Political Temptation Re-visited

Re: my earlier post on political temptation and the role of faith in the political sphere, it turns out Donald Miller was a substition. It appears Cameron Strang had the same reservations that I did.

Assembly Line Family (Values?)

Time has reviewed a book called, The 3 Big Questions For a Frantic Family: A Leadership Fable (3rd book reviewed in the link).

Our culture is infatuated with the business process, and this book lends supposed helpful hints on business practices for the family. But, the books actual contents aside (since I haven't read it), I am fascinated by the role business influences all of our institutions: government, churches, and now the family. I am particularly fascinated with the perception that business practices bring to how these institutions function. For instance, we think a government is considered well-run if it follows a business model- balances budgets, doesn't waste money, and is efficient in its meetings. Churches are well-run if they are productive in all their capacities, even if they are noble ones- meeting all the sick, preparing for sermons, raising the money for the budget, raising money for missions, and having succinct and efficient worship. And now the family. A family supposedly should have goals, meetings, and demonstrate efficiency in its task (laudry, food, transporting children).

But are all these things values? Churches do not exist for profits, and neither for that matter do governments. Families especially don't exist for profits. Productivity is not an inherent value, but it often affects the way most of us view our lives. For example, I had a good day if little time was wasted, I spent time in the Bible, worked efficiently at the church, managed my relationships, and worked enough on all of my homework. I don't think that these are unreasonable goals, but they are sensitive to the culture in which I live. I wouldn't have near as much to do or worry about (of course my "worries" are small, relatively meaningless things) if I lived in a non-Western culture.

But families, in their essence, are inherently relational first. Families do not exist for goals or productivity. Families do not need to function efficiently. Families are moral entities, designed to show God's common grace in the world, and can help extend God's mission to people and the rest of creation.

I suppose the lesson is that we must always engage theological reflection on the cultural influences that insidiously invade our thinking. What is the good or the bad? What can be kept and what can be discarded? What is a matter of cultural relativity and what is a matter of moral necessity? These are crucial questions.

Political Temptation

What would I do if tempted with political power or relevance? How would I respond? Could I speak truth to power? Could I be a prophetic voice even amidst unpopularity or even persecution?

It seems to be a trendy choice for younger or more "relevant" evangelical Christians to more closely align with the Democratic Party, if just in defiance of a traditional one-party (read: Republican) stance. For instance, Donald Miller gave the closing prayer for the Democratic Convention on Monday night. It seems like he prayed only what the DNC wanted to hear.

But I wonder if this reaction, intended for good, intended to show the breadth of a true Christian worldview, really does any good at all. It is true that Christianity cares about more than the unborn, but it does still care about all human life. It is true that Christians ought to care for the poor and care for the whole world. Regardless of how those positions align with what the government could do about these issues, the temptation for influence and relevance infects this interjection into the political process.

Henri Nouwen, in his deeply insightful book In the Name of Jesus, says that the three temptations of Christian leaders are for relevance, power, and the need to be spectacular. These temptations mirror the temptations of Christ (Luke 4 , Matthew 4). Could this apply to the political realm? Should the Christian leader try to avoid all political entanglements instead of trying to be an equal-opportunist?

I don't desire to wish away Christian influence in the public sphere. I think it is deeply necessary. But if one were to engage proper discernment, it is probably best for the soul of the Christian leader to avoid unnecessary entanglements, such as praying at a political convention.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb for political temptation in this regard is this: if it's covered by the media, especially by television media, flee at all costs.

Olympic-Sized Christianity

You train for four years. You receive little attention in an oft-ignored sport. Maybe you have sponsorships and endorsements, but maybe you don't. One thing is for sure: you aren't mainstream because you aren't football. So, you train for hours a day and empty out all the energy from your body just for that gold medal? No, you seek a platform to share your faith. Playing sports for money is no mercenary lifestyle, but it is difficult to sustain one's personal faith in the midst of all these other temptations for glory and attention. And that reason is what makes hundreds of Olympic Christians worthy of our respect.

Winning a medal in any event is difficult. Being able to articulate a statement about one's faith in front of television or print media is even more difficult. I have seen several athletes in post-event interviews give "glory to God" or note that they "prayed to God and he answered." In that split second, in that moment of sound bite when many are paying attention, what better can be said? How else can they articulate their faith with the small platform they have?

I don't quite have an answer. I know I generally don't care much for the same old cliches, because not much differentiates a vain person that claims God's help from a sincere Christian. My favorite response has to be of Frank Reich though. As a last second backup quarterback, he led the greatest comeback in NFL history in the playoffs back in early 90's. In the post-game interview, he simply read Psalm 23.

Purpose-Driven Politics

Here is some commentary on Rick Warren's event where he interviewed both Obama and McCain. More commentary later.

The continuing dialogue on faith and politics

Time's cover story this week is on Rick Warren and his version of a global "New Evangelicalism" as Time is calling it. Rick Warren has always been a fascinating figure. As is the trend with many high-minded Christians, he's certainly an easy person to criticize given his penchant for aligning closely with Washington politics and his pop versions of Christian spirituality. Yet, as influential as Warren is, he's one of a few public figures that seems to handle his power with integrity. He doesn't take a salary from his church. He gives away 90% of his income. He drives an old beat-up pickup truck. And this year he refuses to take sides in the Presidential race. There's a considerable amount of power he effectively isn't wielding. What power Warren does wield is his earnest desire to overcome significant global problems in a realistic fashion.

Equally appealing is Time's inset article amidst the Warren piece in the print version of the magazine. Both major Presidential candidates articulate their view of faith and politics. This is a fascinating discussion and one that any person of faith ought to listen to.

One issue seems clear through both of these pieces of journalism. Both the media and the Presidential candidates are beginning to understand the evangelical shift in thought for the role of politics in faith. Perhaps its not a shift, but a broadening perspective. Evangelicals still care about the unborn, but now they also care about global poverty. Both candidates must have an appropriate handle of these increasingly complex issues.

For a good discourse on a true Christian-politik, see Andy Crouch's article from 4 years ago on justice and righteousness. I think it provides the best Christian rubric on how to vote in this upcoming election.

Presumptious Accusations?

The religious coverage of the political landscape is so juicy right now that I just can't stay away from it....

In January of 2007, I was sitting with a very astute gentleman and we were discussing politics and the bible. After all, we were at a Biblical Studies Conference on the "end times," and both ideas were evident to come up. Now, the stance of the conference was markedly different than the popular views elucidated in the Left Behind series, but we were well aware of the influence the books unfortunately had on "pop" Christianity and many Christians countrywide. Based upon the influence of the book, many think that the rise of a figure like Nicolae Carpathia (the antichrist) is how the end times will actually come about. So, this gentlemen remarked to me that he knew several folks back where he was from (in Illinois) that were eyeing Barack Obama as a Carpathia figure. They thought he was the antichrist. Now, in January 2007, Barack Obama was still a longshot figure to win the democratic nomination, but his rapid rise to national prominence was striking nonetheless.

Apparently, though, my friend's homeward associates are not the only people to think such a thing. The Obama camp has accused the McCain camp of making a commercial with just such subtle accusations. The video can be seen here. You can judge for yourself if you agree with the Time article.

I think it is important to discern the times we live in. I also think it is important to stand for absolute truth. I also think it is important not to be too hasty in declaring absolute certainty in determing one's view of the end times. The Left Behind series has left its impression if these hasty conclusions are the ideas Americans come to.

I'm not saying Barack Obama isn't the antichrist. I'm certainly not saying he is. I want to avoid the idea altogether and evaluate him on his political/religious comments, his public voting record, and his articulated worldview. I do not want to compare him with any popular books. I do not want to vote for him based upon his ability to speak publicly. I do not want to vote for him based on age. And I never want to vote for a candidate based upon television advertisements or commercials. Almost all of the political discourse this summer then has been garbage on both sides.

The Archbishop and his controversial opinions

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams- the leader of the Anglican church worldwide- has personally adopted views regarding a moral grounding for gay marriage. The issue of gay marriage can be debated from the theological to the political. Yet, this article (linked above) took an interesting spin. Note the quotes below:

The article notes, "He drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view."

Williams himself states, “When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.”

The article doesn't note how these letters became public. I don't suppose it matters if Williams is willingly quoted in the article. Williams displays at least some theological responsbility in teaching the doctrines of the church, but the fact that this knowledge is now public makes any theological comment that Williams makes on behalf of the church seem disingenuous. I respect Williams for making the distinctions listed above; there's a certain amount of theological humility he holds to teach as he does. In the end, though, one has to wonder if this is a slippery slope towards an Anglican split. If Williams holds these beliefs, it might be more likely that his successor will as well.

I won't deal with the claims Williams makes about homosexuality and the Bible. But for a good theological treatment on the subject, see Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals by William Webb.

Elections + Religion = Muddy Waters

Barack Obama's Muslim-Outreach Advisor resigns.

The above article seems to insinuate a couple of interesting facts.

1) American Muslims may be exclusively Arab. This is not true of course. Nor is it true that all Arabs are Muslims.

2) The article referred to this specific demographic as Muslim-Americans. I generally don't consider myself a Christian-American or an Evangelical-American, merely because the terminology seems bogus. Why should I, or anybody else, be labeled by our citizenship and our religious allegiances? The term "African-American" carries more weight, as it signifies an ethnicity within a national identity. "Muslim-American" is not as precise. But, as racial distinctions may be a human fabrication, cultural or ethnic distinction are not. That begs the question, then, whether "Muslim-Americans" view their status both in a cultural and a religious sense.

3) I understand that it is politically savvy to have a political consultant on many issues, religious or otherwise. Generally, though, this assumes that all "Muslim-Americans" think alike and share the same views. Furthermore, the article cited above fails to ellucidate any "Muslim-American" issues. Politically, what do "Muslim-Americans" care about? Would the answer be different for a secular Muslim, a moderate Muslim, and a fundamentalist Muslim? I don't speak as an expert on Islam, but I generally don't think like many Roman Catholics, Orthodox, or Liberal Christians about many issues within our own faith.

Thus this article really made me question how fruitful a campaign advisor on these issues are. However, people spend a lot more time trying to court the Evangelical vote than any other religious bloc. While many young evangelicals try to shun the hyper-politicization of the Christian right, it is still significant that politicians have to spend time articulating their view of issues that are important to Evangelicals.

An Exercise in Protest

It took me about 10 seconds to find this image on Google from the Tiananmen Square democratic protest back in 1989 in Beijing, China. But the image won't be accessible at all to media in China for the Olympic games, which is now a broken promise by Chinese officials to the International Olympic Committee.

So this is my exercise in protest. The Chinese government devalues free speech in the name of central power, authority, and order, but the opportunity to express one's opinions is the essence of human thought, the exchange of knowledge and ideas, and the entire point of reading people's blogs. In your own subtle or overt way, how can you best promote truth for the upcoming Olympic games?