Let’s Fill the Aisles of Church and American Government

The coming election has many believers more than a little concerned. Ironically, we believers are sitting on both sides of the aisle in this election. Many on the evangelical left are passionate supporters of Barack Obama with the same flow of intensity of many, like myself, on the evangelical right.

Many well-meaning believers see this passion and proclaim it displaced. God is not a Republican, the bumper sticker says in rather large print (or a Democrat in especially small print). If we’re honest, the calls for leaving the aisles of American politics and returning to the aisles of Church are sounded more often to those on the right.

While that’s a separate blog topic in and of itself, I’d like to issue a call for more Christian involvement … not less. I’m going to pretend for the moment that Christians of all socio-political-leaning species are criticized equally for their political passion, and I’d like to defend the likes and musings of Jim Wallis and James Dobson equally. Please allow me to suggest that calls for disengagement are unwarranted at best and ignorant at medium and dangerous at worst.

One criticism muses that God is not a Republican or a Democrat. This sermon usually preaches against passionate political ivolvement in general and warns that we are unnecessarily dividing ourselves as believers specifically. However, this criticism fails to create a room full of purple republicrats or demopublicans, holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” This is not because we are attempting to make Jesus an American or nonesense like that. Those of us who feel great passion about our political musings … on the left and the right … often times have put much thought and prayer into our ballot boxes. Our politics tend to flow from our faith … not vice versa. I’m not saying that we’re perfect, but I am attempting to give us all … left and right … the goodwill benefit of the doubt. According to Jim Wallis to truly live as a Christian, you will work publically to eliminate the curse of poverty. According to James Dobson working to eliminate the scourge of abortion flows directly and vibrantly from a Christian world view.

To expect any different is to expect that we can somehow have values-neutral politics. And by default politics is a values game. Every law that is passed is based on someone’s idea of right and wrong.

Another criticism is that we Christians should simply be in the business of doing Church. This sermon preaches against any work besides spreading the Gospel in the world. However, the “Gospel” is more than simply saying yes to Jesus. The full Gospel includes ministering to physical needs, so that people can actually pay attention to something more than their all-encompassing hurt. Thus, as Christians we should be involved in more than simply giving an altar call … as vitally important as that is. In fact Jesus in Matthew 25 in no uncertain terms informs us that we’ll be judged on how we ministered to “the least of these” out in society.

Those of us on the right and the left can agree on the “what” at this point. Where we differ is in the “how.” We can also agree that ministering to the least of these involves more than putting on band-aids. It also involves initiating acts of prevention. Moving into “ministries” of prevention moves one into the realm of public policy.

Another criticism is that seeking to participate in politics means that Christians are trying to take matters into their own hands … which means they are attempting to walk by human power and not by faith. For people who offer this criticism I have one simple question. When your fridge is empty, do you simply wait on God to send his ravens to feed you … or do you go to the store? There is precious little difference between these two scenarios. Yes, we as believers are called to live by faith. However, faith is not simply waiting for God in expectation. That is hope, not faith. Faith is a bit different. Faith is more than believing. Rather faith is believing that spurs one to action for a purpose. Biblically-speaking, faith necessitates action. Jesus will be none-too-impressed with our inactivity in society based on some misguided hope that he would show up and do it all … without us. Who, pray tell, are the hands and feet of Jesus?

Another criticism is that Jesus and Paul did not work in politics and did not counsel believers to do so either. Yet, such a criticism is an arguement from silence. Scripture does not say that Jesus brushed his hair or his teeth. Nor does it say that Paul went to the bathroom indoors or washed his hands afterwards. Rather the things that Jesus and Paul did teach us, as is shown above, necessitate Christian involvement in the politcal spectrum. Jesus and Paul lived in the Roman world, where government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” did not exist. However, that is the world in which those of us in the States do live. What this world necessitates is a responsible citizenry to govern themselves. We have chosen to do so through a republican/federal form of government, wherein we participate through our representatives, political action committees (formally) and through phone calls and conversations around the water cooler (informally). It can be argued that taking the way of non-action in our world is lazy at best and down-right sinful at worst.

One last criticism is that seeking political participation is merely a guise for a power trip. Again, I concede that many people … Christian and non-Christian / Republican and Democrat … are power hungry. However, the question must be asked: is seeking power wrong … in and of itself? Biblically-speaking (based off of Psalm 8 and the Genesis account of creation) man was given stewardship responsibility for the earth. This by default involves holding some measure of power. Because there is more than one person in the designation, man, this involves some measure of power being held by people over other people. So the real question is not whether we are power-seeking. The real question is what are we going to do with the power entrusted to us? A related question is how best to structure this organization to mitigate the effects of human sin nature?

Some argue that Christians should not impose their values on non-Christians. However, every law is someone’s idea of right and wrong. Do we really want the depraved imposing their value-systems on the “least of these?”

Again some simply say that non-engagement is the way to go. However, on a purely hypothetical level, how are we going to organize society if every single person in the world is evangelized and discipled? Will religious leaders govern us? Ask the Reformers how well that worked. Whether we like it or not human nature will always be with us.

As a Wesleyan, I fully believe we are promised real (not hypothetical) victory over sin in this life. However, reality shows this arrives at differing times and places for every individual and for varying degrees of sin. We need systems of societal organization (government) to mitigate this sin nature. Paul said that God sends the government as his personal minister to do such a thing … with pockets filled with goodies for good behavior and a sword for disobedience. Again, do we as believers want the lowest common moral denominator making public decisions for the general populous?

So, I insist that in general as believers living in America, who take their faith as their authoritative and guiding light, we have a responsibility to be politically involved. Let’s fill the aisles of Church and American government.

Sight Sharper than an Eagle’s

Seeing is believing … at least in our secular progressive culture … but sometimes believing leads to seeing. This is certainly the case of Rachel Holloman and Jerry Shaw in the recent production, “Eagle Eye.” The “normal” life is swooped from these two strangers from out of nowhere, as they are thrust into a post-911 spy thriller. An all-seeing female automated voice, ”Aria,” guides/conjoles these two unwitting pawns into her master plot of completely overthrowing the US government. However, only an “eagle eye” movie critic can spot Aria’s goal from afar. It is not revealed to the general audience until about ¾ the way through.

In a man-and-machine world we must not underestimate the “Human Factor”.

It tries to assume the prophetic mantle, warning us … potential prey … against technology. In this case technology grew smarter than her inventors and sustainers and almost took over. A parallel point the movie attempted to make was that technology in the hands of a militaristic regime (aka the Bush administration) will in the end consume us all as prey.

We certainly need to remember that human sin nature clouds anything we might wish to accomplish in this world for good. This smarter the process of accomplishment for good becomes an equally intelligent capability for evil.

However, if applied to the Bush administration of wire tapping, which Clinton also engaged in, I think the analogy is stretched and troubling at best … distorted and destructive at worst. A plot was foiled in Florida recently that in planning an assassination attempt on Obama. Is the left going to be consistent in ridiculing the technology that preserved the life of their messiah? Whether we like President Bush or not, we must give his administration credit for preventing further attacks on US soil … and rendering Iraq “a lost cause” for Al Qaeda.

On the other side of the coin humanity is equipped with a capacity for faith. Jerry Shaw is overshadowed by his over-achieving, super-intelligent, never-scoring-less-than-perfect twin brother. Jerry’s life achievements have … well … gone in less productive directions. He is a great backroom poker player. Rachel is in a rather nasty parenting relationship with her ex-husband. She despises men.

Aria is a dangerously near-self-sufficient super computer, utilized by the military for the War on Terror. She has gained control over every piece of technology in the world. Along this wild ride she is even able to read the human soul through extensive study of material relating their lives On-line. Yet, she underestimates Jerry and Rachel. She assumes Jerry will always remain a slacker. Yet, Jerry “mans-up” by becoming a welcomed, shepherding presence for Rachel and going the extra mile to potentially sacrifice his own life to preserve the massive assassination plot on the government. Aria has assumed that Rachel would have no problem “eliminating” Jerry when the time was right … due to Rachel’s deep hurt. Rachel cannot due to the respect she has for human life in general and the new-found respect she has developed for Jerry. For Rachel respect is synonymous with loyalty.

In secular-progressive culture faith is venerated … so long as it’s a faith in oneself … to face the world alone. Yet, we as believers know that the heart is desprately sick. Who can have faith in a doctor that is always sick. Our faith can be in the One who can not only redeem our sickness, but transform us into his holy-righteousness. Yes, this redemption and transformation process not only fits us for heaven. Yet, it also redeems and transforms our capacity to wisely love by bringing us into saving-fellowship with our one God who is eternally Three Persons who perfectly love one another.

Eagle Eye is a wild ride, but true faith … believing to see … can be wilder and create sight sharper than an eagle’s.

Idealism and Virtue

Do you remember Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner? How can any of who used to watch “real” cartoons forget? Admittedly, Bugs was my favorite, but I was quite intrigued by Wile E.

“Why doesn’t he just give up? He knows it’s not going to work!” I would ask myself as Wile E. was receiving his usual package from ACME. Despite the fact that Wile E. wanted to cause irreparable bodily harm (aka dinner) to that cute Road Runner, I’m glad that he didn’t. He serves as a picture of perseverance.

As Christians, we have grand dreams for ministry and lofty designs for society. We are to dream God’s dreams … right? Unfortunately, we tend to get tripped up in the process and are tempted to give up altogether. Yet, there are stories of unlikely believers accomplishing unbelievably unlikely (aka miraculous) things for God.

I think there might be a common demonimator among those of us who tend to get tripped … and discouraged… on a regular basis. While we may well have put on the shoes of “readiness” for the “gospel of peace,” we have laced them with shoe-strings of Idealism. These shoe-strings have somehow come untied and have retied themselves together, causing us to trip, when we stand up and attempt to walk. Perhaps it is time to unstring our shoes of Idealism and restring them with Virtue.

Yes, it is good and right to have ideals, but this is not what I mean by Idealism. Idealism is a mindset. It celebrates some trait or desired goal … and demands it be done … yesterday. It is an inflexible mindset that allows no room for setbacks … temporary or permanent. This mindset allow no room for the possibility that the trait or desired goal, in part or whole, may not be conducive to objective reality. This mindset allows little or no time for the celebrated trait to develop or the goal to be reached. This mindset complains that X, Y, and Z should not be, when in reality the necessary conditions were in place for X, Y, and Z to flourish.

Virtue on the other hand is more flexible. Broadly speaking, Virtue is a general collection of desired moral traits … personally and socially. By default to speak of morality is to speak of desired ends and goals. Thus, Virtue is not simply a collection of good content, but like Idealism is a process seeking accomplishment … sort of.

Virtue is directional and guiding, whereas idealism considers the end in isolation from necessary consideration of how to get to that end. Idealism is the process of demanding certain ends in isolation of reality. When setbacks occur, virtue assesses the situation. (Questions are asked: What were the factors leading up to the setback? What is our path to get back on track? Etc.) Virtue is patient and calculating, whereas idealism is murderously demanding. Virtue considers excellence to be acquired by seeking God, learning from the wisdom of others, and extensive practice in the real world. Idealism considers excellence to be something that arises out of my rationality alone or is appraised by my estimation alone. In other words, many people may find X to be excellent, but if I disagree, it is discredited quickly on the basis of my rationality alone (aka my whim).

I guess the ideal would be that we all would throw the shoe strings of idealism away and set out on the path of Virtue with Gospel shoes laced with patience and desires of the wisdom of God and of the Church/community. Perhaps we can even order our strings from ACME’s Christian store? Perhaps we should simply stick with an ACME souvenir Tee Shirt: “Been There, Done That”? Or perhaps not.

“Creation” in the Image of God

I remember sitting under one of my college professors who flippantly dismissed the concept of being created in the image of God. “Created in the image of God … whatever that is.”

Actually, even those of us who occasionally flippantly dismiss leftist sociology professors (all out of fun of course) do struggle with this concept. What does it mean to be created in the image of the Almighty?

Love, rationality, free will, and morality have all been suggested as potentialities. In other words because we are made in the image of God, we have the capacity to decide to love self-sacrificially, we have the capacity to think about our thinking, etc.; whereas the animals and the rest of Creation does not … at least to the magnificent extent that human beings do. All of these are certainly aspects of the Imago Dei.

Yet, there is one other aspect, which I think is also vital. When God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” (Genesis 1:26; ESV) this was in the context of his creating the cosmos. Could it be that one of the aspects of the Imago Dei is the ability to create?

Now certainly most of us are hyper-humble when it comes to expressing any ability to produce works of art (musical, painting, etc.). Yet, I firmly believe that at some capacity the ability to create or the ability to work artistically is fundamental to human nature. You may not be Leonardo Davinci, but you certainly can recognize when someone has been rude to you. When you feel offended by someone’s rudeness, you are taking offense at what you feel was the lack of practicing the basic ability to observe you, observe other things in the environment, and use good polite judgement in obtaining what is desired.  You certainly would not say that politeness is purely a talent. Rather you would say that it is a practiced skill. Yet, working with people, even at the most basic of levels is an art form.

Again think of yet another example. The next time you are greeted at Wal-Mart, think of how that person did her job. Think of how you will have responded. In that exchange there will have been on some level an internal assessment of each other, followed by some expression. It could have been a subtle but pleasant exchange of smiles and hellos. The exchange could have also been a subtle bout of Freddie-Krugger-vs.-Jason hormones.

I’m cetainly not diminishing the genius of great painters or musical composers. I’m merely attempting to paint a picture of artistry being fundamental to human nature. I guess a very rough definition of artistry or creativity is simply intuition seasoned with wisdom and expressive drive. Again, it is my conviction that on some level every human being is wired to create and to appreciate creativity.

A large part of the Salvation experience is being remade into the image of God. What does that mean for human creativity. As I am being saved or being remade into the image of God, what is happening to my capacity to internally assess my environment and then wisely express my response to that environment? How much richer would evangelistic and discipleship efforts be if human creativity were both the targets and the flavorings of outreach?

My guess is that those of us in the so-called Postmodern generation would be less flippant about being flippant. And quite possibly the world would be less flippant about Jesus and his Church.