Christ and Culture

I have avoided speaking about Barack Obama's former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, for about as long as possible. There are a number of reasons for this. Foremost among them is the irritation I have felt in seeing political pundits and news personalities (most of them unbelievers), attacking a pastor for view he expressed from a pulpit in a church. Now, don't get me wrong. I disagree heartily with what the man said, whether or not it was taken out of context. But I am very uncomfortable with a pastor being criticized publicly for his views by those outside of the faith. And yet, this has become the norm in the U.S. these days - and that worries me a great deal.

I recently wrote a comment on another man's blog about the criticism being heaped upon Wright (and consequently, Barack Obama), and pointed out that, while I am disgusted by the media's treatment of Rev. Wright, I do believe there are some upsides to the controversy, namely that it puts a spotlight on the inherent problems of Liberation Theology and its influence in the African-American church. I don't have the time, nor the patience (or really the education) to dive deeply into Liberation Theology, so let me offer a few links for further study:

An article, "What is Liberation Theology?" at GotQuestions.org
An interview with Eric Redmond, an African American Pastor in Maryland, by Albert Mohler
A partial transcript of that interview at Townhall.com entitled, "Is Jeremiah Wright Mainstream?"
Eric Redmond's post, "Jeremiah Wright’s BLT" (Black Liberation Theology), on his blog, A Man From Issachar

Suffice to say, the problems of Liberation Theology are vast, and they are a stumbling block to the gospel. As one commenter at Townhall.com wrote:

Liberation theology creates further division.
Liberation theology counters racism with racism.
Liberation theology is man-made and runs perpendicular to the gospel.
Liberation theology is no gospel at all.

I would agree with this assessment. And since Rev. Wright resurfaced a few days ago and today was blasted by Barack Obama for remarks he made at the National Press Club Monday in Washington, I have been thinking even more about Wright and his theology. As I was considering this, I stumbled across Warren Kelly's post on Wright at his blog View From The Pew. Kelly discusses Wright's answer to a question posed to him by a moderator after his speech at the National Press Club on Monday. The moderator stated, "Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me.'" Then the moderator asked, "Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?" Wright replied simply, "Jesus also said, 'Other sheep have I who are not of this fold,'" seeming to indicate that indeed Muslims and those of other religions would inherit eternal life apart from a personal relationship with Christ. Sadly, applause followed his comment. Kelly noted,

Wright had what I call an Osteen moment. He had the chance to share the Gospel in front of millions. Not only that, but he had the chance to calm the fears of evangelical Christians that his church was somehow not really a Christian church. He could have done so much, but he decided not to.

He then wisely observed that, "Jeremiah Wright did to Jesus exactly what the news media have been doing to him -- taken [sic] a part of a sermon, quoted it out of context, and made it sound like something that wasn't intended."

Denny Burk, Assistant Professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas, Texas. and blogger extraordinaire picked up on the story as well and explains what Jesus was actually referring to in John chapter 10:

When Jesus says that he has “other sheep who are not of this fold,” it’s likely that he is referring to Gentiles who would later come to faith in Christ. The sheep that are following Him at that point in the narrative are Jews, but Jesus aims to have followers from among the Gentiles as well. Whoever the “other sheep” are understood to be, they nevertheless have the characteristics of “sheep.” They listen to and follow Christ, and they are saved only by Him.

Additionally, he points out that, "To say that 'other sheep' refers to unbelievers (or followers of Islam in Reverend Wright’s case) simply runs roughshod over the plain meaning of the passage."

So, as I noted to the other blogger in my comments referred to at the start of this post, Jeremiah Wright's pulpit rhetoric doesn't really bother me - it's his misunderstanding of the Gospel and disregard for the fundamentals of the faith that worry me.

In my last post, I noted two inappropriate ways to respond to Earth Day. Ethics Daily yesterday gave us yet another inappropriate way to respond to the environment - TheGreenBible.org. This is from the article announcing it:

The site, from Baptist Center for Ethics and EthicsDaily.com, is a warehouse of information on the biblical mandate to care for the environment--and what people of faith can and should do.

More:

"The Bible is God's green book," Parham said. "The green Bible gives us the responsibility to guard the garden. The green Bible calls us to love our neighbors. And my friends the only way we can love our neighbors across time is to leave them a decent place to live."

Did you catch that last sentence? "[T]he only way can love our neighbors across time is to leave them a decent place to live." I beg to differ. The way we love our neighbors across time is not by refocusing all of the Gospel on a social directive aimed at combating the supposed effects of "global warming." It is by making sure that we hand off the Gospel to each generation - by being dilligent to preach the same Gospel that the apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and men like Wycliffe, Hus, Knox, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Fuller, Spurgeon, and Graham preached. For in that way, we truly love our neighbor. Seriously? What does it profit a generation to save the planet, yet not preserve the very thing that could save men's souls? Our goal is ultimately not to save a dying planet, but to glorify God through preaching the glorious Gospel that Christ came in human flesh, died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was raised on the third day. That, my friends, is how we love our neighbors across time.

HT: the big daddy weave

Since today is Earth Day 2008, I felt compelled to post to post a response from a Christian worldview. After all, the original purpose of this blog was to respond to a post-Christian world with a uniquely Christian viewpoint. And it seems that nothing dominates this culture's attention these days than does the phenomenon of Green. Environmentalism has become a new religion, a new way for individuals to feel as though they are a part of something larger than themselves and thus inflict change upon a society that seems stagnant at times.

I want to begin, however, not with how I believe Christians should respond to Earth Day, but rather how they should not. There are two extremes which clearly should be avoided.

1) We must avoid becoming obsessed with environmental aims. Not long ago I saw an article praising a youth Disciple Now weekend in which the theme was "Go Green." The author (a speaker at the event) noted that "the curriculum allows students to explore why the environment is important and what they can (and should) do about it." Disciple Now events often have a huge impact on a youth group and many result in revivals in the lives of the youth who participate. Yet, this church chose to focus not on the Gospel, but on the environment. This is a tragedy and an inappropriate response to environmental concerns. We have to remember that this world we live in, while it is under our charge, is ultimately passing away. We should expect that it will deteriorate and ultimately be destroyed. Romans 8:19-23 speaks to this reality.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

2) The opposite response, while not as dangerous, is also inappropriate. That response is apathy, or even contempt, for environmental issues. A friend recently told me of his mega-church pastor who declared before his congregation - in response to the idea of global warming - that because such was false, we should gleefully turn on every light in our household and to be as wasteful as we desire. He claimed that Jesus was coming back soon anyway, so why worry about the environment? After all, a new heaven and a new earth is soon to appear! There are many problems with this response. Besides the fact that it is built upon a false eschatological view, the greater problem is that it does not take seriously our God-given responsibility to rule and reign over the Earth. We are called to be good stewards of all that is within our realm of responsibility. And certainly the Earth is one of those things. Another problem is that our excesses often causes others' insufficiency. I believe we are beginning to see the fruit of that in current food shortages.

So what should our response be?

1) We should reject the cult of environmentalism and not be swayed by the so-called "science" that seems to change daily. We should not place our faith in charts, weather patterns, or biofuels. Our faith firmly rests on Jesus Christ. He is not surprised by what has happened in our world. In fact, He is sovereignly in control. He alone controls the weather, the amount of radiation emanating from the sun (which actually was determined thousands of years ago), and technologies which either alleviate or add to our sufferings. Additionally, we must remember that our stewardship of this earth is not our ultimate command, nor even our penultimate one. No, we are called to be like Christ, who said nothing of taking care of the earth. His concern was that we glorify Him by being holy, loving His children, and pointing others to Him. To the extent that caring for the environment does these things, we should be involved. When it distracts us from our central message we should refrain from emphasizing it.

2) We should do what we can to insure we are indeed fulfilling our duty to attend to the creation placed in our care. That involves conservation by using our recycling bins and reducing our use of resources. We must be mindful that overuse causes a burden on others. I can't imagine that mega-church pastor preaching to the people of my congregation in Georgia that they should use as much water as they want and not worry - after all Jesus is coming soon! (For those who do not know, last year Georgia had a drought so severe that some places were forced to ration water so the supply did not completely run out.) In such cases, it is the poor who suffer the worst, since they have less resources from which to draw help. Imagine if this country experienced a famine, or energy crisis, or widespread water shortage. The impact would be massive on the poor. As the people of God we are charged to remember the poor - alleviate their suffering and prevent them from being burden.

Thus, by watching our lifestyles and taking steps to protect our world, we can fulfill God's call without losing our focus and hindering the work of the Gospel. So here are five practical ways we can make an impact on the Earth while being fixated on Christ:

1) Replace your incandescent bulbs with CFL's. This will not only lower your electricity bills, it will also lessen the load on your power grid. If whole churches did this, they could save thousands a year and make a huge impact on our energy needs.
2) Recycle. This is an easy one for most of you. All it takes is placing your recyclable items in a specific bin and placing it outside of your home with the rest of your garbage. For others, it may mean driving a short distance. But, if more did this we could lower the cost of oil-based products, and possibly oil itself, which would lessen strain on families struggling with the current fuel costs.
3) Adjust your water heater or replace it. Lowering your water heater setting to "warm" can save hundreds of dollars a year. Also, consider wrapping your heater with an insulated blanket. For more savings, replace your gas water heater with a tankless one. These cost upwards of $2000, but a federal tax credit is available for it. Finally, for the truly adventurous, you can build your own solar water heater for a few hundred dollars. Not only will you save money, but you may help alleviate the current oil shortage (which may last a long time).
4) Weather-proof your home. This is a practical, inexpensive solution that can save you hundreds of dollars a year. Weather-stripping is relatively cheap and there are plenty of guides on the internet as to how and where to apply it.
5) Purchase and use a programmable thermostat. Costs range from $40-200, but the Energy Star website claims that when properly used you can save up to $150 a year. And again, by using less energy you can lessen the burden on others.


Hopefully, this was helpful and challenged you as a Christian to take care of creation and alleviate suffering without feeling as though you have to accept the theory of global warming (which I, by the way, do not), or worship at the altar of environmentalism.

Words cannot express how grateful I am that I could be a part of the Together for the Gospel 2008 Conference (Listen to all the messages here). It was truly a life-changing experience. And that's not because of some sort of spiritual high I felt, nor was it due to some commitment I made or remade. No, it was because through T4G, God touched not only my heart, but especially my head. There are so many things I came to understand intellectually during the conference that it would be hard to write them all down, or even to understand their significance at this time. But what I want to do is highlight just a few things that I came to conclude during this conference and why these things are important and will continue to be so in my life and ministry. Bear in mind that these thoughts are in no particular order (I'm not sure that I could place any measure of priority on them even if I tried).

1. Theology changes and shapes men's hearts. Reading and understanding theology has always brought me into a closer relationship with God, but I always felt as though I was unique in that way. Now, that's not to say that I believed I was the only one like this, but rather that there just weren't many of us. After worshipping with over 5,000 other believers and seeing the difference in the passions displayed in corporate musical expression before the messages of the speakers and then afterwards, it seems crystal clear that the idea that theological truth stirs the affections is much more universal that I had once thought. Thus, it leads me to conclude that the more deep theological truth is conveyed in the pulpit, the more likely our churches are going to have believers in them whose hearts are stirred, who minds are altered, and whose lives are changed.


2. Worship should seek to connect the heart with what the mind has just encountered. This builds upon my first observation and acknowledges that when men and women properly understand God they naturally desire to express their appreciation to Him. After the proclamation of the Word of God at T4G, it was evident that those men and women gathered there were mentally affected and had a desire to express it. I think this is a highly neglected arena of worship. While I was a member of Pontchartrain Baptist Church in New Orleans we revamped the worship services and placed the preaching of the Word early on in the service. Then at the point of the invitation, the call was expanded to everyone to respond to the Word that had been preached. That doesn't sound all that groundbreaking (and in reality it wasn't), but it did have a profound effect on how I viewed the invitation time, and I think it allowed those in attendance to express themselves in worship in ways that couldn't have been done otherwise. After all, once the Word has been preached on most occasions (if we are honest), we simply start thinking about lunch, not more about God.


3. Where the emphasis is on Christ, fellowship with believers is sweet, refreshing, and necessary. Being a shy individual and often an introvert, I was a bit intimidated going to T4G by myself. Sure, I had friends I would be meeting there, but that's an awful lot of people gathered in one place, especially when you consider that a great many of them are larger than life figures whom I greatly respect as men of God. That said, it was interesting to see how the emphasis wasn't on big personalities, but rather on our Big God. Conversations didn't center on how good the messages were, but rather on the importance of the doctrines presented to our churches. And I didn't leave being impressed by great men, but rather with the impression that I am a part of a great revival of theology and Biblical studies that threatens to renew our churches in a way that goes far beyond current fads that ebb and flow every few years. I feel refreshed knowing that so many others believe like me, preach like me, and have the same desire I do to teach their flock the deep things of God.


4. Like other pastors, I need other pastors to minister to me. During panel discussions it was evident that those who spoke clearly ministered to those who organized the conference. This was never more clear than in the discussion after John Piper spoke. The panel, as usual, included Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler, and C.J. Mahaney - all pastors and leaders who bear ultimate responsibility over other individuals. Yet when Piper sat among them, it was clear that they saw him as their pastor at that moment. I needed to see that. I needed to remember that no matter what a pastor, teacher, theologian, or whoever accomplishes through the Holy Spirit, nor how intimate their relationship with Christ seems to be, they need others to minister to them. They, too, need to hear Biblical preaching. To that end, I plan to listen to no less than 2 sermons by other ministers each week.

Over the past few months (o.k. the past year), I have neglected my blog. I have had plenty of things to say (as most of you know), but unfortunately, I have been lazy in my writing. However, I hope to once again begin to blog soon.

Just to update those of you who still visit the blog or who subscribe by RSS, I have recently accepted a position as Pastor at a church just outside of Athens, GA - Cleveland Road Baptist Church. My wife and I will be moving there in the next couple of weeks and my first Sunday is tentatively set for May 4th. We are thrilled to have been led by the Lord to serve this congregation.

Because of that, I believe I should get back in the habit of blogging, not just for myself, but for those in my congregation, and those considering attending Cleveland Road in the Athens area. Currently we do not have a church website, but I hope to eventually put one together and link my blog to it. And I am considering a second blog, specifically for the congregation, which would be a 5-day devotional reading related to the Sunday morning sermon.

To those ends, tomorrow I will be attending the Band of Bloggers fellowship, which coincides with the Together for the Gospel Conference, which I will also be attending this week. Hopefully, I will be able to fellowship with fellow bloggers and possibly get some ideas about how to make my site better and more pointed. One of the things I have struggled with over the past year is what I should or shouldn't post on my blog. Having the title of "Christ and Culture" seems like it allows a great deal of flexibility, but in reality I believe that I want narrow the focus to issues which Christians should consider in the public square. I think other points of interest, such as liberal theological positions and Scriptural interpretation are important, but often so wide that my blog ends up being about everything instead of anything in particular. Thus, my ideas are too plentiful to create a true niche in the Christian blogosphere.

So, be patient and watch for future posts. And pray for the new chapter of our life to unfold with wonder and awe and that it would be glorifying to God.

With all that has been happening in our lives lately, you may wonder why I am posting on something seemingly so silly. But, I think Marc Ecko is quite a genius when it comes to business and when I saw that Barry Bonds, when referring to Ecko's plans after purchasing his 756th home run ball, stated, "He's stupid...He's an idiot" I couldn't resist giving Ecko a little time on my blog (at least for the 3-4 readers who still check it out).

Marc Ecko is of course the very successful founder and president of Marc Ecko Enterprises. He started out as a t-shirt designer and turned his business into what is now hailed as the most succesful urban clothing line. What is most unique about Ecko is that his background is far from that of his current customer base. While his clothing tends to be worn by those most affiliated with the "Hip-Hop" culture, Marc grew up as a Jewish kid in a New Jersey town outside of Manhatten. His parents were real estate agents and his life was far more suburban than that of most of his customers. But, through hard work and uncanny "street smarts", Ecko went from nearly bankrupt to the No. 1 designer in his field.

So what does all this have to do with Barry Bonds? Well, Ecko was the winner of the auction just recently held by Sotheby's for Bonds' record-breaking, 756th home run baseball. And he has decided to let the fans vote on what should be done with the ball. He set up a website, http://www.vote756.com/, where fans can vote to either "Bestow It" to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, OH, "Brand It" with an asterick and then send it to Cooperstown, or "Banish It" by reportedly shooting it into outer space. And yesterday, The San Francisco Chronicle (which you may recognize as the newspaper whose reporters wrote the book on Barry Bonds' alleged steriod use - you can read my review of the book, Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports, by clicking here), reported that when asked about Ecko's intentions Bonds replied, "He spent $750,000 on the ball and that's what he's doing with it? What he's doing is stupid."

What I find most entertaining about this story is that Bonds just seems to not get it. He doesn't get it that people believe he cheated and should be punished, not celebrated for such an act. He doesn't understand marketing either. Heck, it's clear from his well-known brushes with the media that he doesn't understand the power of the media and the sway of the court of public opinion.

Barry Bonds is wrong - Marc Ecko is a genius. He has just created friends in the baseball culture he never had before by doing this. And those who hate what he is doing? They can simply dismiss him as another crazed fashion designer. But the genius of this act shines brightest in the numbers. As of my visit, there were 3,611,765 votes cast. And how did I vote? See below.

"This ain't my home...I'm just a passin' through."

Apparently this has been my theme song since I graduated from high school. Over the past thirteen years I have lived in five different cities and have had over 40 different roomates, not including my current roomie, who shall remain so "until death do us part," though it's likely we will have some younger roomies join us in the not too distant future. And now that I have returned to the start of it all, Memphis, TN, I have to say that I feel very blessed to have made the journey I have over these past few years.

To update those of you who have not heard we moved to Memphis on the 2nd of June to begin new jobs and new lives. Brandi, my wife and the much better looking of the two in the pic you will find to the right, has begun her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital East as a nurse in the ICU Step-Down Unit. I have accepted a job with Edward Jones Investments as a Financial Advisor. Hopefully, I will be located in Olive Branch, MS, where we are currently looking for a home. As of now, we are stranded on the island that is my parents' house in Colonial Acres in East Memphis.

So please pray for us as we seek God's will for a house and especially for a new church. Thanks to all our friends and family that helped us to move and continue to endure with us while we transition from Louisville to Memphis.

Future Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama might not be as "green" as he appears. And I don't mean "inexperienced." Last year Obama came under fire from conservatives for giving a series of speeches on the need to reduce carbon emissions by breaking America's addiction to SUVs, while arriving and departing in a GMC Envoy. When the story broke, Obama's press secretary, Tommy Vietor, issued a statement saying that Obama liked to roll in a Flex-Fuel SUV, which suggested that he was indeed practicing what he preached. Unfortunately for Obama, many clever conservatives did their research and found out that the GMC Envoy does not come equipped with Flex-Fuel technology.

But now, Obama's committment to being Green is being challenged by environmentalists on both sides of the aisles (Washington Post article here). In a Grist article entitled, "Even Stevens?" reporter Amanda Griscom Little descibes the problems environmentalists have with the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007" co-sponsored by Obama and Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning. According to the article, "Coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology uses a highly energy-intensive process to convert coal into diesel fuel for cars or jet fuel for airplanes -- an appealing prospect to the coal industry in Obama's home state of Illinois, but not to [environmentalists] and others concerned about global warming." Little goes on to explain the problems with CTL technology:

David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center, has supported coal gasification as a viable alternative to coal-burning power plants, but explains that CTL is not as promising an alternative to conventional gasoline or biofuels. "Coal-to-liquid is, in the best-case scenario, no worse for the climate than oil-derived gasoline -- and no better," he says. The best-case scenario assumes that CTL producers find a way to capture their carbon emissions. Problem is, none of the current CTL projects actually involve carbon capture. Without that step, the climate impacts of CTL fuel are far worse than those of gasoline. According to an NRDC analysis, a 35-mpg car powered by the CTL fuel that's currently available would generate as much carbon dioxide pollution as a far less efficient 19-mpg car that runs on conventional gasoline.

The Bunning-Obama bill "which would expand tax incentives for CTL and help jumpstart the industry with public-private partnerships, was first introduced by the senators in spring of last year." It appears that for Obama, regional politics trump environmentalism. It will be interesting to see how many of his Democratic collegues will support the bill and undermine the Dems climate control promises. One thing is for sure: Obama's "100 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his environmental voting record in the Senate last year" is certain to decrease this time around.

Labels: Barack Obama, Environmentalism, Ethanol, Hypocricy

Unfortunately, Kerry's duty these days includes offending the very Americans he claimed to want to serve two years ago and misrepresenting the facts about his own country. After Kerry's claim of a "botched joke" pretty much did in his potential 2008 Presidential run, he now seems to be in a full spiral downhill. This week the "John Kerry Self-Destruction Tour" stopped off in Davos, Switzerland, where the world's leaders are gathering for the World Economic Forum.

Kerry, while sharing the stage with the former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami during a discussion entitled, "The Future of the Middle East," took the opportunity on foreign soil nonetheless, to blast away at American foreign policy. Kerry said, "So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East - in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today." He added, "When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy."

What's most hypocritical and duplicitous about this statement is that Kerry actually favored not ratifying the Kyoto treaty, along with the rest of the Senate in 1995. In a unanimous 95-0 vote, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the following:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

Additionally, Bill Clinton never submitted Kyoto to the Senate to be ratified and even Al Gore admitted that he would not ratify an ammendment until it had been written to include developing nations as well.

So basically, Kerry voted against it before he voted for it. Duplicity and Hypocricy - John Kerry style. So to recap - Kerry lied and whined - all on foreign soil. What a great American!

If you haven't noticed, I love a little controversy. Sometimes my wife will ask me why I watch a particular program or read a particular book and I always tell her, "It's like watching a train wreck." I can't seem to take my eyes off of disaster or controversy. And maybe that is the reason why I continue to watch the new show on NBC, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip."

Every week the writers of "Studio 60" find some way to attack Christianity. Often times it is an adolescent attempt at humor based on ignorance and arrogance. And usually it revolves around one of the central characters, Harriet Hayes (played by Sarah Paulson), a confessing Christian who seems to walk a tight line between saint and sinner. In the first episode of the series, we find out that Harriet has been involved in a relationship with the very anti-Christian writer of the fictional show, Matt Albie (played by Matthew Perry of "Friends" fame). In another, Harriet gives an interview in which she notes that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible and later finds herself in a physical altercation with three gay men.

In last night's episode, Harriet again finds herself embroiled in controversy as Albie tries to find a way to swallow his pride and donate money to an abstinence-only education program via an online auction in order to win a date to an awards show with Harriet (who he is finding himself falling in love with once again). Albie argues with Hayes about the effectiveness of abstinence-only education and at one point he blindsides her with "evidence" from a study that shows that those who signed abstinence pledges were more likely to become infected with a sexually-transmitted disease (STD). Harriet reacts by smiling and continuing to discuss with him what she originally desired to talk about, almost conceding his point.

The problem with Albie's evidence (or should I say Aaron Sorkin's, given that he is the Executive Producer and has a penchant for attacking all things Christian and conservative?), is that it is based on a faulty report that has been discredited by several other studies, most notably by the Heritage Foundation (article accessible by clicking here), who examined not only the study itself, but the methods of data gathering used by the two authors, Peter Bearman and Hanna Bruckner. The Heritage Foundation found numerous problems with the Bearman and Bruckner study, including the sampling, the data interpretation, and the overall reporting of the results. Essentially, what they found was the study showed (yet under reported the fact) that "On average, individuals who took virginity pledges as adolescents were 25 percent less likely to have STDs as young adults than non-pledgers from identical socioeconomic backgrounds." Other independent studies have show even wider differences between those signing abstinence pledges and those not signing.

The point of bringing this up is that we shouldn't be surprised to see such shotty writing and willingness to attack Christianity at every level. The actions and beliefs of Christians have been under attack since its inception with the resurrection of Christ. Christians have always been cast off as ignorant, puritanical, and naive, yet Christianity has continued to grow and thrive amongst criticism. This new attack on Christianity led by the media outlets who no longer seem to fear repercussions will likely continue. Political pundits, talk-show hosts, and even sit-com writers will probably become more and more comfortable making fun of Christians, telling the easily-duped masses how much more dangerous Biblically-minded Christians are than Islamo-fascists who seek to impose Sharia Law on all lands.

So, how do we prepare for this new attack? We shore up the troops, we encourage one another, we train. And most of all we seek to bask in the hope of the return of Christ, our Commander-in-Chief who will judge all the nations with equity and bring all things into submission under His feet.

As I browse the blogosphere, I have found very few conservative Christian bloggers who have reacted to yesterday's election. What I think is happening (and has been happening for a few months now) is a lethargic reaction to politics by the majority of Evangelicals. In some circles there is even an outright dislike of the entirety of the political realm. After reading David Kuo's book, Tempting Faith, part of me rejoices that this is the case. But the other part of me worries that while the Dems will not spare any expense to bring about corporate or global regulations, they will likely push to de-regulate everything from abortion to cloning to the internet, which may mean a much worse climate could result in this country than what is proposed by global warming watchdogs.

I had thought about discussing the reasons why I think Christians have become at least lethargic about politics, but what I would rather talk about is what I see as the pro's and con's of this election. So here they are in no particular order:

The Pro's:

1. The Democrats put forward a few pro-life candidates like Heath Schuler and Bob Casey, Jr. Only time will tell whether they tow the party line or do indeed help hold the line against a sure onslaught of abortion deregulation legislation. My hope is that if these candidates are successful and helpful to the Dems, we might actually see more candidates like these in the future, allowing Christians like myself to vote on issues like the environment, poverty reduction, welfare reform, and border security.
2. I think this election sent a clear message to Republicans that Evangelicals will not be counted on in the future simply because one claims to be pro-life or suggests they care about families. More than simply appointing a few nominally pro-life judicial nominees must be done to secure our votes.
3. I think this election shows the power of the Evangelical voting block, which seemed to be split fairly evenly this year between Republicans and Democrats in states like Pennslyvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. David Kuo's book no doubt had some impact and Evangelicals showed once again they they are savvy enough to speak their mind at the polls.
4. I think this showed the weakness of the Evangelical voting block (yes, that's right I am seemingly contradicting myself - but hold on). Evangelicals are divided on what the main issues are. Many are beginning to believe exactly what David Kuo has been screaming from the mountaintop over the past couple of months - that we can't truely change the country through politics. To the extent that this re-focuses Christians on acting locally to impact the kingdom of God eternally, this is a very good thing.
5. I am encouraged by all of the talk by Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and Chuck Shumer that they desire to work in a bi-partisan manner in Washington. Only time will tell whether or not this is an empty promise. But if it is true, then maybe they would be willing to sacrifice the more controversial issues like funding embryonic stem-cell research and raising the minimum wage by 50% within 6 months in favor of throwing more money at cord-blood stem-cell research and raising the minimum wage gradually over the next 3 years or so (you know, something that wouldn't send the economy into a tailspin and ruin that 4.4% unemployment bonanza that we just saw a few days ago).
6. Finally, I am encouraged that after all the talk (including one crazed liberal who already claimed the election had been stolen before it began), there were actually very few voting irregularities and almost no significant reports of voter intimidation or fraud. Hopefully, this will invigorate voters and put a stop to the seemingly endless barrage of charges ranging from racism to classism to outright conspiracy theories about the Illuminati rigging the elections.

The Con's:

1. Obviously this win by the Democrats will hurt the hard-charging economy. Just this morning the markets dropped significantly (this after the single largest one-day gain in the Dow Jones in over a year). While Dems will certainly focus on the impoverished to a degree, they might end up hurting these people by causing job growth to slow to a crawl and hurting middle class retirees who live off their 401K's and not their Social Security checks. If they stop further legislation for border security they run the risk of a population increase in low income workers that will eventually crush the economy of not only the U.S., but Mexico as well. If they move quickly to roll back the tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals they will certainly remove money that is reinvested into the U.S. economy, which always results in more job growth and less unemployment.
2. The pro-life position will no doubt take a hit. The Dems will likely move to fund embryonic stem-cell research, which will result in an increase in the destruction of human embryos, given that those that scientists claim could be used now are not nearly in enough quantity to make a dent in the research needed for adequate conclusions. Meanwhile groups who are working with adult stem cells and those from cord blood will lose out and this will probably lead to fewer medical developments in the next few years, as all the energy will be focused on bringing embryonic stem-cell research to the forefront. Additionally, there may be rollbacks in legislation regulating abortions and Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups will probably recieve even more federal funding.
3. There is a great possibility that attacks will skyrocket in Iraq as the insurgents recieve the news that they "Tet Offensive" has worked to change the climate in Washington. This may eventually result in a drawdown of troops that will cripple the region and effectively end any hope of stability being restored to the Middle East. Hope for a free Iraq - an ally in the Middle East and a haven of religious freedom - will be dashed. The Dems will blame Bush and we will likely be immersed in oversight hearings for years, as more troubles mount in the region and Israel becomes a more likely target.
4. Finally, the whole election shows that this is a nation that is deeply divided. Races in all the states were fairly close. They show that while the Independents and Moderates probably carried the day for the Democrats, there are still hard-liners on both sides that dominate the landscape of the parties and will continue to engage in culture war. Had it not been for the Iraq War, this election would probably have had a very different outcome, but people are war-weary and I believe that swayed the vote toward the side intent on change.

In the end, the truth is that there were dangerous implication for this country had either side come out on top. Politics cannot solve the problems that only the inbreaking of the Gospel can. Hopefully, Evangelicals will grow weary of politics over the next few years, as policy makers control Washington, pushing each side back and forth through a tide of partisanship and gridlock. Maybe, just maybe, this will cause Christians to begin to focus inward and work on change in their own communities, taking the Gospel again to their neighbor next door.

Last night I picked up David Kuo's new book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. The media outlets have created a firestorm around this book and Kuo has been on every political T.V. and radio talk show from "Bill Bennett's Morning in America" to "The Colbert Report" (see video here). Much of what is being reported is in an effort to do two things: 1) Make George Bush look bad and 2) Make Christians look stupid - so naturally I felt I should pick the book up and browse through it. What I found in the introduction was not the media take, but an honest assessment of Christian political engagement by a serious Evangelical thinker. So I bought the book and hopefully will write a book review/response to it soon.

One thing that has happened in my mind as I reflected on the content of Kuo's book and on this discussion about "Red Letter" and "Black Letter" Christians is that I have continually been reminded of something I heard Tony Campolo say almost 10 years ago. He was talking about poverty and the need for the Church to be proactive in helping those who need it most. He said that for too long we have allowed the government to do what the Church ought to be doing, and that is to take care of "the least of these." We have installed a "welfare state" into our government - one that allows us to stop caring about actually engaging the poor and just allowing our tax dollars to do it for us.

And in that regard, what I am thinking is that both conservatives and liberals have allowed this to persist in our thinking and to undercut the work of the Church. Conservatives have decried the "welfare state" and asked for money through Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives so they can do it themselves, not realizing that money would hang like a carrot over their heads (and not considering if it was indeed ethical to take it at all). And liberals have allowed the "welfare state" to take on some sort of cult status as a fulfillment of the "Sermon on the Mount," thus helping liberal lawmakers to keep a strangle hold on disenfranchised voters, while pushing a morally corrupt social agenda. In this paradigm, both sides of the Christian aisle (so to speak) lose and neither is found to be fulfilling the "Great Commandment" or the "Great Commission."

Jesus did not call the Church to set up secular governments that would take care of the poor. He called the Church to feed the poor and take care of widows and orphans personally. And in doing so, to spread the message that "Christ is Lord," calling men everywhere to repent and believe. A "welfare state" ends up hindering this calling and hurting everyone in the process - the poor who are caught in the cycle of poverty, the low-income families who begin to despise those who use government money while they, themselves, struggle to make ends meet, the middle class who see many examples of corruption in the welfare system and begin to foster bitterness instead of developing compassion toward those less fortunate than themselves, and the rich who can buck their responsibilities to be good citizens because they know they are the ones footing the bill for the welfare state to exist.

This might sound harsh, but I think this is where the Church finds itself in the 21st century. What we must do as a Christian people is to stop letting the politicians do for us what we, ourselves, ought to be doing. For a better, more compassionate take on this, see an excellent article by Brent Thomas at his Colossians 3:16 site entitled, "Pure and Undefiled Politics?"

Red Letter or Black Letter Christian? Which one are you? If you aren't sure, then you are in good company. "Red-Letter Christian" is a new distinction suggested between conservative and liberal Christians which has been proposed by guys like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis. My favorite raving Baptist liberal Bruce Prescott picked up on this a while back and now once again has posted on this in response to a well-written critique by Mark Tooney, Director of the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. Prescott uses the term "Red Letter Christian" in conjuction with another new distinction "Black-Letter Christian" in hopes of showing how much more Christlike these "Red-Letter Christians" are. In Tooney's article, "Red Letter Leftists," which was published by FrontlineMagazine.com on October 18th (and which Prescott has failed to link to in his comments on it), Tooney alleges that "[f]rustrated by the conservative tendencies of most religiously active Americans, a group of liberal religious activists have started "Red Letter Christians" to espouse political themes of the left." So what are "Red Letter Christians"? According to their website, located at Jim Wallis's Sojourner's website, "The Red Letter Christians are a network of effective, progressive, Christian communicators urging an open, honest and public dialogue on issues of faith and politics." They go on to state the following:

We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus. The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to only two hot button social issues - abortion and homosexuality. Fighting poverty, caring for the environment, advancing peace, promoting strong families, and supporting a consistent ethic of life are all critical moral and biblical values.

Additionally, under the subtitle, "Why We Are Speaking Out" the group says:

For decades, leaders of the Religious Right have attempted to convince Christians and the American public that people of faith and strong moral values have only one option when it comes to voting. This narrow view continues to overshadow the majority of Christians in America whose faith motivates them to care deeply about a range of ethics and values. Our nation is hungry for an open dialogue on moral values and its role in the public square. God is not a Republican or a Democrat, and candidates should be measured by examining an array of social and economic issues.

Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners Magazine recounted in an article on his website entitled, "Red Letter Christians: Somehow, Jesus Has Survived Even the Church" how this term first came to be used:

“I’m a secular Jewish country music songwriter and disk jockey,” my interviewer on a Nashville radio station said. “But I love your stuff and have been following your book tour.” He told me he loved my “riffs” and would like to spend an evening together just to get some lines for new music. “You’re a songwriter’s dream.” Then he told me he believed we were starting a new movement, but noticed we hadn’t come up with a name for it yet. “I’ve got an idea for you,” he said. “I think you should call yourselves ‘The Red Letter Christians,’ for the red parts of the Bible that highlight the words of Jesus. I love the red letter stuff.”

Wallis goes on to say that,

The truth is that there are many people who like the “red letter stuff,” and many of them are not even Christians. Try it yourself sometime. Go out on the street or to your school or workplace and take a poll. Ask people what they think Jesus stood for. You’re likely to hear things like “stood with poor people,” or “compassionate,” or “loving,” or “he was for peace.”

In another article on the Sojourner's site, Tony Campolo weighs in with a commentary called, "What's a 'Red-Letter Christian'?" (originally published by BeliefNet on 2-27-06). In this article he further explains the motivation to refer to himself and others as "Red-Letter Christians":

In those red letters, He calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. He calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, he probably means we shouldn’t kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers.

Moving on to "Black Letter Christians", Bruce Prescott says regarding them that they

. . . believe that the words of Jesus are too liberal and utopian for life in the real world. While claiming allegiance to biblical authority, in practice they deny any temporal authority for the words of Jesus. They emphasize the values of the neo-conservative police state -- pre-emptive strike defense, unregulated capitalism, social darwinism and Christian nationalism.

I find that these sort of distinctions only blur the debate that should be the focal point of discussion between moderate, liberal, and conservative Christians - and that is the authority of the Bible. What we have seen throughout history is that the axis upon which all of Christianity turns is the Biblical witness. When Christians have been made to emphasize one aspect of the Biblical record to the exclusion of another, then the Gospel itself has been compromised. So the question remains, "Which group is de-emphasizing certain parts of the Biblical text - 'Red Letter Christians' or 'Black Letter Christians'?" Bruce Prescott seems to indicate that it is the "Black Letter Christians" who are doing so, but since he seems to have invented the distinction, then the burden of proof rests on him to actually prove that what these Christians are doing is ignoring the words of Jesus to act in certain ways politically (which is a whole 'nother topic, given that Prescott blurs the lines here between political action and living out a Biblical worldview). What we can gather from Prescott's article is that it is certain that "Red Letter Christians" do ignore or de-emphasize a portion of the Biblical record in favor of another portion. Notice his words here:

While recognizing the authority of the entire Bible, "Red Letter" Christians believe that the words of Jesus should have precedence when weighing biblical values. They emphasize the values of peace, justice, equality and the common good. They are concerned about poverty, global warming, human rights, and health care.

Ignoring the fact that Jesus never spoke on global warming or heath care (and I say that not because I believe that to be a legitimate critique of Prescott's position, but because I find it a bit interesting given that Prescott must go outside the "Red Letters" to find support for such a position Biblically), what Prescott has done here is to openly admit that he and others who consider themselves "Red Letter Christians" actually do place an emphasis on certain passages. What we have seen in history is that this generally results in causing those who hold this type of view to do so to the detriment and exclusion of other relevant and authoritative Scripture passages (from early on certain figures like the Docetics, the Gnostics, and men like Arius and particularly Marcion, whose opposition to the Old Testament was starkly refuted by Tertullian, flesh out this tendency).

Additionally, what I think is happening here is exactly what began transpiring in the Southern Baptist Convention many years ago and eventually was brought to a head during the Conservative Resurgence (*note: this comment is not meant to endorse all the actions that took place during that time period in SBC life, but merely to point out that this sort of debate regarding the authority of Scripture provided a spark that resulted in the the conservative, moderate, and liberal in-fighting during those years). And so over the next week or so I hope to publish an article or two that deals with the idea of whether certain points of Scripture ought to be emphasized above other parts and on whether or not "Black Letter Christians" do in fact de-emphasize the words of Jesus, as Prescott has charged. Meanwhile I welcome your thoughts about the validity of such a distinction.