted the evils of the age, but responded to that evil as he proclaimed the Kingdom as God’s way to put all things right in the coming Messianic age. What about here and now? Would Jesus counsel passive acceptance of suffering at the hands of unjust rulers? What do we see Jesus doing in the face of the evils of Pilate, Herod, Antipas and Tiberias? Not political action, but Kingdom action. Kingdom proclamation. Kingdom compassion. Kingdom sacrifice.
Everything Jesus did was proclaiming a counter Kingdom and showing what that Kingdom was like now. I believe Jesus would be profoundly disturbed if the church became a constituent group operating in the interests of a political agenda. Events like “Justice Sunday” don’t need to be held in church facilities, under church sponsorship, and they do not need to play into the fears of Christians that secularists are trying to persecute them or deny them a place at the table of cultural influence. Pastors do not need to take their role as shepherds of the flock and parlay it into political influence with the power brokers of political ambition. Individual parachurch leaders like James Dobson may be well motivated, but when they use their media power to shape what goes on within a church, something is wrong.
The church is to be UNIQUELY identified with Jesus, his Gospel and his Kingdom. The church’s concerns are the concerns Jesus demonstrated during his ministry, not the concerns that can be connected by the “dots” of various political, social and cultural agendas. The danger the church faces today is in becoming a niche market, a focus group, a voting block or a special interest group. If the church cannot trust her shepherds to avoid this mistake, then it is not well served by its pastors. I am afraid that “Justice Sunday” was a profound confusion of the place and purpose of the church. The cause may be right and the crisis real, but the church that Jesus created is not available for rental for politcal agendas.
I do not, however, believe there is anything counter to the Kingdom agenda of Jesus for individuals to participate in doing good to the “city” or culture where they find themselves. This includes serving as a public official, and of course, participating in political life. As long as political life is directed by the Lordship of Jesus Christ andthe priority of the Kingdom of God, such involvement is surely an avenue of good works that are acceptable to God. In America, however, it means that a Christian political servant is not identified with a partisan loyalty more than he or she is identified with Jesus. A Christian can serve, vote, campaign, blog or lobby….but there are limits to what a Kingdom servant can and will do in any temporal cause. There are profound differences in the methods and messages of the Kingdom of Jesus and any temporal political cause. These realities seem far from the minds and plans of those behind “Justice Sunday.”
For those looking on in Louisville and around America, Jesus was identified with a variety of politcal causes. Jesus, and his Kingdom, were overwhelmed with the partisan, judicial, culture war concerns of those sponsoring the rally. The persecution of Christians and the defeat of political “enemies” are the priorities. Are these the priorities of Jesus?
I can’t make the connection between the ministry of Jesus and the political methods and agendas of partisan conservatives. Maybe because the connection isn’t there.
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.
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.
Nicely said.
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.
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.
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”…
Michael,
You might be interested in this post from Ekklesia (an anabaptist-ish political think-tank in the UK):
Subverting the manifestos
Sorry, link didn’t work!
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/article_agendaforchange.shtml
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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?
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.
[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 didnt compromise and we shouldnt 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. Lets be honest, that isnt 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
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?
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.
iMonk, very helpful. I’m going to link to this. Thanks for a thoughtful essay.
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.
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.
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.
Theopolitics Rears It’s Ugly Head Again
Michael Spencer over at Internet Monk writes an excellent article well worth your read concerning thoughts about “Justice Sunday” that took place in Kentucky last Sunday….
Totem to Temple:
For “religious right” in your first paragraph, try substituting “William Wilberforce” or “Martin Luther King.” Still make sense to you?
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
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!
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.
Dan - you probably should tell your buddy it’s wrong because, well, it is.
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.
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
The post at 9:11 pm attributed to Matt was from me. My bad.
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.
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!
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.
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”.
>This is where Christians could really help America - by trying to change the political system.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
OSO….
How do you get from the ministry of Jesus to the statement….”Christians need to change the political system?”
Tremendous column Chet. Thanks.
justice sunday
In the U.S.:LOUISVILLE - Hoping to advance their cause in the secular fight over judicial nominations, high-profile conservative Christians took the stage last night at a mega-church to denounce Senate Democrats who have held up some of President Bush’…
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sorry, my response was directed to Dan, not Doug…too many ‘D’ names out there
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
Catez….didn’t mean to offend. My apologies.
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.
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.)
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.
I’ll say it again Dan: I asked you not to make it personal, and you continue ignoring me.
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.
“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.
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)
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.)
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.
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.
Hopefully, your insurance will cover his services.
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.
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.
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.
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 dont want to face is that its OK to be Catholic in todays public square as long as we dont try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as were 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. Its 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 Churchs 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 tha