129 Sermon Illustrations on Politics

Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his twentieth -- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest project. OUR ENDANGERED VALUES: AMERICA'S MORAL CRISIS represents the former president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layers of confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.

Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is that America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a sinister force. In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts civilization -- the specter of Christian fundamentalism.

After tracing a series of crises faced by the United States and the larger world, Mr. Carter places the blame squarely upon conservative Christians: “The most important factor is that fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. At the same time, these religious and political conservatives have melded their efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state.” That's quite an argument, but those familiar with Jimmy Carter's mode of public engagement will understand that this is merely the expansion (and repetition) of what the former president has been saying ever since the American people denied him a second term in the Oval Office.

Those who would wish to take Jimmy Carter and his ideas seriously will find little assistance in this book. More than anything else, it represents a superficial complaint against conservative Christianity. He offers a caricature of conservative evangelicals, even as he redefines basic Christian doctrines in order to conform to his own worldview. He criticizes fundamentalists for simplistic and superficial convictions, while he offers superficial and simplistic assessments of urgent moral questions.

What exactly is Jimmy Carter against? The “fundamentalism” he so vehemently attacks is, according to his own definition, represented by movements that “almost invariably” are “led by authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others and, within religious groups, have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women and to dominate their fellow believers.” Furthermore, Mr. Carter argues that “fundamentalists usually believe that the past is better than the present,” even as they wish to retain “certain self-beneficial aspects of both their historic religious beliefs and of the modern world.”

Beyond all this, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists “are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs.” Accordingly, fundamentalists are likely to be angry and abusive against those who oppose their goals.

Most interestingly, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists err when they “draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil.” The most amazing aspect of that assertion is Mr. Carter's own moralism, both as president and as America's globe-trotting ex-president. Even in OUR ENDANGERED VALUES, Mr. Carter continues the pattern of arguing that others are wrong when they assert that he is wrong. But, according to his own emphatic assertion and self-analysis, he is right and others are simply wrong. One gains the quick impression that they are mostly wrong because they consider Mr. Carter to be wrong.

As to his own worldview, Mr. Carter reveals: “In the religious realm, I shall depend on the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by the words and actions of Jesus Christ. On political issues, I shall rely as much as possible on my own personal experiences and observations.”

What exactly are the “values” that Mr. Carter believes to be so endangered? For one thing, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists are primarily responsible for the raging controversies that now mark America's public life. As he sees it, America is being ripped apart by the fundamentalists who push their concerns about abortion, marriage, homosexuality, and other issues in the public square. Since these conservative Christians are driven by their own Christian convictions, Mr. Carter argues that their favored positions represent a violation of one of his most cherished values -- the separation of church and state.

Once again, readers of OUR ENDANGERED VALUES will be frustrated if they are looking for Mr. Carter's own understanding of how church and state should be related. He offers no serious or coherent theory, but merely affirms “what Thomas Jefferson espoused as 'a wall of separation between church and state.'“ As he would surely remind those he criticizes in his newest book, an assertion does not amount to an argument.

In actuality, Mr. Carter offers few examples of exactly what he finds to be an unacceptable mixing of church and state. He offers a glancing blow at President Bush's “faith-based initiatives,” (an issue that truly requires serious evaluation), but he centers his most direct criticism on the fact that “right-wing Christians” have been criticizing the federal court system.

How, exactly, should an individual's Christian convictions affect public service and public policy? Mr. Carter does not offer any substantial approach to deciding this matter. Furthermore, he admits: “Despite what I consider to be a constitutional and biblical requirement for the separation of church and state, I must acknowledge that my own religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political principles I have adopted.” Readers of Mr. Carter's new book must be forgiven for thinking that religious beliefs are fairly applied to public policy when the beliefs and policies are those favored by Mr. Carter, but not when the beliefs and policies are those favored by conservatives.

Tracing a series of moral controversies, Mr. Carter asserts that a majority of Americans believe that abortions should be legal “in all or most cases.” Of course, this is a serious misrepresentation of the data. One could just as easily argue that the vast majority of Americans reject abortion on demand. The polls are complicated and confusing, and the conclusions reached generally have everything to do with how the questions are asked. The former president also argues that Americans have grown increasingly accepting of same-sex behavior, but he offers few hints as to how he would settle the divisive issue of homosexuality. His one positive proposal is to deny homosexuals access to “marriage” while adopting civil unions as a matter of civil rights.

Mr. Carter also comes out swinging when it comes to the death penalty, noting that his years as governor of Georgia fell in the period between 1972 and 1976 when the Supreme Court had temporarily halted executions. “Some devout Christians are among the most fervent advocates of the death penalty, contradicting Jesus Christ and justifying their belief on an erroneous interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures,” he argues.

This is a fallacious argument. In the first place, Jesus Christ never condemned the death penalty. In forgiving the woman caught in adultery, Jesus offered no blanket prohibition against capital punishment. Furthermore, the biblical support for capital punishment is based on a multitude of passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The biblical interpretations Mr. Carter offers are facile, simplistic, and intellectually dishonest.

The former president raises one serious and legitimate concern about the death penalty -- the “extreme inequity in its employment” -- and he could have called for a responsible evangelical reevaluation of capital punishment in light of the biblical teaching and contemporary application. Nevertheless, his recklessness with the biblical text undermines his point.

This is all the more problematic when it comes to Mr. Carter's treatment of abortion. He describes this issue as “the most divisive” facing the nation. But, once again, Mr. Carter offers more confusion than clarity when it comes to his own understanding of abortion.

Just last week, THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported that President Carter had condemned America's abortion culture. “I have never felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think that each abortion is the result of a series of errors,” Mr. Carter told reporters in Washington. “I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.”

Mr. Carter has made this argument before. In his book LIVING FAITH, published in 1996, Mr. Carter stated: “I have never been able to believe that Jesus would have approved the taking of a human life, but the difficult question then remained: When does a fetus become a human being? My duty was to comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court, but I did everything possible to minimize the need for and attractiveness of abortions.”

In this new book, Mr. Carter offers a similar argument: “I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought on by a combination of human errors, and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I've had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the ROE V. WADE Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions-through legal restrictions, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, the encouragement of expectant women to give birth, and the promotion of foster parenthood.”

This position would be sufficiently problematic in itself, but it doesn't even represent an accurate analysis of Mr. Carter's own public positions on the issue.

As Peter G. Bourne, a former White House Special Assistant to President Carter, explains in his book JIMMY CARTER: “Early in his term as governor, Carter had strongly supported family planning programs including abortion. He had written the foreword to a book, WOMEN IN NEED, that favored a woman's right to abortion. He had given private encouragement to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, DOE V. BOLTON, filed against the state of Georgia to overturn its archaic abortion laws.” Beyond this, he hired Sarah Weddington, the lead attorney who argued for abortion in ROE V. WADE, as a White House staffer. Clearly, this calls into question Mr. Carter's assertion that he has ALWAYS opposed abortion. Further, if he opposes abortion now, what is he willing to do about it? His new book certainly offers no hope that he would now call for a reversal of ROE V. WADE.

Some of the most vitriolic language in OUR ENDANGERED VALUES concerns Mr. Carter's criticism of the Southern Baptist Convention and its leadership. Understandably, Mr. Carter blames conservative evangelicals in general -- and the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention in particular -- for his devastating loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. Indeed, the very evangelicals who had celebrated Mr. Carter's election in 1976 abandoned him in 1980 -- and for what they saw as compelling reasons.

Over the last several years, Mr. Carter has repeatedly declared his departure from the Southern Baptist Convention (a departure made all the more eccentric by the fact that individuals are not members of the Southern Baptist Convention in the first place) and he continues his criticism of the convention's leadership even now.

Most specifically, he condemns the Southern Baptist Convention for adopting a revised version of its confession of faith, arguing that the new version has substituted the authority of convention leaders for the authority of Christ. Clearly, here is a real debate that could have emerged out of his criticism. Nevertheless, Mr. Carter just misrepresents the convention's action.

I was a member of the committee that proposed the revision, and I would be glad to clarify for Mr. Carter what exactly the revisions represent. Nevertheless, Mr. Carter's chief complaint is that the confession of faith was “imposed as a mandatory creed on all convention officers, employees, deans and professors of colleges and seminaries, and even missionaries who were serving in foreign countries.” He insists that this was “unprecedented” as the convention sought to fulfill its responsibility to assure the churches of the doctrinal integrity of convention employees.

Of course, this action was anything but “unprecedented.” As a matter of fact, the convention had advised its agencies to establish personnel policies in accordance with the confession of faith as far back as 1969. If the moderate convention leaders Mr. Carter prefers had fulfilled the explicit directives of the convention, the conservative resurgence that Mr. Carter so laments would never have happened in the first place.

On the issue of women in the church, Mr. Carter has been a strong proponent of women as pastors. He dismisses the biblical concerns about this by admitting that, while the Apostle Paul clearly precluded this practice, this just indicates “his departure from Jesus' example and a strong bias against women.” He insists that he does not mean to claim that biblical texts are in error or contradictory, but that some texts can be understood as dealing only with “local circumstances within a troubled early church congregation.” Nevertheless, Paul's clearest instructions were not addressed to a specific congregation in conflict, but to Timothy on behalf of the whole church. “There is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women,” he asserts: “he treated them as equal to men.” This may sound like a self-evident truth, for Jesus did treat women with equal respect, equal concern, and equal standing before the gospel. Nevertheless, Jesus did not call a woman to serve as an apostle, nor as one of the Twelve. Equality is not contradicted by complementarity.

In an interesting comment, Mr. Carter recently offered a bit of self-analysis, observing: “I can't deny that I'm a better ex-president than I was a president.” Without doubt, President Carter and his wife Rosalynn have done much good. The work of The Carter Center in leading the fight against diseases such as Guinea Worm and Trachoma has been exemplary. I will let others debate the former president's post-term adventures in foreign policy, but I have no doubt that he means to do good and to do well. I also have no doubt that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man, and that he means to be a serious Christian.

Nevertheless, in this new book, Mr. Carter delivers a broadside attack on conservative Christians, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, and those who believe that abortion, homosexuality, secularism, and a host of other issues represent clear and present challenges to the witness of the church. He is surely right to argue that the Bible would broaden our range of concerns beyond these most controversial issues; but he is surely wrong to dismiss our responsibility to maintain a faithful biblical witness where controversy is inevitable.

Mr. Carter's moderately liberal theology (more liberal than moderate or more moderate than liberal, depending on his various statements) puts him at odds with the conservative direction of the Southern Baptist Convention and with the biblical convictions held by millions of American evangelicals. Mr. Carter has chosen to make this a public issue by writing and releasing this book. This was his decision.

OUR ENDANGERED VALUES is not a call for discussion or dialogue. It is not an exercise in seeking understanding. Instead, this book is a political and theological call to arms. Nevertheless, it does serve to illustrate the chasm that now grows ever larger between conservative Christians and those who would offer a more “moderate” understanding of the Christian faith. President Carter and those he opposes in this book agree on one thing -- our values ARE endangered. We just disagree about what those values are and how they are endangered. That's no small disagreement.

*

The science of happiness poses huge questions for politicians. Governments have succeeded in delivering greater and greater wealth but that has not translated into extra happiness. Now research is suggesting ways in which societies might try to maximise well-being - ideas which often challenge some of the basic principles of modern life.

Increasingly, politicians from all sides are taking notice of the findings and discussing how they might capture the elusive feel-good factor. Back in 1999, Tony Blair wrote about achieving “a better quality of life”, adding: “Money isn't everything. But in the past governments have seemed to forget this. Success has been measured by economic growth - GDP - alone. Delivering the best possible quality of life for us all means more than concentrating solely on economic growth. That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this Government's programme. All this depends on devising new ways of assessing how we are doing.”

The leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron told The Happiness Formula programme: “We should be thinking not just what is good for putting money in people's pockets but what is good for putting joy in people's hearts.

“When politicians are looking at issues they should be saying to themselves 'how are we going to try and make sure that we don't just make people better off but we make people happier, we make communities more stable, we make society more cohesive'.”

ECONOMICS

The idea that politics should be about creating “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” goes back to the end of the 18th century and the philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

However, no-one could work out how to measure happiness, or how to weigh one person's happiness against how other people feel.

So economics, which is built on objective measurement, took hold instead.

In the past few years figures close to government in Britain have been arguing once again that policies should take account of how happy - or unhappy - they make people.

In 2002, The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit held a “life satisfaction” seminar in Whitehall discussing the implications of a “happiness” policy.

A few month's later, Downing Street published an “analytical paper” which considered how happiness might affect different policies including:

A happiness index Teaching people about happiness More support for volunteering “A more leisured work-life balance” Higher taxes for the rich

The authors were careful to say that the ideas were not government policy, but Tony Blair's policy adviser who helped write the paper, David Halpern, told The Happiness Formula it is inevitable that in future governments will be judged on their success in making people happy.

“Put it this way, if government doesn't measure it, other people will and already are.”

Already one government department has defined its purpose as improving people's “health and happiness”.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on a happiness index.

Furthermore, every local authority in England and Wales has wide-ranging powers to promote well-being.

The Happiness Formula has been looking at how different politics would be if government tried to make people happy rather than just rich.

TAX MAKES YOU HAPPY

Research has suggested that one of the key reasons why wealth has not translated into happiness is that we tend to compare ourselves with people who are richer than we are.

As a result, even though we may be better off ourselves, we still do not get any happier.

If we want a happier society, so the theory goes, we need to reduce the gap between rich and poor.

And the way to do that is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the less well-off.

So some close to government are now arguing that, believe it or not, taxes make us happy.

“We tend to think of taxes as bad,” said the PM's adviser David Halpern.

“I know it's difficult for us to believe as we take out our chequebook at the end of the year, but it looks like, at least at a certain level, taxes are likely to increase the well-being of the population.”

The leading economist Professor Richard Layard of the LSE explains why: “We should try and discourage people from comparing themselves with other people ... and I think the tax system can help us in that way.”

Do not panic though - both Mr Halpern and Professor Layard reckon the current tax rates are about right for maximising happiness.

BANNING ADVERTISING

The science of happiness suggests advertising is a major cause of unhappiness because it makes people feel less well-off.

According to Professor Layard some advertising should be banned.

“I don't see that we need to allow pictorial advertising which conveys very little information because it makes people feel poorer.”

In the remote Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, where government makes policy on the basis of Gross National Happiness, most street advertising is banned - particularly when aimed at children.

In the UK, the National Consumer Council is campaigning to ban advertising to children below the age of 10.

“We already regulate alcohol to children, we should also regulate and I think ban advertising of junk food to children,” said Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of the NCC.

“There is no case, in terms of health or wellbeing of children for advertising like this.”

In fact, says Mr Mayo, the council's own research suggests advertising to children can make them more unhappy.

“Children that are more brand aware, are more consumerist, came across as less satisfied in other parts of their lives - were unhappier”.

COMMUTING LESS

According to scientists commuting is really bad news for happiness.

Not only is the journey to and from work often a pretty miserable experience in itself, it has knock-on effects which limit the happiness of the rest of our lives.

It appears that our happiness is closely linked to what researchers call our “social capital” - the sum of all our connections and trust in other people, our personal family ties, our friends, and our acquaintances.

Professor Robert Putnam of Harvard University has calculated that every 10 minutes of commuting cuts all forms of social involvement by 10% - so 10% fewer family dinners, local club meetings, and other involvement.

Once politicians encouraged us to “get on our bikes” and look for work.

But the science of happiness suggests we might be better off staying close to our families and friends.

There are implications for whether government should support communities where traditional industries have failed.

Questions, too, for business and individuals as to whether they should move to new areas.

It is arguable that planners and politicians should try to discourage people from living far from where they work.

ENCOURAGE MARRIAGE

The science of happiness suggests marriage is so good for your well-being that it adds an average seven years to the life of a man and something like four for a woman.

To maximise happiness, it is argued, government should certainly do nothing to discourage marriage; arguably it should promote it.

However, in Britain, any financial incentives to get married have been taken away.

Politicians seem reluctant to make moral judgments about domestic relationships.

“The married tend to be happier,” said Mr Halpern.

“In my view, it's not so much necessarily for government to say you therefore should be married, but it's perfectly reasonable [for the government] to say ... if you do these you'll probably be happy, if you do these you'll probably be miserable, you decide.”

RETHINKING THE HEALTH SERVICE

Research also suggests there is a powerful link between happiness and health.

It is suggested that making people happy could do more for the health of the nation than all the exercise, diet and anti-smoking campaigns rolled into one.

And that argues for a big re-think in the priorities of the NHS.

Policies aimed at making people happier - or at least less unhappy - should be encouraged in an effort to prevent people becoming ill in the first place.

One idea is to massively increase access to a relatively new form of psychotherapy called CBT or cognitive behavioural therapy, which aims to help people avoid dwelling on negative thoughts and find ways to overcome them.

Lord Layard, author of Happiness: lessons from a new science, believes the science is so conclusive the government should immediately employ another 10,000 therapists.

“We're talking about for a course of CBT a thousand, £1500 with something that can change somebody's life.

“It really is important that we should try and have a major nationally organised training programme for more therapists.”

MAKING PEOPLE HAPPY

But just how far should a government go?

In Bhutan they have banned a whole series of TV channels such as wrestling and MTV. The country has even banned plastic bags.

One reason Bhutan has been able to take such dramatic steps is that it is run by an absolute monarchy.

In the West, if politicians, acting in the name of happiness, were to impose bans and restrictions on people's freedom, governments would be more likely to encounter resistance.

Some argue that the logic of happiness research would be the ultimate in nanny states - an argument the Prime Minister's strategy adviser is keen to contradict.

“I'm sure lots of ministers would be nervous about that.

“But it turns out that some of the key determinates of what make us happy, are things over which we as individuals have relatively little control about prevalent levels of community safety, they're safe when they go out.

“How do other people in general behave, about the way in which our whole economy may be locked into a given path.

“These are things that as individuals we can't determine, but we can determine as a society together, and that basically means government is in the game.”

The Moore household has a new prayer-partner, and her name is Nancy Pelosi. [substitute the name of any politician you disagree with]

I suppose “partner” isn’t the right word since the soon-to-be-speaker of the United States House of Representatives doesn’t know anything about our kitchen-table intercession. Nonetheless, my young boys will soon learn how to pronounce the words “Speaker Pelosi” as they ask God’s blessings for her.

It’s not that I’m a Pelosi supporter. Indeed, while the California congresswoman and I would probably agree at several points, I find her position on the most defining issue of the day –- the abortion of unborn babies –- to be not just wrong-headed but profoundly evil.

Nonetheless, my wife and boys and I will be praying for her. And I hope a wave of Southern Baptist churches and families will join us.

It is easy for Christians to pray for political figures who court our votes. There are several organizations out there devoted to encouraging believers to pray for President Bush. Our offertory prayers often ask God’s blessings on President Bush as he leads our country. And this is right. We are commanded to pray for President Bush. But our responsibility doesn’t end there.

The news networks tell us that the new majority in the United States House and Senate is the result of a “wave” of Democratic Party voters. From a human and historical vantage point, that’s true. But as those who believe in the providence of God, it is also true that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). For whatever reason, on Election Day God decided that Nancy Pelosi will be sitting behind President Bush at next year’s State of the Union address. And God decided that outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert would not be seated there.

As the Apostle Paul urges us to obey the “governing authorities,” we must keep in mind that he is not speaking of the religious right of the Roman Empire. He is speaking of a bloodthirsty and pagan Caesar, a government that was directly responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Caesar never sought the evangelical vote -– or any other vote, for that matter.

It is not simply, though, that we as Christians are to obey our governmental leaders as long as they exercise legitimate authority (boundaries the Spirit sets forth in Romans 13 and elsewhere in the Scripture). We are also commanded to pray for these leaders. Paul writes to Timothy, “First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and for all those who are in authority” (1 Timothy 2:1-2a). Again, this is in the context of a pagan and ungodly first-century Roman Empire. Paul singles out kings and governing officials for prayer and he tells us why he does so: “So that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:2b). The “we” there is, of course, the church of Jesus Christ. We pray for our leaders precisely so that the church’s mission may be unimpeded by Caesar’s whims.

This has everything to do with the Great Commission. Immediately after instructing Timothy to pray in this way, Paul writes: “This is good, and it pleases God our Savior who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4). The church survives -– and people are saved -– even under governmental persecution. But we should not seek such persecution. We should pray for a government that allows the church to be the church, so that the church can call the lost to be saved.

This doesn’t mean that we don’t criticize our governing authorities. John the Baptist didn’t hesitate to do so, and lost his head in the process. Jesus sarcastically derided King Herod as “that fox” in a public forum (Luke 13:32).

It also doesn’t mean that we acquiesce to their demands. God gives Caesar the power of the sword and, in a representative democracy, we are Caesar. We’ll give an account for the kind of government we put in power, and for the kind of culture we allow to inform that government. I plan to denounce Speaker Pelosi’s abortion-rights ideology.

But at the same time, I am going to respect her as one who wields a power given to her by my God, and teach my children to do the same. I am going to love her and pray that God grants her health, happiness and wisdom to govern. I am going to pray that she will seek the punishment of evildoers and mercy for the poor and the vulnerable –- including the unborn babies upon whose corpses she, sadly, has built a career. I’m going to pray that Speaker Pelosi’s admirable love for the weakest among us will one day extend to the most vulnerable of all.

It isn’t easy to love and pray for someone who stands at odds with your worldview. But it pleases the God who wants all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So tonight the Moore boys, with their Mom and Dad, will pray for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. And then they’ll be introduced to the name of Mrs. Pelosi, our new prayer partner.

________

Russell D. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Adapted from a column first posted at www.henryinstitute.org.

Leo “Skip” Childs is the kind of person you'd want as your next-door neighbor. Skip puts in many hours every month volunteering as a firefighter in North Truro, Massachusetts. His wife, Marjorie, supports the rescue squad with hot coffee and homemade cakes.

But then, as columnist Maggie Gallagher relates, Skip signed a petition supporting traditional marriage. He was labeled a bigot, and thrown off the Board of Fire Engineers.

What happened to Skip is a frightening example of what can happen when we lose the right to keep our political views private.

Americans cherish our right to political privacy. In particular, we value our right to a secret ballot when we're voting — a right we have had since 1892. Until then, citizens had to publicly announce who they were voting for. The secret ballot meant the end of intimidation by those who didn't like the way others voted.

Today those old intimidation tactics have come roaring back. A group called “Know Thy Neighbor” is gathering the names of those who sign petitions in support of traditional marriage amendments and posting them online.

Know They Neighbor claims it only wants to engage opponents in friendly dialogue. But citizens who signed the petitions don't see it that way.

Florida nurse Lisa Owens told the BOSTON GLOBE that she was “furious” when she found out her name and address had been posted online. “If somebody wanted to do a hate crime, my address was right there,” she said. “I felt like my privacy had been invaded.” Other petition signers say they feel intimidated, as well.

Well, that's the idea. Know Thy Neighbor leader Gary DeBusk revealed the group's true agenda when he told the GLOBE: “We're trying to say you cannot just take away people's rights without being held accountable for that.”

Held accountable? For your political views? For expressing them in public? That's the kind of thing that happens in Communist countries — not democracies.

This isn't the only way Americans are losing their political privacy. At one website, you can find out which politicians your neighbors gave money to. Now, obviously, candidates need to keep track of their donations to prevent corruption. But does every $10 donation really need to be posted online for all the world to see?

Christians of all people understand the temptations that come with power: we're all vulnerable. For instance, if you knew your grocer had signed a petition in favor of something you opposed, would you be tempted to shop elsewhere? How long would it be before companies routinely checked someone's political views online before offering him a job?

It wouldn't be long before we'd all be afraid to get involved in politics at all. After all, who would write checks or sign petitions if they might lose their job over it — as Skip Childs did?

We need to contact our state lawmakers and demand that steps be taken to protect people from this kind of intimidation. Disclosure is a good thing in a free society, but protections need to be built-in. Americans are entitled to express their views and not be punished for the way they vote or what they believe.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Election Day 2006 is over, the votes have been counted, and it’s clear that conservatives took a beating. I have always maintained that Christian leaders should not make partisan endorsements — and I never have. But I am unashamed to say that I am a conservative.

In one sense, I think, all Bible-believers are conservative, because we believe in governing our lives by revealed truth rather than by man-made, utopian ideologies. Modern liberalism wants to remove all restraints on people’s behavior. Conservatives believe in the moral law. So Bible-believers might be liberal on a lot of issues, at least in the common sense of that word, like helping the poor, but they would be fundamentally conservative in their disposition toward life.

So, what happened in this election? The economy is strong. And it’s true we’re in an unpopular war, but people vote their pocketbooks most often. Yet the conservative movement, which had been gaining ground, has blown it. It has been defeated. Why?

The answer is one that may startle you. Conservatives lost because they deserved to. They failed to live up to the high standards of personal behavior they preach about. And that’s what brought them down.

Is there a double standard here? Why should the case of Mark Foley have helped bring down the Republicans? After all, twenty years ago a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, had an affair with a male page, disclosed that he was a homosexual, got his wrist slapped by the House, and then got re-elected! Why has Foley’s indiscretion turned into Foley-gate?

The answer is because it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Look at how the conservatives for years railed against the Democratic liberal establishment and all of its money, the lobbying establishment, the junkets, the payoffs. The conservatives campaigned against it in 1994, only to take over Washington and do exactly the same thing. This is what is known as rank hypocrisy.

Is it unfair that when conservatives do things liberals do, that they, the conservatives, are labeled as hypocrites? No.

According to that great conservative thinker Russell Kirk, the first tenet of conservatism is the preservation of the moral order. True conservatives don’t look at government as a plaything by which they can impose their latest ideas on the country; they look at political power as a guardianship, what Chesterton called the democracy of the dead. In other words, we have a debt to those who have gone before us, and the primary debt is to preserve the moral and constitutional order that our forebears fought to defend.

So when a conservative has a much-publicized affair or is outed for improper sexual behavior with pages, or digs into the congressional budget pot to hand out earmarks to his own district, he is a hypocrite to be scorned.

My hope and prayer is that conservatives in America will do some serious, sober soul-searching. We need to get our own act together before we can preach to others, or before we deserve to hold power. And if we break trust, we are breaking trust with the very essence of who we are. Our own character is at stake.

You can talk all you want about the unpopularity of President Bush, or the Iraq war, or immigration. But what this campaign really boiled down to was, well, when it comes to conservatives, it’s character, stupid. If conservatives don’t learn that lesson, they will spend a long time in exile — and deservedly so.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

In recent months, an epidemic of anti-Christian books has erupted, viciously attacking the faithful as “theocrats” and “fascists.” Conservative Christians are called evangelical mullahs, intent on replacing the government with our own “religion-soaked political regimes,” as one overheated author put it.

Good gracious! Is America really about to fall into the hands of a diabolical Christian Taliban?

Of course not. It’s a false and malicious charge, and our critics know it. I know of not one Christian leader, theologian, or scholar who wants to impose a theocracy — that is, the church running the state — because the notion is entirely contrary to Christian faith.

At the heart of Christianity is the concept of free will. We can choose good and evil. Freedom is a God-given right. This is why right-thinking Christians oppose a system of government that would force citizens to accept faith in Christ, or any religion, as a condition of citizenship. And it’s why — secular hysterics not with-standing — there are no Christian theocracies anywhere in the world today. There are plenty of Islamic theocracies, but not one Christian theocracy.

This is not to say that over the centuries, Christians haven’t tried to impose their values at times, which in the Middle Ages produced bloody crusades and inquisitions.

And we see some of this utopian thinking today, on the fringes. It crops up in contemporary Christian circles from left-leaning Catholics, to mainline leaders, to evangelicals. Some want to impose actual religious values by force of law. They are called reconstuctionists, or Dominionists, and they are wrong, both theologically and politically.

Of course, reconstuctionists, who espouse the idea of building a literal Christian society as opposed to working within the system to try to change politics, represent a small fringe group which is, as Ross Douquet notes in FIRST THINGS, about as politically influential as the Spartacist Youth League.

Even if Christians advocating dominion gained power, they would be doomed to failure. As Martin Luther once wrote, “It is out of the question that there should be a Christian government even over one land ... since the wicked always outnumber the good. Hence a man who would venture to govern ... with the gospel would be like a shepherd who should place in one fold wolves, lions, eagles and sheep together and let them freely mingle.”

But while the Church must avoid utopianism and diversion from its transcendent mission, it is not to ignore the political scene. To the contrary, Christians have a duty to advance the cause of justice and human good within the democratic system, as William Wilberforce did in his battle to eliminate the British slave trade.

America has drifted far from the vision of its founders. But our form of government, with its unique church-state relationship that respects the roles of each, continues to offer the world’s most hopeful model in an otherwise contentious history of conflict.

This is why Christians need to defend against the ludicrous charges of theocracy.

Where did the phrase “Jump On The Bandwagon” come from?

Literally, a bandwagon is a wagon that carries the band in a parade, circus or other entertainment. The phrase ‘jump on the bandwagon’ was first used in American Politics in 1848 as a result of Dan Rice, President Lincoln’s Court Jester. Campaigning for Zachary Taylor, Dan Rice, a professional circus clown, used his bandwagon for Taylor’s appearances, gaining attention by way of the music. As Taylor’s campaign became more successful, more politicians strove for a seat on the bandwagon, hoping to be associated with the success. Later, during the time of William Jennings Bryan’s 1900 presidential campaign, bandwagons had become a standard fixture of campaigns, and ‘jump on the bandwagon’ was used as a derogatory term, implying that people were associating themselves with the success without considering what they associated themselves with.

Hoping to head off what they call “intimidation tactics” by liberal interest groups, several leading Christian organizations have jointly issued a letter to pastors across America, explaining what churches can and cannot legally do during an election season.

The eight-page letter is being released more than a year before Americans vote on a new president, with the goal of answering questions that always arise concerning the church’s role in politics.

Posted online at www.telladf.org, the letter was signed by two legal organizations -- the Alliance Defense Fund and the James Madison Center for Free Speech -- as well as Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.

Nearly every presidential election season includes news stories about left-wing interest groups urging the government to revoke various churches’ tax-exempt status.

“The Jeffersonian ‘wall of separation’ doctrine has been twisted in an attempt to silence people of faith not only in the public square, but also in their churches,” the letter says. “This attitude is an unofficial but outspoken bias against people of faith.”

The letter is titled, “Constitutional Protections for Pastors: Your freedom to speak Biblical truth on the moral issues of the day.” Although the IRS prohibits churches from endorsing or opposing candidates, there is plenty churches can do legally, the letter says.

“By this letter, we assure you that churches and pastors have broad constitutional rights to express their views on a broad array of social issues such as marriage, abortion, and homosexual behavior,” the letter says. “Furthermore, other activities such as allowing parishioners to sign petitions in support of traditional marriage are almost undoubtedly permissible under federal tax law.”

For instances, under federal law pastors and churches can, according to the letter:

• Discuss political candidates’ views on issues.

“Pastors and churches are free to discuss the positions of candidates on issues -- including criticizing or praising them for their positions. This is called issue advocacy,” the letter says.

The letter discourages pastors from endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit, which the IRS has said is not allowed.

“The endorsement of a candidate includes any statement which uses explicit words to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, such as ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘defeat,’ or ‘oppose.’”

• Hold voter registration drives.

“A church may participate in non-partisan voter registration, voter identification and get-out-the-vote activities,” the letter says. “To be non-partisan, these activities may not be directed at the supporters of any particular candidate or political party.... Furthermore, such activities will not be viewed as non-partisan if they are accompanied by literature praising or criticizing particular candidates or political parties for their positions on issues.”

• Pass out so-called voter guides, showing where candidates stand on issues.

“Voter guides should not include an endorsement of a candidate or expressly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate,” the letter says. “Further, voter guides should not include advocacy of voting for candidates who support particular issues, i.e., single issue voting. Churches may also distribute voter guides prepared by other organizations that meet these guidelines.”

The guides should cover a wide variety of topics and should not indicate a bias, the letter says.

• Lobby for legislation.

“[A] church may discuss legislative issues, support or oppose legislation, encourage its members or the general public to support or oppose legislation and support other organizations with their lobbying efforts,” the letter says. “Furthermore, churches may lobby candidates on their positions on issues and distribute educational material to candidates or at political events, as long as this is being done to get out the organization’s message and not to assist any candidate.”

Churches may spend an “insubstantial amount” on lobbying, generally defined as no more than 5 to 15 percent of a church’s funds, the letter says.

Pastors have the legal right to do more than churches can do, as long as the pastor makes it clear his opinions are his, and not the church’s, the letter says.

“Individuals, such as pastors or priests, may participate in political campaigns, as long as they do so as individuals, and not in the name of the church. Any individual, including a pastor, may wear different hats at different times and, therefore, be involved in political activity, as long as they are wearing the right hat at the right time and place.

“...Individual pastors can endorse political candidates so long as the endorsement is not on behalf of the Church and it is not made in a way that gives the appearance that the endorsement is made in the capacity of pastor or priest.”

Pastors with specific questions can obtain free legal advice by calling the Alliance Defense Fund at 800-TELL-ADF or the James Madison Center at 812-232-2434. The letter, which includes a list of 19 do’s and don’ts, is available online at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/PastorsGuidelinesLetter.pdf

Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once commented:

"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's capacity for injustice make democracy necessary."

Erik Stanley says the power to tax enables the government to destroy the free exercise of religion. Barry Lynn says that it isn’t unreasonable for organizations that pay no taxes to accept some federal oversight.

Debate: WHY SHOULD CHURCHES BE TAX EXEMPT IN THE FIRST PLACE? WOULDN’T IT BE A BETTER APPROACH TO DENY THE TAX EXEMPTION TO ALL CHURCHES?

HANDS OFF OUR CHURCHES, IRS

Point: Erik Stanley

There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel’s nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that’s not just my opinion; it’s the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

Barry, as someone who claims to be devoted to the separation of church and state, surely you can agree that exempting churches from taxes is a better way to separate state and church than taxing them. I agree with the Supreme Court that an exemption for churches from taxes tends to reinforce a very healthy separation between church and state.

That’s why your opposition to the Pulpit Initiative doesn’t square with your approach to church-state relations. Let’s look at the facts: The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service’s increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish. Barry, I know you’ve seen this because you report a lot of churches to the IRS for alleged violations, but the IRS only acts on a minuscule portion of your complaints. What standard does it use? Who knows why it chooses to go after some churches and not others? When does a pastor’s sermon somehow cross the line?

Conditioning tax exemption for churches on refraining from speaking about certain things is just as dangerous as taxing churches outright. Those conditions break down the healthy “wall of separation between state and church” articulated by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The conditions allow the state, through its discretion and power, to punish disfavored views and to reward favored ones. The free exercise of religion cannot survive in such conditions. The camel has had its nose under the flaps of the church tent for far too long. It’s time to push him outside, where he belongs.

________

Erik Stanley is senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.

TAX EXEMPTION IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT

Counterpoint: Barry W. Lynn

Erik, here is a very current (I just dreamed it up) Barry Lynn proverb: “Sometimes when a camel sticks his nose in the tent, the camel smells unpleasant things.” Your answer to today’s question is breathtaking in two ways. First, it really suggests that our tax authorities must look away any time a religious institution asserts that what it is doing is based on its spiritual understanding. Second, you seem to believe that the Constitution somehow mandates that all religious institutions be tax exempt, even though the Constitution says no such thing.

When any group accepts a tax exemption, it agrees to play by certain rules and accept a certain degree of oversight. Federal law actually makes it more difficult for the IRS to audit churches than other charities. In addition to this modest “no electioneering” rule, for example, tax-exempt groups cannot collect money for a “charitable” purpose and then use it all for the personal benefit of the director and her family (or the pastor and his family). Do you seriously believe that the IRS and possibly even criminal investigative bodies have no right to try to scrutinize possible misbehavior?

Second, government at the local, state and federal level made a decision early in our history to grant tax exemptions to churches and other bodies. The Constitution does not mandate it; and indeed, even the decision you cite -- the Walz case -- doesn’t say that tax exemptions are required by the 1st Amendment. In general, governments believed that churches along with other types of community groups enhanced and supplemented government services such as feeding the hungry, housing those in need of shelter and in general using private funds for public good. (Although this is a debate for another time, I note that more and more religious groups are now asking for a government bailout through the “faith-based initiative” and to keep their tax exemptions.)

I do concur with you, Erik, that the power to tax does have the potential power to destroy. However, I see no evidence that restricting the ability of a pastor to convert his church into a political action committee is intended to cause, or has caused, the destruction of religious enterprises. Although your effort this coming Sunday to have pastors flout the law against electioneering seems focused on pulpit rhetoric [pastors made a decision to endorse political candidates from the pulpit], why not have a few of them say, “And we are taking up a second collection today for the McCain-Palin ticket”? After all, the Supreme Court has frequently equated “speech” with “money” in rulings on campaign financing.

One of the principal jobs of the law is to draw lines about what is and isn’t permissible. In my judgment, the IRS has gotten this piece of its work correct almost all of the time. More cases and guidelines help inform church leaders about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to exercising the privilege of a tax exemption. If a pastor wants to know whether something he or she is about to do will violate the prohibition against aid “in support of or in opposition to a candidate,” the best start is to ask this question: Am I doing or saying this to help elect or defeat my favored candidate? If the answer is yes, then don’t do it.

________

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a longtime civil liberties attorney.

I’ve been surprised by the number of Christians who have given up on politics this year. “I don’t like either candidate, so I’m staying home,” I’ve heard all too often.

Okay, I get fed up with the vain posturing and empty promises of politicians as well. But, as I note in this month’s Christianity Today, voting is never an option — it’s both our civic duty and sacred duty. Voting is required of us as good citizens and as God’s agents for appointing leaders.

So how do we go about choosing the best candidate? Not by pulling a partisan lever — that’s knee-jerk ideology. Christians live by revealed truth, never captive to any party. The best place to go for wisdom is not the candidates’ websites, but the Bible.

Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, for example, advised Moses to appoint as rulers “able men” who “fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe.” The standard is competence and integrity.

Later, God ordered Samuel to pick Saul, who “shall save my people from the hand of the Philistines.” This passage reminds us of Paul’s teaching in Romans: Government’s role is to wield the sword to preserve order and restrain evil.

Today, God no longer chooses our leaders directly (although some of us wish He did, if only to avoid the two-year-long political campaigns). But we live in a democracy, so God entrusts us with the job of choosing leaders He will then anoint. Instead of a prophet, we are to commission leaders of competence, virtue, and character. That’s why not voting, or rejecting candidates because they’re not perfect on some biblical score sheet, is a dereliction of our trust.

Ultimately, in casting a vote, our judgment should be guided by what we perceive to be the common good. Our Founders understood this, which is why they used the term commonweal, or commonwealth for the state. But today’s politicians pander to special interests, as we saw this year with $18 billion in earmarks, paying off the special pleaders.

But God has a deep and abiding interest in all people being treated fairly. If God favors any “special interest,” it is the poor, the hungry, the prisoner — those with the least access to political power.

In THE CITY OF GOD, Augustine introduced us to the idea that we live in both the “City of God” and the “City of Man.” He reiterated Jesus’ teaching that while Christians live in the City of Man, we do not belong to it. We are like sojourners in a foreign country; our true home is in the City of God.

But Augustine also taught that we must assume the obligations of citizenship. Instead of doing our civic duty out of compulsion, the Christian does it gladly, out of obedience to God and love of neighbor.

Some of us are going to be jubilant over the outcome of the election, others bitterly disappointed. But remember, regardless of who wins, the City of God endures.

So on Election Day we should be the best of citizens, voting for the candidate best for all the people. And then, the next day, after indulging in your celebration (or pity party), get busy working to advance God’s Kingdom in this earthly society.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

On the second Tuesday of November, I plan to step up to the electronic ballot table in my voting precinct and cast my vote for president of the United States.

I will do so prayerfully. I will do so carefully. I will do so gladly. I may do so sadly. But, Lord willing, I will do so. This has been my pattern during the years of my adult life and I see no reason to change.

Unlike billions of people on this globe who long to have freedom of expression and opportunity to influence government -- and billions more who lived across the millennia -- I am privileged to live in the land of the free. For now.

Most of us who will vote on Nov. 8 did not choose to live in America; our citizenship is a right of birth. We have a God-given and constitutionally-granted opportunity to help shape the destiny of our nation by selecting its top official, as well as numerous other elected leaders who will also be on the ballot. In some election cycles, I’ve been on the winning side. In others, I’ve been on the losing side. But whether winning or losing, I have sought to make my voice heard.

No one is more keenly aware than I of the dire straits in which we find ourselves in the 21st century, 2000 years since the death, burial and resurrection of our wonderful Savior and Lord.

Gone are the days when our leaders governed by Judeo-Christian principles shaped by a biblical worldview. Gone is the time when we had a cultural consensus on matters of good and evil, of right and wrong, of moral and immoral. Gone are the days when elected officials at every level of government truly believed that one day we will all stand before the Great Lawgiver and be judged by the Book ... or by the books (Revelation 20:12–15).

I find it interesting that one of the mightiest periods of miracles in Scripture occurred during one of the darkest times in Israel’s history. The kingdom was divided. The northern kingdom of Israel had followed the leadership of its first king, Jeroboam I, into consistent idolatry. Its gods were two golden calves. Its shrines were at Bethel and in Dan. Its priesthood was composed of the basest of people. The darkness only intensified when Ahab became king and brought his wicked queen to the capital city of Samaria.

1 Kings 16 contains an amazing passage: “Then as if following the sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat were a trivial matter, [Ahab] married Jezebel ... and proceeded to serve Baal and worship him. He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he had built in Samaria. Ahab also made an Asherah pole. Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (vv. 31–33).

In this dark setting, the LORD still had a people. Obadiah hid 100 prophets of the LORD, providing shelter and provisions when Jezebel was slaughtering the LORD’s prophets (1 Kings 18). The LORD revealed to Elijah that He had a remnant of 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19). And, of course, there were thousands who proclaimed “The LORD, He is God” atop Mount Carmel when the LORD answered by fire (1 Kings 19).

Here is an intriguing fact. It was in this setting that the LORD instructed Elijah to anoint two kings and a prophet -- Hazael as future king of Aram, Jehu as future king of Israel and Elisha as Elijah’s successor. Though the anointings were to take place immediately, ascension to the throne for the two kings did not unfold for many years. And, when it happened, Elijah was long gone.

Elisha wept as he prophesied of all the evil Hazael would do to the people of God (2 Kings 8:11–12) when he became the Aramean king. Though Jehu became God’s instrument to execute the judgment of God upon Jezebel, the descendants of Ahab and the worshippers of Baal, he did not turn away from the idolatrous sins of his predecessor, Jeroboam I (2 Kings 10:28–31).

We hear a lot in the current election cycle about what a Christ-follower should do as the sprint to the White House begins. Some say a true follower of Jesus shouldn’t vote. Others advocate for a “lesser of two evils” approach. Still others hope a viable third party candidate will suddenly emerge. And, as always, some are already ardently committed to their party of choice, irrespective of who the nominee will be.

I suggest another option -- let’s approach the election with the “greater good” in mind. Why not ask the LORD to guide you to cast your ballot for the greater good for the nation? For the greater good for our Christian liberties. For the greater good for our children and their children and their children’s children. But, most importantly, for the greater good for God’s will and purposes for our nation and for us as His people.

Why would Elijah anoint wicked Hazael as king of Aram, who would later afflict God’s own people? Because God directed him to. Why would Elijah anoint Jehu, who would carry spiritual reform so far and no farther? Because God directed him to.

Regardless of who sat on the throne then -- or who sits in the seat of power now -- God is still in control. His will and purposes will not be thwarted by mere mortals.

God has blessed us to live in this golden age of democratic governance. The franchise is more than a mere right. It is a responsibility. It is a stewardship of trust, a stewardship that billions of earth’s inhabitants would love to have.

Do I as a Christ-follower have a right not to vote? Each of us must do what we feel led by God’s Spirit to do. But, we are neither unspiritual nor unscriptural if we choose to cast our ballot, bathed in prayer, and exercised with the earnest desire that God’s ultimate and unfailing purposes be fulfilled, whether for redemption of our sin-sickened society or for the rightful judgment of a nation that forgets God.

At the end of the day, we confess with those gone before that we are merely strangers and pilgrims on the earth, for our citizenship is in heaven. Our hope rests not in political parties, powerful personalities or prestigious positions. Our hope is in God.

As we approach the ballot box in our individual voting precincts this November, let each of us render unto God the loyal obedience He is due. But let us also render unto Caesar the elective influence God has graciously granted to us at this strategic juncture in history.

________

Frank S. Page is president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee.

Your view of politics -- or, more specifically, the role of Christians and Christianity in politics -- is probably wrong (at least at times).

Don’t be offended; my views over the years also have been wrong -- and I must continually resist being seduced by some wrong thinking about this matter.

Some readers got no further than the headline of this editorial, deciding the subject matter is of little to no interest, illustrating at least one wrong view of politics. Others aren’t reading these words because they firmly believe Christians’ involvement in politics is not only unnecessary, but also actually harmful to a godly life -- yet another incorrect way for Christians to assess politics.

Those faulty views and others could play a significant role this election year. With the general election just under three weeks away, this is no time for Christians to hold and propagate misunderstandings about politics and government.

A sure guide to understanding this matter is theologian Wayne Grudem and his book, “Politics According to the Bible” (Zondervan, 2010). Before explaining the biblical demands of Christian citizenship, Grudem outlines “Five Wrong Views About Christians and Government.” They are:

• Government should compel religion. This view is easy to set aside in modern-day America, since, as Grudem notes, there are no responsible Christian voices today arguing for this perspective. Still, it’s a position with which Christians should be familiar since it is the predominate view among some in the world, especially in Islamic nations.

Grudem notes several biblical teachings that demonstrate this view is incorrect. In Matthew 22:20-21, Jesus answers the Pharisees who attempted to entrap Him concerning the matter of taxes. “In Jesus’ statement about God and Caesar, He established the broad outlines of a new order in which ‘things that are God’s’ are not to be under the control of civil government (or ‘Caesar’),” Grudem argues.

• Government should exclude religion. This is the view promoted by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, among others. Grudem notes many public policy consequences of this view, including attempts to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, banning prayers at public events, and prohibiting students from religious activity in schools. Additionally, these advocates argue laws against abortion, for example, are unconstitutional because they would codify religious dogma in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

“These arguments ... make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law,” Grudem writes. That Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign against racial discrimination was based on his biblical views did not make the laws that resulted from his campaign constitutionally suspect, Grudem cites as one example.

Grudem also notes this false view would invalidate the religious reasoning that is evident in America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which cites God twice in its first two sentences, and it would remove religious influence from public life. “Therefore, the ultimate goal of this viewpoint is not only the destruction of all belief in God, but also the complete moral disintegration of a society,” Grudem writes.

• All government is evil and demonic. This view, along with the next one, seems to be growing. Grudem reviews and critiques the arguments of Minnesota pastor Greg Boyd in Boyd’s book, “The Myth of a Christian Nation,” which has been influential among some younger pastors. Grudem summarizes Boyd’s argument that the realm of government is Satan’s and the use of governmental power is worldly, contrary to the way of life taught by Jesus.

Boyd primarily relies upon Satan’s claim during his temptation of Jesus that all authority “has been delivered to me” (Luke 4:6). Grudem answers, “Do we believe Satan’s words that he has the authority of all earthly kingdoms, or do we believe Jesus’ words that Satan is a liar and the father of lies?” He goes on to cite a number of passages (Daniel 4:17; Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14) that teach government is part of God’s design.

Boyd’s “government is evil” perspective causes him to embrace absolute pacifism. “Boyd has wrongly taken one of the ways that God restrains evil in this world (changing hearts through the Gospel of Christ) and decided that it is the only way that God restrains evil (thus neglecting the valuable role of civil government). Both means are from God, both are good, and both should be used by Christians,” Grudem writes.

• Do evangelism, not politics. I believe this is the most widely held incorrect view of Christianity and politics, and it can be related to the previous view. Since there is little to no redeeming value of Christian involvement in government, Christians should only invest efforts in evangelism as the surest means of changing society. At first, this view may seem correct -- even spiritually superior. It’s not.

Grudem argues that this perspective comes from “too narrow an understanding of ‘the Gospel’ and the kingdom of God.... ‘The Gospel’ in the New Testament is not just ‘trust Jesus and be forgiven of your sins and grow in holiness and go to heaven’ (though that is certainly true, and that is the heart of the Gospel and its foundational message.) No, the Gospel is God’s good news about all of life!” citing Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20).

Just as no one would question that churches have a duty to teach their people about God’s will for their families, businesses and educating their children, Grudem says it is also the responsibility of pastors to teach about God’s expectations for government, noting that some Christians are even called by God to influence government.

“When did people in the United States stop owning slaves? It was not when the Gospel had been preached throughout the South, but after the U.S. government made it illegal through the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. That happened when many Christian abolitionists influenced the government of the United States to change its laws,” Grudem writes.

Grudem cites a lengthy list of historical examples of Christian influence on government resulting in the protection of human life and improved human conditions. “If the Christian church had adopted the ‘do evangelism, not politics’ view throughout its history, it would never have brought about these immeasurably valuable changes among the nations of the world,” Grudem writes.

• Do politics, not evangelism. Although some critics of the Religious Right insist that this is its implicit agenda, virtually no responsible evangelical leader believes that politics is the ultimate answer to the problem of humanity. The incorrect view that Christians should concentrate on politics to the exclusion of evangelism is actually the perspective of the liberal “Social Gospel” movement, Grudem notes.

Grudem rightly cautions that those who argue for greater Christian involvement in politics and government: “If we (and I include myself here) ever begin to think that good laws alone will solve a nation’s problems or bring about a righteous and just society, we will have made a huge mistake.” Amen!

If the five incorrect views are to be rejected, what is the proper understanding of Christian involvement in politics and government? In answer, Grudem offers the “significant Christian influence on government” viewpoint.

Grudem says his alternative “is not compulsion (view 1), it is not silence (view 2), and it is not dropping out of the process (views 3 and 4), nor is it thinking the government can save people (view 5).”

Instead, “The ‘significant influence’ view says that Christians should seek to influence civil government according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible (when rightly understood). But while Christians exercise this influence, they must simultaneously insist on protecting freedom of religion for all citizens.” He also contends Christians engaging government should do so in a “winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, [and] persuasive” manner while not compromising the “truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word.”

It seems every four years it’s said the presidential election is the most important in our lifetime (or similar hyperbole). Although the 2012 election does seem to be very pivotal, I’ll leave it to others to evaluate such claims -- with the knowledge that God is sovereign whatever the result.

Still, Christians have a biblical duty to be properly informed about and engaged in our government, including the means by which we choose those who will lead us. Especially during an election year, pastors have an opportunity to help their members understand this duty and not be misled by wrong thinking on this vital matter.

As a Christian living in a very post-Christian San Francisco, I have found myself questioning the way the Christian community engages culture.

With the debate over gay marriage and other issues related to homosexuality, the cultural divide over abortion, the odd Christianization of war policy and gun control, and the fight for Christian symbols in school, government, media and marketing, it seems that many Christians tend to connect the collective moral fiber of our country to our laws, our politics or our media -- that Christian principles somehow give us a “Christian” identity as a country.

We clearly like to be in the majority and like culture to validate our faith and our moral decisions. We like to be popular. Yet nothing in the Bible points to a Christian majority or cultural acceptance of our beliefs.

Rather than sweeping majorities, popular influence and laws that line up with Scripture, we are promised to be odd, persecuted outcasts who leave all, die to all, endure all and serve all for the cause of Christ. We are not called to lead people to shiny churches designed to meet all their needs. Our calling is not to clean up society or legislate morality or overthrow government, or to tie tax and survivor benefits to the biblical truth of marriage. We are called simply to reach the world with the amazing love of Jesus Christ, to help reconcile a lost and disconnected world back into relationship with God through Christ.

Christianity’s rise to power and cultural influence caused us to fit comfortably into culture, rather than standing out from culture. We faced little opposition to our bold assertions of our belief system. In many parts of our country Christianity and church were entrees into business and society. As culture began to shift from Judeo-Christian values, we reacted and began to look less and less like Jesus. We asserted our rights instead of understanding that Christianity stripped us of rights. We demanded acceptance instead of graciously enduring rejection. Some of us, meanwhile, began to redefine our Christianity to create something more palatable for society.

We forgot that God is not concerned whether a country looks or acts Christian any more than He is concerned about whether a person looks or acts Christian. He is concerned about the hearts and souls of people.

The rise of cultural Christianity created many Christian lives that were just like secular lives, but with added rules and a “get out of hell free” card. There is a very real possibility that many who claim to follow Christ will fall away as Christianity becomes less and less culturally acceptable.

But as the ranks of professing Christians become smaller, my prayer is that our smaller numbers would become more focused on shining the light of Christ in a very dark world. What if instead of fighting for the culture to validate us, we did what Jesus told us to do and turned the other cheek and loved those who hate and persecute us? What if we, with no strings attached, began to use our God-given gifts of leadership and creativity and finances and time to truly seek the welfare of our cities? What if the world saw Christians really living differently?

We have perhaps claimed a different moral standard, but have we really lived differently? Have we forgiven when the world says to seek revenge? Have we loved sacrificially and unconditionally when others have hated us? Have we respected our leaders even when they do not honor our beliefs? Have we shown mercy to those both deserving and undeserving of mercy? Have we fought for all people, even those whose lives are in great contrast to biblical principles, to be treated with dignity?

The body of Christ stands before an open door of opportunity as the world moves further away from cultural Christianity. The door is open for amazing growth, hope and testimony. The door is open for a true, living orthodoxy. We don’t follow Christ because we get tax benefits or because the Ten Commandments hang on the courthouse walls. We follow Christ because Christ is worthy of our following and because we desire to be part of the work He is doing all over the world.

Perhaps, in the end, we will see lives radically changed. And all these issues that distract us will assume their proper place. And we, fully reconciled to the living God of the universe, will succeed as God’s agents to this world -- walking others into the beauty that is the life reconciled to God through Christ.

________

Mike Goeke, associate pastor of First Baptist Church San Francisco, has been in full-time ministry since leaving his law practice in 2001.

Can we stand for truth without becoming jaded?

G.K. Chesterton, in his 1908 book Orthodoxy, describes how when he was a boy, many told him that his ideals would eventually “break up like clouds” and that he’d be forced to put his real faith in simple “practical politics.” He writes:

What has really happened is exactly the opposite. ... I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.

Tongue in cheek as always, Chesterton isn’t arguing that politics don’t matter. They do. But far too many build their life on the weak foundation of an ever-changing political landscape. It’s a recipe for burnout, anger, and disillusionment.

Christian hope is secure and makes us better neighbors, parents, spouses, and citizens. The unchanging values and methods of Christ’s kingdom give us the strength we need to go on even in the face of changing situations.

We’ll have to take unpopular stands in our lifetimes, but placing our hope in Christ is the opposite of being naive or impractical. It’s the only sure foundation there is.

________

Copyright (c) 2022 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1552]