Denver Seminary Lectures on the Church, Politics, and Social Consciousness

Denver Seminary, in honor of long time President and Chancellor Vernon Grounds, is launching the Vernon Grounds Institute of Public Ethics.

I know many fellow readers and myself have always dangled around how Christians ought to engage politics and our government. There is a lecture series that will launch this event that has two major evangelical heavyweights: Ron Sider and Darrell Bock. Reading further:

"The inaugural event which is planned for October 6 & 7, 2008 will be staged under the general theme "Christian Concern for our Common Life: The Christian and Political Engagement." It will feature two prominent and nationally known Christian scholars and noted ethicists: Dr. Ronald Sider, President of the Evangelicals for Social Action and Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Pubic Policy at Palmer Theological Seminary and Dr. Darrell Bock, Research Professor or New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary and an authority in the engagement of Christianity and the general culture.

During the two-day conference which will take place on the Seminary's campus in Littleton, theologians Sider and Bock will deal with several topics including: "Toward an Evangelical Methodology for Engaging Political Engagement," "Combing Evangelism and Social Action: Cementing the Legacy of Vernon Grounds," and "Engaging Culture Theologically."

"Geared towards the Seminary's students, Christian leaders and the general Christian community. the Institute aims to provide an environment as well as resources designed to sensitize, educate and train Christians in matter pertaining to social ethics, so that they may be empowered to fulfill the biblical mandate to be 'salt and light.'"

Wall St. and Main St.

Sometimes the media is so obnoxious (especially the television media) that I just have to rant for a little while.

I am so sick of this phrase: "What's happening on Wall St. is affecting Main St." What does this even mean? I know what the media wants it to mean. They want it to mean that stock speculation and the stock market in New York affects ordinary Americans. Reckless Wall St. spending is affecting people's Roth IRA's and 401k's. It affects their housing prices and their jobs.

But the phrase is still ridiculous. First of all, I've heard it at least 2 dozen times in the past week and the person who uses it still thinks they're clever. Second, I don't live on Main St. and don't know anybody who does. Main St. is 2 blocks in downtown Littleton- no more, no less. Third, I don't know anybody that considers themselves an "ordinary American." Maybe some people pride themselves on this label. The media would like us to think those people live in the industrial sector, have blue collar jobs, and work in small to mid-sized towns. This is just another case of the media telling us what we think instead of reporting what is. In fact, I don't know anybody that describes themselves as "average" or "ordinary." In our culture, it's usually an insult. While many of us are average, it's not a self-inflicted label.

I'd also like to comment briefly on a redemptive spin. Wall St. doesn't affect me. If I have a retirement account, I'm investing for over 40 years. Nothing Wall St. does in the short term affects the long term growth of the market. Some people might disagree with this, but those people are generally doomsayers and not level-headed or wise. Another redemptive spin: housing investments should also be long term, and people should have fixed-rate mortgages. In the long term, anyone who has a 15 year or 30 year fixed mortgage shouldn't panic. Their housing value may temporarily decrease, but people shouldn't fret if they are wise and invest long-term. But the market still does affect the loss of people's jobs, and I don't want to minimize that.

In all, almost nothing we hear from media gauges long-term wisdom with personal or macroeconomic finance. I would like to add that I'm happy government socialism was rejected in the bailout today. I would like to see a temporary suspension of the mark-to-market rule within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as I believe this would substantially free up markets for trading.

Incoherent Arguments on Life

In Colorado, citizens get to vote for an inordinate amount of referendums and ballot initiatives. Essentially Coloradans get a lot of say in state law, which is empowering and overwhelming all at the same time. It is important to be informed, but it requires a lot of reading and careful research on the issues. The Denver Post has been helpful in these pursuits. On it's Op-Ed page, they always take issues and stances on Editorials. I've found that I get more facts and information on political issues in these editorials than I do on the report pieces that really just tell me what McCain or Obama said about one another. The DP also has for-against column pieces for many of the ballot initiatives. One such example appeared in yesterday's Post, discussing the Amendment 48 proposal that supports the acknowledgement of human life beginning at fertilization.

The "against" column was written by L. Indra Lusero and Lynn M. Paltrow of various reproductive rights organizations. Their column was a sad excuse for an argument, as the entire premise of the column was that the amendment would be bad because they could cite two examples of government overreach. The entire column thus commits the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy: either women have choice or they're dragged against their will by mean people to have a baby in a manner they wish not. Other possibilities do exist: the amendment could prevent more abortions by placing certain restrictions where it may be easier to have an abortion, and it might not intervene through court orders at all (such as the examples cited in the article). The women in the artcle were having their babies anyway. No doubt, these examples are egregious government overreaches, but that is not the logical conclusion to this amendment. Yet, that makes the column guilty of overly emotive arguments that lack tight logic.

It is measures such as Amendment 48 that slowly chip away against the bad constitutional law of Roe. I will be voting in favor of Amendment 48.

Legislating Morality

There is a tired, old, and ignorant cliche that goes like this: "You cannot legistlate morality."

It really insinuates many things. I think a libertarian might argue that one cannot legislate for morality, whereas a social liberal might argue that one cannot legislate against morality. The categories aren't as water-tight as that, but essentially the point of the argument is that individuals are responsble for moral decisions and it is not the role of the government to intervene.

This argument is ridiculous.

The whole foundation of the law rests on moral truth. Now, many postmodernists and postmodern experts in the law might argue that law should be established on social construction- a social contract of agreement based upon our norms, if you will. But we all universally agree that cold-blooded murder is against the law, and it ought to be. This is a moral reality, and we made it into a law. I cannot kill you if I want to, and I can be put in jail because of it. Yes, we are legislating morality, and it isn't a bad thing. Even arguments for universal health care rest on the belief that access to medical care should be a right for everyone. This is a moral argument. In effect, universal health care is a proposal to doctors, insurance providers, and the government to legislate morality.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that legislating for moral realities is not altogether a bad thing. That is why I think abortion should be illegal. It should be illegal to harm or kill someone without their consent (I'm avoiding Kevorkian here). Other personal moral decisions, such as personal belief, should not be legistlated for or against, and that is why I am a proponent of the 1st Amendment.

Doug Groothuis also breaks this argument down, showing how Martin Luther King Jr. even advocated for moral legislation (The Civil Rights Act legislated morality).

Nancy Gibbs, in this time essay, raises some very interesting questions regarding life and moral legislation. She doesn't answer any of her questions, but the questions alone give rise to the importance of thinking through the legislation of moral issues. Read the article, it's quite challenging. If anything, it's a tonic for knowing the theological and philosophical Christian worldview really well.

An American Parable

American Little was sitting around on a Sunday and heard that the sky was falling.
“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”, shouted American Little. American Little did not know what to do or where to go. So he went to the most logical place.

American Little went to Television. “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”, shouted American Little, not knowing if the television would provide any comfort or advice. American Little told Television what he heard from yonder hills about how the sky was potentially falling. Television didn’t have verifiable proof that the sky was falling, but the story was too good. So, instead of telling American Little that everything was going to be okay, Television ran with that story. “The sky if falling!”, Television proclaimed all the louder. Television started ignoring American Little, so American Little went somewhere else.

American Little wasn’t sure where to turn next, so American Little ran to Candidate. “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”, panted American Little to Candidate. Candidate assessed the attitude of American Little, “I hear your pain. I think I can help you with that sky problem.” “But how?”, questioned American Little. “It does not matter, young one, because if the sky really is falling it was the fault of someone else. Together, we can solve this problem.” “Okay,” said American Little, “But the sky is falling and I don’t think it’s going to wait on us. I must go find someone else this instant!”

So, American Little, distraught that Television agreed with him and Candidate seemed to give answers to the problem that wouldn’t really fix it, American Little turned to the last place he know, Truth. “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”, cried American Little with his last glimmer of hope. “Dear child,” said Truth in a way that was gentle but yet very firm, “the sky is not falling.” “It isn’t?”, asked confused American Little. “No, American Little, just because a few apples fall, or it rains for a while, doesn’t mean the sky is falling, it just means we need a little perspective. The apples fall much less in our land. And as a matter of fact, more people even get to eat apples in our land than in others. The sky isn’t falling. It’s just an overcast day. It’s not even a year.” But American Little still wasn’t quite satisfied. After all, it was a major crisis because he had heard about it. And so American Little walked away sad.


A good parable doesn’t always need explanation. But Truth in this story is Dave Ramsey. Listen to his radio shows from Monday and Tuesday (Go to archives and listen to those days earlier this week, esp. Monday). Ramsey has a fresh and real take on the financial "crisis" going on right now. If you are looking for sensationalism, do not listen to him. Regarding other parts of the story, Candidate is either major party candidate.

The One-Issue Voter

Obama and McCain promise to be in the news through November (and even to January), so as far as engaging the news goes, I'm entrenched along with these news stories. Here's some thoughts about one-issue voting.

I have had many conversations with self-seeming "enlightened" Christians or other voters who claim they have the voting process figured out. These "enlightened" voters have incredible disdain for one-issue voting. Generally, that one-issue is abortion. So, generally, "enlightened" is a self-made construction to vote Democratic. Generally, these "enlightened" individuals show disgust for what they think are "unenlightened" (read uninformed or absent-minded) and traditionally conservative evangelicals Christians. I'm not a one-issue voter, but I'm also not enlightened by a political agenda either. But the one-issue voter shouldn't be condemned.

Many conservative estimates place the number of abortions in America, yearly, as over 1 million. Now, I have no intention of being a philosophical utilitarian here at all, but over the last 5 years in Iraq, no where close to 5 million people have been killed. For those of us who believe abortion really is the taking of life (how could it not be!?), the one issue becomes vastly and comparitively important. Now, the "enlightened" person may argue like this:

"Voting only on abortion for the President shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government works." This isn't necessarily true.

Many one-issue voters wish to see incremental change because it is the only change that seems possible- a chipping away of Roe, if you will. Furthermore, the President appoints judges, approved by Congress to the Supreme and Federal courts. This is no small influence. Also, this argument ignores the vastness that the federal government and the powers of the President have come to be since FDR. The President has enormous influence over other branches of government, over state governments, and over influence in the media. Put plainly, the President just isn't limited to the powers in the Constitution any more.

Now, I said I'm not a one-issue voter, but that doesn't mean that the abortion issue carries no weight with me. It carries enormous weight, on the scale of the amount of deaths that occur yearly due to abortion. But I also believe in responsible foreign policy, certain liberal positions, and certain conservative positions. But in my grasping of the complexities of political and economic issues, I dare not chastise one-issue voters.

The Hamster's Treadmill

I love reading Time's Business Book Reviews. They're take on American business always offers a slant that gets me thinking or reacting in perplexed ways. Take this week's book reviews:

OverSuccess: Healing The American Obsession With Wealth, Fame, Power, and Perfection By Jim Rubens Greenleaf; 451 pages
The author's own brush with American urgency has soured him on the 24/7 work life: "The intention of this book is to free me and tens of millions like me from the hamster's treadmill," he says. Rubens ties mindless ambition in the U.S. to major depression, addiction, personal and public debt and even the popularity of American Idol. "Unless we change our nation's culture," he cautions, "we will die alone and unhappy with our basalt countertops, Sub-Zero wine storage and massive credit-card debt." Wait--is that bad?

Oh, that glib remark at the end! I know the author is trying to be facetious, but beneath the surface he and many, many more wouldn't find offense at that sad state of life.

But even if we're honest with ourselves, most of our time might be spent on and going after the "hamster's treadmill." How do we get off of it? Time in silence, a lack of television, reading the Bible, appropriate amounts of sleep, and the elusive not-caring-what-other-people-think-about-us. Any other suggestions?

How Does the Church Do Politics?

I have been asked on some occasions this fall, "How does the church do politics?" In what ways can the church meaningfully engage and impact the political and governmental realm?

Most of the time, whenever I see the church engage political issues, it is in the form of the Sunday morning sermon. While the church has to steer clear of endorsing any specific politicians (lest it lose its non-profit status), I have heard many political statements about citizenship and specific political issues. Here are some examples that I've heard in sermons:

1) National elections are more important than local elections.

2) You must engage your responsibility to vote.

3) True Christians are pro-life.

4) The Bible is our source of information in how we vote.

Now, without actually breaking down each comment, or simply agreeing or disagreeing with them, I recognize that the church should engage politics and that it is always a messy ordeal. My only affirmation is that the church think through and think theologically about political issues and candidates. This might be a departure from the Anabaptist stream (of total separation from church and state), but I think this affirmation includes most of the Christian perspective. We might not always affect the state, or vote, or serve in the military, but we should at least think about all of these things. Perhaps even Anabaptists would agree with that.

Regarding this process, then, one of the best theological reflections I've heard about the Christian faith and the political realm was a sermon by Don Sweeting, at my church, Cherry Creek Presbyterian. We've been going through Romans all summer long (based on lectionary readings) and will be ending soon. Coincidentally (or Providentially), Romans 13 was one of the lectionary texts following both political conventions. If you get a chance, listen to that sermon. It is a great run through of the historical and cultural issues of the Roman empire and how Christians should engage the state.

A New Dwarf Planet and the Mysteries of the Universe

Makemake is a newly discovered dwarf planet.

It is time once again to welcome another member to our solar system, at least officially. Of course, the object itself has been around for billions of years.

Thinking about space always makes me reflect existentially.

It is astonishing to me that humans, with our advanced technology and "enlightened" views of the world are still discovering things. It must make us humble. Or at least it should.

I got a few chances this summer to check out the stars unadulterated, far from city lights, in the crisp mountain air. I saw the Milky Way in its lucid brilliance. The stars were so numerous that it was just a sheet of white across a portion of the sky. It was a welcome companion as a fell asleep one June evening.

And then there's rational argument, which must temper vain humility. One particular idea must be put to rest. I have encountered this argument before: due to the earth's relatively small size, the solar system's relatively small size, and the fact that the Milky Way is one of millions of galaxies in the universe, how can Christians or any religious people be so conceded as to think their religious system answers the questions about the universe?

This is a classic logical fallacy. Size and importance are two separate ideas. A computer chip carries enormous importance to the functioning of society. A big rock on a hill doesn't. The earth is small, but it and its people are infinitely important.

Reflecting on the spacial universe should make us humble at the size of God, but it shouldn't make us foolish.

Redemptive Angle Note

I was a newby to the blogosphere 2 months ago, but now I know better. Some of you (my friends) have remarked that you'd like to post a response but couldn't due to the settings on postings rule. That has now been changed. "Anonymous" posters are now allowed.

Good News on Marriage

Since there's never usually a lot of good news about the institution of marriage in the popular media, I thought I'd recommend you to this little article here on USA Today.

I suppose it makes sense that if couples make it long enough to stay together, that they'd learn to like each other more. I just wish that we Americans would get the first part right.

A Brief Theology of Weather

As Hurricane Gustav rolled again into Louisiana last week, and as Hurricane Hanna races its way to the East Coast, I thought it would be pertinent to discuss the nature of God and the weather.

I hear a lot in my Christian circles that we ought to pray against potentially disastrous weather and for the people that will experience the catastrophies. Some people in their prayers seemed resigned to its inevitability, and so they pray for as much safety and human responsibility and management as best is possible in the wake of the storm. Others, seemingly more courageous, pray that God would completely change the weather- that the storm would dissipate, change course, or just plain old go away.

What makes it hard is that human sinful nature can't answer the question of suffering here. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the Southeast Asian tsunami almost 4 years ago now. The tsunami is a lot harder to explain than September 11, because in that instance we can simply note the fact that people do evil things.

A typical response to the presence of suffering is, thus, that humans are corrupted by original sin, but that response is tougher to swallow in the face of an oncoming hurricane. I'd also note, on an existential level, that this theological answer is unsatisfying and unusable in a crisis-counseling situation. But given that bad weather still does and will happen, I thought it might be helpful to develop some kind of theology about the weather. However brief this may be, I should find it particularly helpful.

It all started when everything God created was very good (Gen. 1). This creation included our very earth, our animals and plants, and us humans. One would surmise that this also includes the weather as a part of our creation. But something went wrong. Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command, and that set world history on a different path. A common misconception is that humanity becomes cursed by God, but it is actually the evil serpent and "the ground" that becomes cursed (Gen. 3:17-19). A certain amount of speculation concerns the ground, but given that human production of earthly resources would become harder based on the fall(based upon the context), the ground probably includes rain and other weather patterns. These processes are now cursed.

Romans 8:19-23 picks up on this theme. Creation needs liberation, and not just humans. Creation is bound to decay, and it needs freedom. Creation is waiting for redemption, and not just humans. The weather is fraught with decay. Might this include the destructive nature of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.?

Lastly and most importantly, while the whole of creation is in need of creation, we need not forget who is ultimately in charge. On a boat in Palestine in the 1st century, a man named Jesus told the weather to do something and it obeyed him, "Quiet! Be still!" (Mark 4:35-41). Jesus is in fact sovereign over the weather. The Psalms also affirm the magnificent sovereignty of God over the weather in many glorious refrains.

In all, then, it seems that two consistent themes are that the creation is broken but God can and does fix it. It should give us incredible understanding when horrible disasters do happen, but it should also make our prayers all the more fervent.