War of the Word

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?

It was this rhetorical/hypothetical question from Barack Obama’s 2006 keynote at “Call to Renewal” that recently raised the ire of James Dobson, prompting the Focus on the Family founder to state, “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology … He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

Now a Texas pastor has launched a site defending Obama, in what is simply one more skirmish in an escalating battle between the Christian Left and the Christian Right. The weapon of choice should not surprise us, because it’s been the most divisive and inflammatory document in history–burned, banned and bastardized for every purpose under the sun except that for which it was given.

… by televangelists to pimp their wares, by believers to bludgeon sin from unbelievers, by unbelievers to bludgeon good works from believers, by politicians to justify their self-serving positions, by skeptics to mock, by zealots to manipulate, by salesmen to advertise. … The list goes on.

In his 2006 speech, Obama was legitimately questioning the Christian Right’s virtually unchallenged alignment of political conservatism with biblical orthodoxy. This understandably stung those who have historically conflated weighty biblical issues such as the sanctity of life with political issues on which scripture is silent, such as lower taxes. Simultaneously, they have devalued other biblical issues such as stewardship of creation, dismissing such concerns as “liberal”.

As a result, the Christian Right is facing the reality of a president who does not share their values but shares their scriptures and is unafraid to wield them in a more sophisticated and convincing way than they have of late. They set up the battlefield and wrote the rules of engagement, and now they may lose the very thing that seems to have been a priority for them for so long–and that which they were willing to use scripture to attain: political power.

The result could be something rather poetic: They’ll get a president who believes in the protection of the disadvantaged, but will fail to protect life in the womb; who will leverage the power of government to help the poor, but who gave less than 1 percent of his substantial personal income to charity before his decision to run for president; who claims a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but who thinks good Muslims and Buddhists will probably get into heaven too.

Simply put, they’ll get a president who applies scripture selectively, just as they have for the last 30 years.

War of the Word

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s?

It was this rhetorical/hypothetical question from Barack Obama’s 2006 keynote at “Call to Renewal” that recently raised the ire of James Dobson, prompting the Focus on the Family founder to state, “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology … He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

Now a Texas pastor has launched a site defending Obama, in what is simply one more skirmish in an escalating battle between the Christian Left and the Christian Right. The weapon of choice should not surprise us, because it’s been the most divisive and inflammatory document in history–burned, banned and bastardized for every purpose under the sun except that for which it was given.

… by televangelists to pimp their wares, by believers to bludgeon sin from unbelievers, by unbelievers to bludgeon good works from believers, by politicians to justify their self-serving positions, by skeptics to mock, by zealots to manipulate, by salesmen to advertise. … The list goes on.

In his 2006 speech, Obama was legitimately questioning the Christian Right’s virtually unchallenged alignment of political conservatism with biblical orthodoxy. This understandably stung those who have historically conflated weighty biblical issues such as the sanctity of life with political issues on which scripture is silent, such as lower taxes. Simultaneously, they have devalued other biblical issues such as stewardship of creation, dismissing such concerns as “liberal”.

As a result, the Christian Right is facing the reality of a president who does not share their values but shares their scriptures and is unafraid to wield them in a more sophisticated and convincing way than they have of late. They set up the battlefield and wrote the rules of engagement, and now they may lose the very thing that seems to have been a priority for them for so long–and that which they were willing to use scripture to attain: political power.

The result could be something rather poetic: They’ll get a president who believes in the protection of the disadvantaged, but will fail to protect life in the womb; who will leverage the power of government to help the poor, but who gave less than 1 percent of his substantial personal income to charity before his decision to run for president; who claims a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but who thinks good Muslims and Buddhists will probably get into heaven too.

Simply put, they’ll get a president who applies scripture selectively, just as they have for the last 30 years.

Sheep and Shepherds

Vacation reading this last week was Wolf Totem, by Jiang Rong, a narrative describing the relationship of Inner Mongolian herders to the grassland and to the wolves that both threaten and insure their livelihood. The book is chock-full of insights into Mongolian culture, and I was particularly struck by the similarity of the relationship between native Mongolians and their Han Chinese interlopers and that of Native Americans and European settlers. However, one quote stood out as having particular relevance to the church:

"We have good grass and water here in Olonbulag, so the sheep have plenty of milk and they know their own lambs. That makes things easy for us. If the grass and water quality were poor, the sheep wouldn't have enough milk and they'd reject even their own lambs. We're lucky we have good leaders who understand the grasslands and understand wolves. They don't focus their efforts on the flocks, but on the grass and on the pastureland. When people take care of the important business, the lambs pretty much tend themselves."

How would it change the church if leaders spent more time focusing on the quality of their teaching rather than attempting to ascertain the needs of the sheep and meet them. With good feeding, I imagine sheep will "pretty much tend themselves."

Sheep and Shepherds

Vacation reading this last week was Wolf Totem, by Jiang Rong, a narrative describing the relationship of Inner Mongolian herders to the grassland and to the wolves that both threaten and insure their livelihood. The book is chock-full of insights into Mongolian culture, and I was particularly struck by the similarity of the relationship between native Mongolians and their Han Chinese interlopers and that of Native Americans and European settlers. However, one quote stood out as having particular relevance to the church:

"We have good grass and water here in Olonbulag, so the sheep have plenty of milk and they know their own lambs. That makes things easy for us. If the grass and water quality were poor, the sheep wouldn't have enough milk and they'd reject even their own lambs. We're lucky we have good leaders who understand the grasslands and understand wolves. They don't focus their efforts on the flocks, but on the grass and on the pastureland. When people take care of the important business, the lambs pretty much tend themselves."

How would it change the church if leaders spent more time focusing on the quality of their teaching rather than attempting to ascertain the needs of the sheep and meet them. With good feeding, I imagine sheep will "pretty much tend themselves."

Can You Murder a Gorilla?

Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another." (Oxford Dictionary)

"Who Murdered the Virunga Gorillas?" (National Geographic Magazine cover, July 2008)

Yes, this was truly a horrific abuse of God's creation, but National Geographic magazine is guilty of an embarrassingly imprecise use of language, from a journalistic perspective. From my experience in planning and executing magazine covers, however, this was not an unintentional gaffe, but a calculated use of the word "murder." I wonder what they're trying to say ...

Can You Murder a Gorilla?

Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another." (Oxford Dictionary)

"Who Murdered the Virunga Gorillas?" (National Geographic Magazine cover, July 2008)

Yes, this was truly a horrific abuse of God's creation, but National Geographic magazine is guilty of an embarrassingly imprecise use of language, from a journalistic perspective. From my experience in planning and executing magazine covers, however, this was not an unintentional gaffe, but a calculated use of the word "murder." I wonder what they're trying to say ...

Father's Day

Last month I had the joy of watching my dad graduate from seminary. After 20 years of pastoral ministry, he took a two year sabbatical to fulfill a dream of pursuing a master’s degree in theological studies. He excelled as the oldest student in his program and finished with a 3.9+ GPA and awards as the outstanding MATS student of the year and the recipient of the Stanley Horton Award for his final seminar paper—a study of Jesus’ disciples’ relationship to the Torah. The grades impressed me, but they pale in comparison to the backstory. It wasn’t that my dad didn’t have a chance to go to seminary before now, but that he put that—and pretty much every other personal ambition—on the backburner for the sake of his family and his ministry. What a great example he and my mother have been. Happy Father's Day, Dad. I love you.

Father's Day

Last month I had the joy of watching my dad graduate from seminary. After 20 years of pastoral ministry, he took a two year sabbatical to fulfill a dream of pursuing a master’s degree in theological studies. He excelled as the oldest student in his program and finished with a 3.9+ GPA and awards as the outstanding MATS student of the year and the recipient of the Stanley Horton Award for his final seminar paper—a study of Jesus’ disciples’ relationship to the Torah. The grades impressed me, but they pale in comparison to the backstory. It wasn’t that my dad didn’t have a chance to go to seminary before now, but that he put that—and pretty much every other personal ambition—on the backburner for the sake of his family and his ministry. What a great example he and my mother have been. Happy Father's Day, Dad. I love you.

Crazy Blessed

Vacation begins today. It's all about these people for the next week ...

Good Stress

I'm headed for vacation this weekend with the family after two of the most fast-paced months of work I can remember in a long time. Exhilarating. Exhausting. But ultimately a lot of fun. The latest energy vortex has been our December mission conference, Story'08, and the tools (both virtual and print) that we're creating to get the word out about this event. Everyone on our team left their fingerprints on this piece:

Crazy Blessed

Vacation begins today. It's all about these people for the next week ...

Good Stress

I'm headed for vacation this weekend with the family after two of the most fast-paced months of work I can remember in a long time. Exhilarating. Exhausting. But ultimately a lot of fun. The latest energy vortex has been our December mission conference, Story'08, and the tools (both virtual and print) that we're creating to get the word out about this event. Everyone on our team left their fingerprints on this piece:

Heaven's Most Wanted

"Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:11

Heaven's Most Wanted

"Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:11

"It's the Babies, Stupid."

I hate the price of gas, but not enough for it to affect my voting preferences. I dislike the war and its intended and unintended consequences, but whoever is elected president in November is going to feel the pressure of the American public to finish the job and bring the boys home ... so the war will have little impact on my vote. I find it ridiculous that secular gays want to celebrate the inherently religious ceremony of marriage so that they can enjoy the social privileges of an institution that many Americans seem to have little regard for anyway. However, homosexual behavior and its societal acceptance will not diminish or grow based on who's in the White House. Taxes, immigration, the death penalty, and the environment are areas in which Christians can maintain legitimate differences.

However, there is one litmus test that I apply to candidates--that of human dignity. I will not vote for someone who unconditionally supports abortion on demand--even if it is unlikely that person will ever have an influence on changing abortion policy. This is for the same reason I will not vote for a self-described racist, even if an affirmative action policy or discrimination bill never crosses that person's desk. It's not about the policy; it's about the character. Someone who does not recognize the dignity of a human life, no matter what color or what size, demonstrates a severe lack of judgment.

Celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade--and elevating it to a civil rights issue--presidential candidate Barack Obama noted, “We also know that Roe v. Wade is more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons.”

I would have expected better of him. Even if he were to maintain his views regarding a woman's "right" to an abortion, he could have at least noted the disturbing statistics of abortion in urban communities and expressed a desire to limit their frequency. As John Ensor notes, "the abortion business has consolidated into our nation’s cities. Over 90 percent of abortion facilities are now in urban neighborhoods. Black and Hispanic women suffer 56 percent of all abortions while representing only 25 percent of the female population."

The fact that Obama supports abortion rights is completely understandable. It's part of the Democratic platform, and Obama has one of the most predictable voting records in his party--voting with it 96.5% of the time. But it becomes disturbing when he opposes bills such as the Induced Infant Liability Act (as he did in '02), which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions and would have given them the same rights as babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose its passage!

I don't get it. Either he's a spineless hack for the abortion industry, or Obama actually believes that women should have the right to pay doctors to crush their babies' heads as they're exiting the birth canal or abandon babies who are fortunate enough to survive an abortion. Either way, I question his sanity or his morality. Call me a knee-jerk conservative when it comes to abortion, but Obama's voting record indicates he's a knee-jerk liberal when it comes to abortion--even when he doesn't have to be! Sorry, Barack. I'm not a fan of John McCain, but you don't get my vote.

It's the babies, stupid!

"It's the Babies, Stupid."

I hate the price of gas, but not enough for it to affect my voting preferences. I dislike the war and its intended and unintended consequences, but whoever is elected president in November is going to feel the pressure of the American public to finish the job and bring the boys home ... so the war will have little impact on my vote. I find it ridiculous that secular gays want to celebrate the inherently religious ceremony of marriage so that they can enjoy the social privileges of an institution that many Americans seem to have little regard for anyway. However, homosexual behavior and its societal acceptance will not diminish or grow based on who's in the White House. Taxes, immigration, the death penalty, and the environment are areas in which Christians can maintain legitimate differences.

However, there is one litmus test that I apply to candidates--that of human dignity. I will not vote for someone who unconditionally supports abortion on demand--even if it is unlikely that person will ever have an influence on changing abortion policy. This is for the same reason I will not vote for a self-described racist, even if an affirmative action policy or discrimination bill never crosses that person's desk. It's not about the policy; it's about the character. Someone who does not recognize the dignity of a human life, no matter what color or what size, demonstrates a severe lack of judgment.

Celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade--and elevating it to a civil rights issue--presidential candidate Barack Obama noted, “We also know that Roe v. Wade is more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons.”

I would have expected better of him. Even if he were to maintain his views regarding a woman's "right" to an abortion, he could have at least noted the disturbing statistics of abortion in urban communities and expressed a desire to limit their frequency. As John Ensor notes, "the abortion business has consolidated into our nation’s cities. Over 90 percent of abortion facilities are now in urban neighborhoods. Black and Hispanic women suffer 56 percent of all abortions while representing only 25 percent of the female population."

The fact that Obama supports abortion rights is completely understandable. It's part of the Democratic platform, and Obama has one of the most predictable voting records in his party--voting with it 96.5% of the time. But it becomes disturbing when he opposes bills such as the Induced Infant Liability Act (as he did in '02), which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions and would have given them the same rights as babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose its passage!

I don't get it. Either he's a spineless hack for the abortion industry, or Obama actually believes that women should have the right to pay doctors to crush their babies' heads as they're exiting the birth canal or abandon babies who are fortunate enough to survive an abortion. Either way, I question his sanity or his morality. Call me a knee-jerk conservative when it comes to abortion, but Obama's voting record indicates he's a knee-jerk liberal when it comes to abortion--even when he doesn't have to be! Sorry, Barack. I'm not a fan of John McCain, but you don't get my vote.

It's the babies, stupid!