Are you happy?

An atheist was once addressing a crowd of people in the open air. He was trying to persuade them that there was no God and no devil, no heaven, and no hell, no resurrection, no judgment, and no life to come. He advised them to throw away their Bibles, and not to pay attention to what preachers said. He recommended them to think as he did, and to be like him. He talked boldly. The crowd listened eagerly. It was "the blind leading the blind." Both were falling into the pit (Matthew 15:14).

In the middle of his address a poor old woman suddenly pushed her way through the crowd, to the place where he was standing. She stood before him. She looked him full in the face. "Sir," she said, in a loud voice, "Are you happy?" The atheist looked scornfully at her, and gave her no answer. "Sir," she said again, "I ask you to answer my question. Are you happy? You want us to throw away our Bibles. You tell us not to believe what preachers say about Christ. You advise us to think as you do, and be like you. Now before we take your advice we have a right to know what good we will gain by it. Do your fine new ideas give you a lot of comfort? Do you yourself really feel happy?"

The atheist stopped, and attempted to answer the old woman's question. He stammered, and shuffled, and fidgeted, and endeavored to explain his meaning. He tried hard to return to the subject. He said, he "had not come to preach about happiness." But it was of no use. The old woman stuck to her point. She insisted on her question being answered, and the crowd took her side. She pressed him hard with her inquiry, and would take no excuse. And at last the atheist was obliged to leave, and sneak off in the confusion. His conscience would not let him stay: he dared not say that he was happy.

(taken from Practical Religion, by J.C. Ryle)

I do not think this is a hard and fast rule, per se. There are people who seem very happy and content without being Christians, and a lot of Christians who are not happy or content.

But even so, I am often struck by the stark difference between the empty life of self-service and the joyful life of submission and service to God.

Recently, I realized I've almost entirely let go of apologetics. I used to be very much into the creation-evolution debates, arguments about reality, or technical discussions of Biblical accuracy. Those things are still good: I think it is wise for Christians to have a good understanding of them. But for as for me, my trust is in God because of the works he does; the way he has shaped and molded me through experience, the way his answers are always the healthier answers, and the way he speaks to me through my own prayers.

Though I tend toward sorrow and struggles with depression, I still find my joy in the hope of the gospel and the glory of God. I believe relationships can be healed through the strength of the Spirit even when my strength wanes. I know my purpose is tied to my obedience and not my competance. And I am happy, because God is real and all he says and does is right.

Moses and me: Practicing Faith and Pragmatism

I am too selective in my Scripture reading. My favorites include Psalms, Jeremiah, Habbakuk, Ephesians, Hebrews, and James. The Samuels, the Corinthians, and the Timothys are also nice. Revelation is just right out.

I recently finished Colossians, which I quite enjoyed. However, it is very similar to Ephesians. So, I'm going to try something a bit new and go with Deuteronomy.

Simply beginning with chapter 1, I saw that even Moses struggled with the problem of both trusting God and living pragmatically at the same time. God was very clear on several points; Israel would re-enter the land, they would do so at the end of the 40 year exilic period, and God would be with them.

Even so, Moses spent much time in preparation. He organized a diverse and thorough leadership structure, so that the majority of problems could be handled locally and only the largest issues would hit his desk... or his camel, I suppose. Further, though he knew God had blessed this generation, he spent a lot of time (specifically, the length of the book of Deuteronomy) reminding them of the Law and exhorting them to obedience. (Hm... a diversified organizational structure and ethics training. Maybe Wall Street should read Deuteronomy too!)

This interplay between "God WILL do it" and "we should honor his blessing with faithfulness" is a powerful though sometimes confusing one.

On one hand, I need to continue to remind myself that God is a God of faithfulness. He knows his purposes for me, will bring things about in just the way I need, and will maintain sovereign care over my future.

On the other, I still need to focus my mind on my job, shepherd the people I love (both prayerfully and pragmatically), fulfill my ministry obligations, and look for opportunities to build the kingdom.

Moses knew the weakness of his people, and was careful to strengthen them with clear teaching and exhortation, as well as pragmatic structures to prepare them for the rigors ahead. I hope I can do the same to honor all God's blessings, trusting while doing so that his sovereign guidance steers the ship.

Fun notes and pictures.

Ok, I have a series of more serious posts coming up, so I thought I'd throw a few fun things out there first.

First of all, to satisfy Jamie and any other Isaiah fans out there, here are a couple pictures.


Dude, chill.


Who are you people?


Me and My Buddy


The End of a Long Day... or 2 hour period.



Second, Drew complained that my last couple Moments of Beauty have featured Asians (Pavoratti and Al Pacino nonwithstanding). So, here is a decidedly non-Asian Moment of Beauty just for Drew. The singer is Eva Cassidy, and if you enjoy this song you'll likely enjoy this and this as well.


Finally, I definitely recommend that you see Prince Caspian. Here is a helpful review for your consideration!


Take care!

Baby Isaiah Pics!

Hey folks,

Thanks again for your prayers and support. Here are some pictures from a crazy and wonderful weekend!


The Infamous, "Grumpy Old Man"



Isaiah Sees The Light



Mommy and Isaiah



Daddy and bored Isaiah



Funny Face



Sleeping... again.



Growing Family



If you want to see more, click on the "My Pictures" link on the sidebar.

I'm a father!

Hey Folks,

I'm a Daddy! Samantha's water broke around 3:15 yesterday morning, and we went to the hospital. She was throwing up because of the contraction pains, so she had an epidural around 6:15. From there, it was just a matter of waiting until she was fully dilated.

Isaiah was born at 1:13 on May 3... Derby Day! It was one of the ugliest and most beautiful things I've ever seen. He literally looks like a grumpy old man... the back half of his head is covered in hair, and the front half is bald!

He was a pretty big kid for being a few days early- 8 pounds, 3 ounces, and 20.5 inches long. We love him to pieces even though he's so funny looking.

I've been trying all day to post pictures, until I finally realized the hospital doesn't seem to allow uploads. So, you'll just have to wait a day or two.


Throughout all this, God has been exceedingly kind. An easy pregnancy, my sister and wife delivering two days apart, getting a job. I can only pray that we lean on him in the good times in the same way we were forced to in the very hard times.

Thanks for all your love and prayers,

Ben

Oh yes, and here it is... your Moment of Beauty. This is a special one that talks about three of my favorite things- children, classical music, and Sesame Street!

Proactively Vulnerable

What does the word vulnerable mean to you?

My own immediate answer is twofold. First, vulnerability calls to mind standing at a window on a cold day, looking out at a bleak landscape. It is a question about what I am doing, whether I have value, and whether there is meaning in my interaction with life. I feel afraid, because the world’s negative answers to my questions could easily hurt, and I therefore feel quite vulnerable. Not a very Christian answer, I grant you, but it’s the first one I have and to say otherwise would be dishonest.

My next imaginative leap flees to the Lonely Mountain, where Smaug (the dragon in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit) resides. He is powerful and angry, full of evil and hate. However, there is a weak place in his armor. This vulnerability in his defenses leads to his demise as he is shot down by a well-placed arrow.

What then is vulnerability? It seems, in some way, to be an area of potential damage. It is something to be protected, guarded, defended. To quote the good Mr. Webster, it is when one is, “capable of being physically or emotionally wounded.”

We tend to fear these areas of potential damage in our lives, especially in the emotional context. Because we fear them, we defend them. We avoid them by not talking about our past or our problems, not admitting our fears, not letting anyone too close, not confessing our sin. We formulate sterile worlds that do not challenge us or have any potential to harm us.

This is done by only spending time with others when we are, “in the mood.” We keep visits short and sweet so that we never display a hint of annoyance. We back away from offending anyone. When someone hurts, we, “give them time to themselves.” We share our lives with helpful statements like, “I’m fine,” or, “I’ve been pretty busy lately.” We organize our schedules so that nobody sees our ugliness. If the ugliness does come out, those who do see it usually won’t ever see us again.

These things create a perfect, plastic world where smiles are painted on and everyone is fine. We know about each other, but we would not ask each other for money. We hear others’ words, but do not know how to listen to others’ hearts.

In the church, however, we say we desire close fellowship. We say we want to bear burdens and share sorrows. We say, “If you need anything, just ask.” We say, “Let me know if I can serve in any way.” We say the church is our community. We say.

I want to suggest that real fellowship does not happen without vulnerability. True relationships are not possible until we see each others’ weaknesses and failings, sorrows and anger. Without the reality of the warts and wounds, we are simply acting out the plastic world once again.

But in today’s society, the plastic world is more easily accessible than ever before. The internet, the suburbs, and the automobile have created a perfect storm of community-less life. It is simply easier not to seek out the ugly things that make relationships real.

My perspective, then, is that the creation of real community, in our local context, depends on our willingness to be proactively vulnerable. We must make ourselves, “capable of being emotionally wounded.” We must put ourselves in a position to see the ugliness that is in all our lives, so that we can begin the work of loving, accepting, discipling, and forgiving each other.

How will we create a community that can confess real sin if we are scared that we are the weakest one in the room? How will healing happen when our culture stifles our ability to admit the wound?

Here, then, are a few thoughts on being proactively vulnerable.

1. Live an open life. Find creative, sacrificial ways to spend time with people. More time means more opportunity to know people intimately by seeing them as they really are.

Yes, I realize your schedule is busy. That’s why it requires both creativity and sacrifice. But trust me, the drawbacks of occasional loss of sleep or schedule are outweighed by the rewards of intimacy and honesty in relationships.

2. Share your ugliness. Yes, this is a good thing to save for groups or individuals you have a certain level of trust for. But if you never put anything out there, whom will you trust?

Leaders, especially, need to find ways to show their own weaknesses before God, so that the community can collectively celebrate God’s grace. If leaders (even unrecognized leaders, like the unofficial leader of conversation in a dinner group) do not communicate safety in sharing weakness, nobody else will go there either.

3. Ask hard questions. Though they are very uncomfortable, the fact is that most people want to be known. If you ask simple surface questions like, “how’s it going?,” you’ll get simple surface answers like, “fine.” But if you have the guts to ask questions like, “Does it hurt you that nobody seems to ask you for help when they need it?,” you’ll find out very quickly just how badly people want to be known.

4. Listen to the answers. Don’t just hear them. Come to terms with the pain and loneliness in people’s hearts. Consider situations that might give you the same emotional distress their situation is giving them, and use that mind exercise to develop compassion. Listen to people’s hearts, and let them listen to yours.

5. Pray for each other, deeply and strongly. Pray for real and ugly things, pour out your sorrow for others before God. You will be shocked at how it draws you closer.

Friends, be proactively vulnerable. It is one of the greatest needs in our sterilized culture, and it won’t change unless someone like you does something about it.

Healthy Interaction About Obama

Hey folks,

Here is a comment left recently by my friend Josh Dove. Notice a couple things. First, it's very irenic (meaning it's designed to be a peaceful interaction, rather than inflammatory) even when disagreeing. Second, he considered all the information that was presented. And third, he has some very helpful points and arguments! I'll put my response at the end, but I wanted to highlight an example of good disagreement between Christians. The beautiful thing, as you'll note, is that disagreeing peacefully actually helps people find more common ground than you might expect!


Ben,

This is an interesting post. I've thought about the post overnight before watching the YouTube video this morning and wanted to share a few thoughts/ask a few questions.

(A) The whole issue of how, exactly, Rev. Wright's comments should affect Sen. Obama's candidacy has not been thought about nearly enough. Here are a few clarifying thoughts:

1. I accept that Obama going to this church for 20 years does not, necessarily, mean that he holds all the same views as Rev. Wright. We all need to be intellectually honest about this.

2. But, these and other comments by Rev. Wright DO at least raise questions about Sen. Obama's core convictions. Because I don't believe Sen. Obama could have been ignorant of Wright's anti-American positions (and by his own admission he was at the church at least sometimes when controversial statements were made) I submit that Sen. Obama's attendance and support for the church poses the following dilemma. Either:

(a) Obama knew of the church's positions and is sympathetic enough with them to remain in the church, which I think questions his judgment, or

(b) Obama knew of the church's positions, and though he opposed them, said (apparently) nothing, kept giving money to the church, and decided to stay (perhaps for political reasons?). This questions his integrity.

The crux of this disjunction rests on Obama's assertions that racial healing/unity is his core concern. My observation is simply that you CANNOT have racial healing as a core value, in any intellectually honest way, and attend for 20 years a church that, to say the least, borders on racism (or, if you want to be even more precise, I might simply say stokes, rather than settles, racial tension).

Is that fair?

In sum, Rev. Wright has a constitutional right, as does Sen. Obama, to hold to whatever opinion he wants to. This is obvious. But I don't want a President who lends a sympathetic ear to an influential anti-American pastor. Obama may, or may not, sympathize with Wright's positions, but were I, or almost anyone that I know, subjected to such ideology from the pulpit, I would raise strong, public objections and/or I would leave. Obama seems to have done neither. For 20 years.

(B) The CHIEF tragedy of Rev. Wright is how he has made a mockery of the pulpit and the Gospel. Liberation theology is not Gospel theology.

(C) I did listen to Sen. Obama's speech in its entirety, and I thought it was terrible, not in the delivery but in the content. But, that is for another discussion. I merely mention this to evidence that I have taken into account Sen. Obama's response.

At any rate, you can only trust that I submit these comments in a spirit of cordial conversation, rather than that of debate. We should both harbor few expectations of changing the other's mind, but a little clarity and friendly exchange could prove quite interesting.

Best wishes,
Joshua


Ok, this was a fantastic comment, but I do have some differences. Thankfully Josh has broken his questions down very clearly, so I'll just respond as they were written.

A) Josh suggests that a person cannot attend a church for 20 years while disagreeing with a large political/theological issue such as a severely negative view of America. The fact that he says he did means he is either sympathetic to the views or has a lack of integrity.

My disagreement here rests on two things. First, I believe Obama's membership at his church was partially pragmatic. Nearly his entire career, before an almost miracle run to the Senate and presidential candidacy, was devoted to one local area in downtown Chicago. Anyone who has tried to get something done politically in a largely African-American community knows that the church is the spiritual, cultural, and political center of African-American community life. I'm sure Obama was much more effective as a community organizer and state senator by being a member of that church than he would have at, say, a small church in the suburbs. And to put it frankly, it would have been very hard to find a church with a non-liberation theology perspective. But as Obama himself says, he was invited to church by others, and while there experienced his spiritual "conversion." Whatever you think of his theology, the fact is that it was a powerful experience for him, and that type of thing breeds a lot of loyalty. Combine that with the understanding of the church as "center of the community" (rather than ONLY "place of worship") and you have understandable ingredients for a local community organizer to stay at the same place and become deeply ingrained in that community.

Second, I DO believe you can be part of a church, for a specific reason (in Obama's case, community influence), and disagree with fairly major things. My last church was American Baptist. I disagreed on their egalitarianism, certain church practices, and a host of denominational problems. However, while I was in that city, my wife and I had a specific role and mission there. We had a flourishing ministry with college students, a Sunday School class I taught, friends we had accountability with, and a pastor and his wife who loved and mentored us. We became a close part of that wonderful little community, and we very likely would have stayed if God had not led us elsewhere. Does the fact that my church allowed women to preach disqualify me from being president of the CBMW someday?

B) Josh says the chief tragedy of Reverend Wright is his commitment to liberation theology, which is not gospel theology.

Josh is absolutely correct about this. Liberation theology, as far as I can tell, is a false gospel which I have never seen preach the true gospel correctly. It is wildly popular in poverty-stricken areas, including most inner cities (especially African American communities), the shantytowns and favelas of Latin America, and other places.

Keep in mind, though, that this is true of the Health and Prosperity Gospel as well, which is huge in a lot of white and Asian communities. The church must constantly be speaking to all of these groups, proclaiming the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.

And as a matter of politics, keep in mind that McCain is certainly no Christian!

C) I'll be interested to see which things Josh disliked about the Obama speech. As far as I could tell, it was well researched and quite honest. The vast majority of factual information he communicated was true as far as I know and have studied.

But, as Josh says, we'll have to discuss it together when we get the chance. I am also going to spend some time talking with an African-American friend of mine here at the seminary, so that he can give me some insights into some of the things Obama said, as well as how he views his role in a church that he has some large theological disagreements with, but is working to reform (that last bit should tip you off that his mission is very different from Obama's, so I don't mean to equate them. I just plan to get some good insight from him).

Anyways, I hope this and my original post on Obama have been helpful examples of how Christians can discuss contentious issues like politics, race, and abortion in a thoughtful and constructive way.

And yes, I'm planning on doing a post (as I said I would) when I get the time about how a Christian can vote for someone who supports abortion.

Till next time.

What Does the Weird Northerner Read?

I was tagged by Rich. This is new to me, but I suppose I'll play along for the sake of solidarity with my TABC/SBTS/CAPC friend.

Of course, this could be a bit different of an exercise. I'm a little different in my reading habits than the average guy around here. I tend to read a little bit of a lot of books each day, so I get through more books more slowly, and it all averages out. Keep in mind I likely won't finish any of these this week, except maybe the Jane Jacobs book. We'll see what happens.

What are you reading on Spring reading days?

>Things That Count-Gilbert Meilaender. Highly recommended!

>The Revolt of The Masses-Jose Ortega y Gasset

>The Baseball Chronicles-David Gallen, ed.

>Neither Poverty Nor Riches-Craig Blomberg

>Dark Night of the Soul-Saint John of the Cross

>Bernard Malamud: The Complete Stories-Bernard Malamud

>The Death and Life of Great American Cities-Jane Jacobs

>Hope-Jeremiah Burroughs

>The Discoverers-Daniel Boorstin


What do you wish you had time to read?

>The Brothers Karamozov-Fyodor Dostoevsky

>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions-Thomas Kuhn

>Peter the Great-Robert Massie

>The Rise and Fall of the British Empire-Lawrence James

>Hearing God's Words-Peter Adam


What have you decided NOT to read that you were assigned to read?

I suspect certain sections of Theological Aesthetics (Richard Viladesau) will fall by the wayside. Thankfully, having only two classes allows me to miss very little.

What is one great quote from your reading?

On having children-
"But there are no guarentees that the final, 'product,' of this process will be what the parents anticipated. Parents know this, of course, and are therefore understandably anxious about their children's future. However understandable such anxiety may be, it also constitutes a great temptation-the temptation to try to be the guarentor of our children's future, to protect them from all disappointment and suffering. To give in to such temptation would be, in effect, to deny their freedom to be an-other like us, equal in dignity. This means that parents must seek more than their own satisfaction in rearing their children. They must give themselves in faith and hope, recognizing that they are not more than co-creators and that they cannot shape the future."
-Gilbert Meilaender, Things That Count

Why are you blogging? (You’re supposed to be reading!)

Blogging is one helpful way to articulate the things I learn. When we read, learning certainly happens. But the true value of learning isn't to just plug it in and say, "I have read this!" The true value is to take all those inputs from reading and to understand and articulate truth as best you can. This process of learning, comprehending, and articulating is key to helping us conform our physical daily lives to the transcendent truths of Scripture. Certainly none of us would be better off if Augustine had spent more time reading rather than wasting his time writing!

Let's see, we're running out of people to tag. I'll tag brand-new blogger Drew Hickok, the always intellectual Josh Dove, and Mr. Muleshoe himself, Riley Byers.

Improv Everywhere Does It Again! Baseball

I can't get enough of these guys. As I've mentioned in the past, Improv Everywhere entered my YouTube pantheon with their Frozen in Grand Central Station. However, they've taken a direct shot at my heart with this one. I love kids, I love baseball, and I love this mission!

Enjoy watching Improv Everywhere stage the Best Game Ever.

Whoops! I forgot that when I put up links, I want to also remember to put up a Moment of Beauty. Here it is.

Obama's pastor, Rev. Wright, in Context

We as seminarians often say, "You have to look at the verse in context!" It's quite frustrating when someone takes a small portion of a teaching out of context and misuses it.

May I submit to you that this should be true of how information is reported, as well?

Look, I don't agree with Reverend Wright on a host of things. But please be fair and thoughtful in how you evaluate him. The best way to do this is to first read up on and understand the paradigms of liberation theology and the Jim Crow era, both of which formulated his character.

Another way to do that is to listen to the things he says in context. I think you'll find it's not quite so bad as short clips make him out to be.

While you're at it, at least hear Obama out in his response.

And here is the hero of Christians all over, Mike Huckabee, and his reaction to the Obama speech.

The Place of Decision

Sometimes I imagine a large white room. The floors are cold plastic tile, and you wish for a leather chair and deep carpet. The high ceilings give no sense of place or comfort. The lone furniture is a metal folding chair. Sheets of paper covered in 10-font print lie strewn across the floor.

Several dozen doors line the walls. They have peepholes, which allow one to see about a foot beyond but not much more. The metal doors are gray, but you rarely see that because each is covered in hundreds of bits of paper, the type with sticky backing loved by secretaries. These sticky notes are either blue or red. In varying types of handwritten urgency, they make their case.

“It would make Mom happy!” says one blue sheet on a particular door. Directly next to it is a foreboding red, suggesting, “My dad would be secretly embarrassed.”

Moving from door to door, you realize you are in the Place of Decision. The room is the state of mind we all must enter when a time for choosing comes. Perhaps yours is more comforting than mine, but of course I only know my own little corner of the world.

Each door is one answer to the decision at hand. Some are locked- they are not options this time around. Some are unlocked. However, you can only walk through one. And you must first be confronted by those infernal bits of paper. Blue bits are reasons this door is a good one, red bits are reasons it is not.

How do you choose?

Some go by color. Do blues outweigh reds?
Some are cautious. Does this door contain as few reds as possible?
Some are cantankerous. Choose the door with the most reds! It’s the only way I can feel unique!

The variations are, of course, quite endless. I imagine some go to the doors one at a time, peel off all the notes, and sit squirming in the metal chair as they shuffle through each note, one at a time. Some arrogantly pick a single note off the door and ignore the others. Some take the notes to a wall and arrange a hierarchy, designing a system that puts the key considerations at the top. Some simply ignore the doors, and wait until all but one are locked from the outside.

Amidst the diversity of approaches, one universal truth stands out. We must choose. Nobody gets to avoid the Place of Decision; no one can be given a long and unaltered hallway. We must choose.

My room, my Place of Decision, is ugly. It is cold and frustrating and I do not like to be there. And yet it is not a room you can leave behind. Each new wrinkle of life brings me back to that room to face decisions with varying degrees of importance.

So then, let us pretend for a moment that I am a wise man. I am in this room ALL THE TIME. What should I do? Why, I should make it a more comfortable and more efficient place. I should organize and upgrade. I should not allow such a significant portion of my life to be so physically and spiritually empty.

How will this be done? Answer: The Right Tools.

My Place of Decision should be filled with helpful tools and furniture, things that bring guidance and wisdom in accordance with my life commitments. These include;

-a prayer bench with two permanent imprints in the cushions
-a worn and dog-eared Bible
-a telephone with wise mentors on speed dial
-shelves of books, to interact with great minds of the past
-an easy-access door (with no lock) for a close friend
-a diary and family photo album

Much could be said about these items, and about other things for improving my room. That is a discussion for another day. For now, let me emphasize that these items must be IN the Place of Decision.

Too often, we leave these things outside, while life is smooth and relatively free of hard decisions. Then, when we are forced into the Place of Decision, it is cold and barren and scary and stressful. Our furniture is forgotten and ignored.

And so, alone and distressed, we fight through red and blue sticky notes one at a time. By ourselves.

When we live this way, why are we surprised to feel as though God has left us alone?

Links: A Breath of Fresh Air

My last two posts (and, hopefully, my next one) are focused on topics that have been in the public square a lot lately. Many of my (three or four) readers are probably bored by now. So, I thought I'd give you a break. Here are some fun or fascinating links I've come across in recent days!

First and foremost, THIS is just way too cute. I can hardly wait to be a father!

This website is called detroitblog, and I think it's absolutely fascinating. If you get a chance, go back through the archives to get an amazing window into inner-city life. This post is just one example- and it's very sad. Christians need to spend time thinking about the serious spiritual problems these areas face.

I know many people don't like him. I know they regard him as a failure. But here's a neat article about a man whom, despite his failings, I will always love and respect.

Are you interested in philosophy? This website has an incredible store of key philosophy texts. I already have used it to find a lot of stuff I remembered learning from my liberal arts program in college.

This website is just awesome. It uses statistics to show the relationships of various economic and health characteristics in countries around the world. Be sure to watch the lectures to see how he uses the gapminder tool... and then try it out for yourself!

Boy... if only we had the discipline to listen to political debates like THIS these days.

This website is wonderfully helpful, but also a bit saddening. It's called We Feel Fine, and it takes a beautiful approach to searching through people's blogs. The sad part, of course, is that it highlights the incredible lostness in our world. This video helpfully explains the tool and how to use it.

THE AMAZING OCTOPUS.

Are you interested in global warming? Well, I strongly suggest you watch these lectures. I can hardly get over this silliness of this debate. If you are looking for a repository of articles representing both sides of the discussion, HERE YOU GO.

Finally, I cannot leave without at least one moment of beauty. Here it is.

Obama: Comments, Criticisms, and Further Thoughts

Wow- my last post garnered more comments and interest (both on and off the Internet!) than any other since… well, since I started sharing bits and pieces of my life on blogger in 2002. Thank you Christ and Pop Culture!

Here’s what I want to do. First, I’ll review some of the feedback I’ve gotten from comments both on and off the web. In my next post, I’ll flesh out some of my thoughts on why I am voting for Obama and how I think about some of the issues involved. Keep sending in your comments! They are very helpful to me.

First, Matt Privet agrees with my McCain frustrations, but argues that not voting at all is a better approach to the problem. As a political conservative, he sees possible dangers in supporting a candidate with a more liberal stance. From a political philosophy standpoint, he makes a very strong point. As I have mentioned in a few places, I’m trying to toss a lot of those philosophical stances out for this election, focusing on trying to vote as an extension of Christian faithfulness rather than voting for political ideology. However, the conservative in me has a LOT of sympathy for his helpful point.

Next, my friend Matt Wireman lets me know that he’s not entirely convinced… and guides us to a very helpful article (and yes, Matt, I had seen it previously) discussing some of the things a president is able to do that help control the spread of abortion. Matt is right to point to this issue; it is a key problem in the question of whom to vote for. I will flesh out my understanding of this problem more in a bit, but for now let me say simply that I just do not see it. Abortion trends seem significantly unaffected by the president in office- you would think 8 years of dominating federal politics would be enough for conservatives to make at least SOME gains in abortion reduction, but I just do not see it. Still, it is a very important aspect of the discussion to consider.

Alan agrees with the problem of single-issue voting, but is struggling with the issue of Supreme Court Justice appointments. I think he is right to do so, but I would suggest that conservatives put far too much faith in the Supreme Court. Remember, they do not make law… they merely interpret it. Also, they generally try not to take cases they have already spoken on. Though we certainly desire more conservative justices, I’m no longer convinced that voting for a string of conservative presidents to try to wait for the liberal justices to die off is viable or justifiable.

Alex Fear is a Pentecostal from England (read that twice! Are you with newfrontiers at all?). He comments that the American focus on the abortion is really quite unique- at least in England, it’s barely a political issue at all. He supports the bottom approach I’ve advocated elsewhere for addressing the abortion problem through social action and heart change rather than political change. One thing that especially struck me was when he said, “The church should be offering the answer…” Amen to that. The problem is not merely abortion- it’s all the reasons for HAVING an abortion which are widely accepted as morally ok. We as a church need to offer answers of hope, help, forgiveness, and a better way forward.

He also brings up the fairly common “what about capital punishment?” argument. I actually don’t think that’s a very helpful paradigm. Capital punishment is a right of the state. I do believe Christians should lobby for leniency, and even for abolition of capital punishment, but it is not on a moral parallel with abortion. When the state kills a dangerous criminal (who have GIVEN UP their right to freedom and even life), it is protecting society. When an individual aborts their baby (who is entirely innocent), they are usually not protecting anyone or anything other than their personal interests, even if those reasons are heartbreaking ones.

My good friend Luis chimes in, supporting again the bottom-up paradigm of going after root causes rather than bulldozing with legislation. To receive a compliment from him is a mighty thing! There are few people whom I enjoy interacting with so much as him- I think we challenge each other well, and so it’s fun to agree on something!

Pastor Bill Reichart from Georgia agrees with the trend away from a purely Republican voting line, and links to a post he’s written on God’s politics.

My friend Gracelin agrees with voting for Obama in her usual subtle and nuanced style. As you’ll see, though, she’s as smart as they come and has done her homework in a variety of areas. Can you say, “future journalist?” I say yes. Probably for the NY Times before the Wall Street Journal, but one can always hope!

Outside the Internet world, two of my church's excellent elders (I won't say which two) cornered me to talk politics. They had some very helpful arguments that should be considered.

The first argued that, as an initial step, abortion should be left up to the states. Should that happen, abortion debates would be local and presidential politics would be freed to focus on other issues. This is a great scenario, but I don’t think it could last very long if it happened. The first thing the ACLU would do is go to a poor area of a large state that outlaws abortion (say, Texas) and find a woman who wants an abortion but is financially unable to leave the state. They would argue that it if the SC has not OUTLAWED abortion, then this woman is being denied her rights merely on the basis of living in a state that is against abortion. I feel that it’s the same structural problem that slavery presented- keeping the decision in the hands of the states bears too many inconsistencies to make it last.

The second pointed out that there are a million smaller decisions pertaining to abortion that are made at a lower level- and that a pro-choice president, over time, would encourage a mostly pro-choice government work force (committee chairs, bureaucratic positions, etc.) that would have negative effects across the board. This, again, is a strong point. However, as far as I know, the majority of federal bureaucratic positions are filled without regard to political stance (specifically to prevent this type of influence from the executive). Further, this gets back to the original question about abortion- will political answers really win the day?

These comments were all helpful to me, and were excellent articulations of the various problems associated with the abortion issue in the evangelical community. Thank you to everyone! I will soon write a post on my take on the abortion issue in presidential politics.

I Will Vote For Obama

I will vote for Barack Obama.

I realize this post will not be popular. I realize it flies in the face of some strongly held beliefs, and many will feel I am doing something questionable, even wrong. However, I believe I am making the best choice I can, and that I am being as God-honoring as possible.

Let me also throw in a few disclaimers. I am a registered Republican. I currently am and have always been politically conservative. I attended a mostly liberal college within my university and remained conservative. I have worked for a Republican running for Congress (Tom Hickey), a Republican state senator (Loren Bennett), a Republican congressman (Mike Rogers from Michigan), and have voted for Republicans almost exclusively. I have credentials that would prevent me from being hired by nearly any liberal organization. Furthermore, I am a big fan of George W. Bush and some (though not all) of the hard decisions he has made in his presidency. If this race were him against Obama, I would vote Bush.

And yet I am voting for Obama. Why?

Now, this post is long. Here is my request. If you are skimming, feel free to skim away. However, if you want to criticize or respond to my post, that’s fine, but PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING FIRST. I have spent lots of time reading the many blogs and commentators supporting or disparaging Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Paul, Thompson, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. I do look at the major issues, the candidate biographies, and the ins and outs of the campaign. Please respect me enough to hear me out before rebuking me. If you REALLY want to be fair, I suggest you even take a few minutes to check out the things I link to.

I will first highlight some (though not all) of the reasons I find Obama to be an attractive candidate. I will then list some (though not all) of the reasons why I am willing to vote against John McCain and the Republican party in this election cycle. I will close by briefly referring to other statements I have made in the past regarding politics.

First, some of why I am for Obama.

Obama articulates a common hopeful vision.
Throughout American history, the greatest presidents have articulated a unifying vision for the country. This has been key to our sense of togetherness and accomplishment in facing various problems. More than any other candidate, Obama is thoughtful and intelligent in assessing, considering, and articulating the various struggles we face as people, and then guiding us into a sense of commonality as we deal with those things.

Obama is connected to society.
None of the other candidates has been so closely and intimately invested in the problems of local government as he. His work in inner city Chicago will, I think, help him to be more thoughtful about the effect national policies have on local communities than the other candidates. This speech illustrates my point about these last two paragraphs.

Obama has the most Christian worldview of the remaining (viable) candidates.
Though one could argue that Huckabee deserves to win this category, he is pretty much out of the race. Barack Obama has articulated a conversion experience, and has faithfully and consistently lived out his faith. You may have some theological disagreements with the African-American church, as I do, but there is no denying that his faith is much more clear and authentic than any claimed by McCain or Clinton.

Obama’s character and approach to problem solving will, I believe, be more constructive on the world stage.
He reminds me of Tony Blair in his thoughtful and articulate approach, willing to acknowledge faults and mistakes but always looking for a positive way forward. I look forward to seeing his talents on display at the international level, whereas the thought of being represented by the maverick McCain or the pandering Clinton just scares me.

Obama is by far the most thoughtful and reflective candidate regarding the role of faith in politics.
If one is to be fair to him, you really must listen to his Call for Renewal speech (you can READ IT too, but seeing and hearing it is more effective). Though you may disagree with the conclusions he has come to, he has clearly put much consideration into the way he approaches such a large and contentious issue.


Now, here is why I am prepared to vote against the Republican party.

The Republican party has squandered its opportunity.
Though there is much I like about George W. Bush, the party on the whole has been given every advantage in the world and they cannot seem to get anything worthwhile done. They have not found ways to create good policy, they have not found ways to work helpfully with Democrats, and they have done more to hurt the nation’s view of conservative political policy than they have to help it.

The Republican party is no longer listening to Christians.
We have become a voting bloc for them, a monolithic single-issue creature that will support ANYONE so long as they agree in one key area. I have worked in the United States Congress, heard their conversations, seen the way they make decisions, seen how they talk about evangelicals, and seen the results. I tell you plainly; for the most part, the party is not listening to us. They pay us verbal respect because we are large, but they are not responding to our desires so long as we guarantee them our votes in exchange for the lip-service of being against abortion.

Since when is coming down hard on illegal immigration something for Christians to get fired up about? What has happened to our compassion for the foreigner, the outcast, the exile? And yet we allow the party to tell us how we should think about that and many other topics… so long as they, “are pro-life,” an issue which most politicians can’t influence anyways. (note: I speak generally here- I realize some Christians do have good reasons for wanting a tougher stance on the problems of illegal immigration. However, I do think it’s an area many Christians just follow the party line on, rather than researching it carefully)

John McCain is an immoral man.
Do you remember when the big Republican argument for supporting Bob Dole was, “Bill Clinton is immoral and unrepentant”? McCain is very much in the same vein. He has had multiple affairs. The most recent led to his divorcing his wife and remarrying less than a month later. Any, “repentance,” he has displayed was over hurt feelings, but not over the sin itself. Does this disqualify him from the Presidency? No. However, Christians who argued that morality was reason to vote for Dole and against Clinton should check themselves carefully in this race.

John McCain is a bad policy maker.
The laws he has helped write are mixed up gobblygook; they were not thought through clearly, they were not written well, and they are not making our country a better place. Nothing about his career suggests that he will ably handle the highest administrative office in the land. This is a big problem to me, as you’ll see in THIS POST on this topic.

John McCain is not a leader or a consensus builder.
For his entire career, he has played the part of maverick. He revels in challenging convention, and rather than work with others he takes his case public to wedge his opponents into a rhetorical corner. The whole campaign finance fiasco, for instance, was a case in point. He made a big moral issue out of campaign finance, made his party look bad, and then wrote a bad law to the sound of thunderous applause from the public and meek acquiescence from the rest of the Senate. The result? There’s even MORE money in campaign finances, it’s even EASIER to get support from questionable sources, and individuals have even LESS influence than they used to as compared to larger lobbying organizations. Why should I trust him as a leader? HERE is an article describing some of the problems of McCain's signature legislation.



Overall, I believe my role as a Christian voter is to vote for the person I feel will best lead the country, so that the name of Christ can most easily be proclaimed to everyone. To me, that candidate is Barack Obama.

Of course, it is fine that many (if not most) Christians disagree with me. I understand and appreciate the case made by most evangelicals regarding abortion, just as I understand and appreciate the arguments made by most African-American churches regarding social justice (by the way, they really DO have some helpful things to say that we evangelicals should consider carefully).

I certainly would never say that to vote for John McCain because of a single issue is wrong- I know that we are all just trying to work out faithfulness as best we can. If you want to see the other side of this question from a man much more intelligent and articulate than I, check out Owen’s post HERE. For my own thoughts on that particular issue, you can look HERE.

But this is the place I’ve come to. I’ve been into politics since I was in high school, and in all that time I have never before supported a Democrat for president. However, I believe that this is the best possible time for Christians to declare to the world that we will not be pigeon-holed, that we are not an automatic voting bloc for the secular leaders in the Republican party, and that our aim and goal is of a much higher and more lasting importance than the advancement of the conservative party agenda.

For me, this means I am voting for Barack Obama. My hope and prayer is that we evangelicals can continue to carefully consider and discuss these things as the campaign continues, without disparaging each other for taking one side or the other.

Two updates

Hey folks,

Two quick updates for today. First, would you believe that I changed the starter on my car? My mechanically-inclined friend Drew seemed to think I could do it, so I took a shot at it. My car has been completely dead for a week, but it's worked perfectly since I fixed it! What a thrill.

The second update is that a new YouTube video has entered my list of "Top 5 favorites." I'll have to give the full list another day, when I've decided what the new order is. However, I think it will be very much worth your time to watch THIS. Enjoy!

Ben

The Purposes of God

How do you address hard questions? As Christians, we all want to be biblical, submitting ourselves to God’s will. But what about issues Scripture doesn't talk about directly?

Recently, I’ve been thinking about, "the purposes of God." If we assume God is absolutely sovereign, it should follow that he intends everything. He intends for certain people to be saved and others not to, he intends for challenges to arise to Christianity and for Christians to answer them, and he intends to communicate himself to humans in a particular way.

This last idea seems important for unraveling hard questions. When we as Christians formulate answers to tough questions, one thing we should ask ourselves is whether our, “answer,” makes sense in light of what God is trying to do in the world. Here are some examples.

We ask the question: Did God create the world using evolution or did he do it in six days?

Whatever you choose, faithfulness requires that your answer should also stand up to this inquiry: How does this method of bringing the world into being fit God’s character and purposes?

If you believe in theistic evolution, what purpose would God have for spending millions of years putting the world together when he COULD have done it instantly? If you believe in six-day creation, why did God allow so much scientific evidence that suggests evolutionary processes when he COULD have made instantaneous creation the only scientifically credible possibility?

We ask the question, is it better to vote for the political candidate who wants to turn my views into law or one who will create an environment that best highlights the differences between a Christian worldview and someone else’s (i.e. does not legislate Judeo-Christian morality)? If you want to vote for the guy who agrees with you, ask yourself; is it God’s intention for Christians to force non-Christians to act like Christians by making it illegal to do otherwise? If you want to vote for the guy who tends to allow people to do what they want, do you think it is God’s intention for us to sit passively by while someone else legally harms innocent people with the direction of their degraded worldview?

We ask the question, should I be open and honest about my sin with others or should I keep those personal matters to myself? If you think vulnerability is the greater virtue, you must answer this: does God intend for you to share deeply personal things that could make sin seem permissible and less serious? If you think staying aloof is better, you must answer this: is it God’s intention for you to seem perfect, causing sinners to possibly despair of ever reaching your, “level”?

I’ve purposely avoided giving my opinions on these questions, because I think there can be a lot of room for debate on these and a million other questions. My concern, instead, is that too many Christians do not ask what God intends to do. In other words, they formulate what they think is, “right,” without asking about God’s purposes, or his desire for how his children should live in this world.

Here’s an example. As far as I can tell, the majority of Christians do not practice animal sacrifices like the Old Testament, because they feel that the coming of Christ did away with the Old Covenant legal system. Fine, I agree with that too. But at the same time, many evangelical Christians agree with the death penalty. Their rational? The legal structure of the Old Covenant! Instead of asking what God’s intent for the justice system is in our day and age, I believe many of them tend to simply agree with a particular political party and then look for any Biblical rational they can find.

But what does God intend for Christians in the New Covenant world? As far as I can see, here are some of his key and clearly stated principles:
-The government (be it religious or heathen or secular) has been given authority by God to maintain order.
-Christians are to proclaim that ALL have sinned, ALL fall short of the glory of God, and ALL must obtain salvation by faith alone in the person and salvific work of Jesus Christ.
-Christians must evangelize to every tribe and tongue and nation, seeking to bring as many as possible to Christ.

In other words, I do not think Christians should support the death penalty. Nothing about God’s purposes for us in the New Covenant environment seem to allow that. Instead, we should advocate for life sentences, so that criminals have the greatest opportunity to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. After all, the proclamation of the gospel is our PRIMARY purpose in this world! To that end, we should be seeking opportunities to witness to those criminals, to let them know that Christ can cleanse them of all their sin in the same way that he has done for us!

So, my call to you is to challenge yourself in this area. Seek to answer hard questions in a way that is consistent with the character and purposes of God, so that our submission goes beyond submission to God’s RULES and toward God’s DESIRES for the weay we live our lives.

Note to fellow Seminary geeks: I'm working on being a bit more accessible in my posts, since I have intelligent but non-geeky friends who read this blog, but this idea of aligning ethical structure with God's purposes in the redemptive-historical drama has, I think, significant hermeneutical implications. The whole concept of submission to the authority of God is allowed to go beyond the LEGAL structure of the Bible and moves into an entire PHILOSOPHICAL framework of God's purposes for his creation. Of course, Scripture is still the inerrant centerpiece of that framework, proclaiming the salvatory act of Christ as the most necessarily important action in all of created history. However, this perspective allows us to also search for creative ways of submitting all areas of life to the King, even those areas not directly spoken to in Scripture. That's a big deal for topics like ethics, politics, proactive social services, and the goals for apologetic or interfaith dialogue groups.

Bits and Pieces

Goodness! I haven’t posted in a while. Here’s a series of small bits and pieces from my life lately. For the more TV-oriented among us, this might be a welcome relief from my usual verbosity!

-----

My wife saved Christmas. Usually I hate the holiday. “Bah humbug,” becomes my favorite phrase, and I spend 50% of the time complaining about everything I can think of. Also, I’m not big on gifts, because nobody ever gets me the books I truly want. They think they can do better by surprising me with something I didn’t ask for. But they can’t.

So, my terrific wife saved Christmas by e-mailing my family and directing them to get gifts from my Amazon gift list for me! I got a huge stack of books from her and others that were exactly the ones I’ve been wanting but haven’t been willing to spend the money on. What a doll!

More than that, we had a great time with my family. I was so thankful for the way God organized everything to work out just right.

-----

I just got over the flu. I haven’t had a real flu since I was in high school! In one night, I threw up 5 times. In the course of three days, my eyes were so sensitive to light that I couldn’t read, watch movies, play video games, or type on the computer. All the stuff I usually like to do to feel better when I’m sick! It was miserable. Also, my stomach hurt so bad I couldn’t sleep. So, I mostly just lay around in pitch darkness doing nothing.

-----

I really enjoy teaching high school. Each week, my kids crack me up with their funny comments. Yesterday, someone handed Alex a sheet of paper, and his eyes got big. “I was elected to LEAD, not to READ,” he declared in a dead-on imitation of the Gubernator (well, the Simpsons version). They sure have a lot of personality!

-----

I love Amazon.com, but it can be a bit fickle. I decided I wanted to do a bunch of book reviews, so that my, "reviewer rating," would get a lot higher. So, I went out and wrote 20 reviews of some of my favorite books. Later, I checked my profile... and I had dropped about 20,000 places! Later on it came back down, but it was a humbling experience.

-----

Our baby is growing! I like to use my wife’s belly button to mark time. It’s still an innie, but we’ll be getting to the outie stage soon!

-----

I had a friend about to graduate with his degree in theology tell me that you are not allowed to make use of hypothetical scenarios, rhetorical questions, or thought experiments in an argument. Apparently, these ignore the, “normative Christian experience.” And yet in the past few weeks, I’ve come across those very types of arguments by A.W. Tozer, St. Augustine, and the apostle Paul!

-----

My wife and I are tentatively in the market for a new apartment. For a long time I have been pulling to move downtown, closer to our church. So, we found a place that was inexpensive, close, and situated in a beautiful old home in Louisville's historic Old Town. I was convinced this would be the place. So, we went to look at it. It was awful! It was basically an unfinished... no, a LESS than finished basement. It was just cracked cement floors and wall, peeling paint on the cabinets, and a dank smell. Utilities not included.

As we walked around, trying not to laugh, it really felt like a place you wouldn't store your books (well, I wouldn't) for fear that they'd rot. Samantha made a valiant effort to be nice to the guy showing it, but she lost out in the end.

"It's like a castle," she said. Pause. "Like a dungeon or something." Ha! That's my wife, telling it like it is. Our search goes on!

-----

Go MSU Spartans!

Guess what?

Hey folks,

Yesterday Samantha and I went to the doctor's office, and got to see our little baby! It was moving around, kicking, and generally being problematic. However, it could not escape (not much room to work with) and we were able to see...

It's a boy!

We think that his body type looks a lot like me... for instance, he seems to have a thin face with a large head. It's still early, though, and of course you can't see skin or hair color.

The ultrasound is very cool. I was amazed by how clear the picture was. We could see his bones, his toes, his ears, his eyes and mouth... at one point, he opened his little mouth in what looked like a yawn (though it probably wasn't... he's under water!)

Anyways, at the moment we're planning on naming him Isaiah. We haven't decided on a middle name, though.

Thanks to everyone praying for us! We can hardly wait for our little son to arrive.

In the meantime, I need to start stocking up on trucks, sports equipment, and LEGOs!

Christ and Pop Culture

Ok, let's review the facts, strange though they may be.

I hate pop music.

I don't connect with teenagers.

I can't figure out what Mac and PC owners are always arguing about.

I purposely buy the most boring clothes I can find because I don't understand fashion.

I know more about political philosophy than I do about American Idol.

I buy the simplest, cheapest cell phones on the market.

I have never read Kurt Vonnegut or Steven King, but I have read Augustine and Oliver O'Donovan.

I do not text message. Ever.

The last music CD of secular music from after the 70's that I bought was the Garden State soundtrack.

I hate "Christmas season." Bah humbug.

I do not know what Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, or Prince William did in the past month.

My favorite pastimes are reading history, theology, and philosophy. Oh, and I really love baseball.

Of the music bands I like, exactly zero are still together.

My dream home is downtown Edinburgh, Scotland, so I can be near the castles and cathedrals. My anti-dream home is anywhere near Hollywood.

I like going to museums in Washington DC, and hate spending time in downtown Chicago.


Ok, so here's the big question. WHY AM I WRITING FOR A WEBSITE ON CHRIST AND POP CULTURE?

I have no idea. But I am, and I really enjoy it. I think I'm the "old soul" in the group, but thankfully the other guys are a lot sharper and more knowledgable than me. I'm good for a different perspective on the same things.

Anyways, check us out, listen to our podcasts, and spend some time thinking about the pop culture YOU engage every day.

Christ and Pop Culture

A New Political Paradigm for Christians

Christmas is, “in the air,” for a longer period each year- this time around, I started hearing Christmas songs before Thanksgiving week! However, even Christmas cannot compare to the length of time we spend talking about politics, especially in a presidential election year.

Government’s basic job is to create a lawful and orderly society. However, laws and societal structures are imperfect, so people and their government are continually trying to figure out ways to solve the problems and imperfections. I want to describe for you the basic ways that is done, and then challenge you to think carefully about your contribution to that process.

To solve a societal problem, there are only two basic approaches. One is the top-down approach, and the other is the bottom-up approach. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses.

The bottom-up approach has to do with citizens trying to heal an area whose policies have failed, pragmatically or morally. So, an environmental group is a bottom-up approach to fixing environmental problems. Church-run addiction recovery organizations are a bottom-up approach to healing addictions in a better way than the government does.

Meanwhile, the top-down approaches to the same problems are environmental policies, addiction recovery programs, and the like.

Note here the interaction between the two groups. They need each other, but they fulfill different roles. The role of the top-down group is to set orderly policy. However, they are often somewhat deficient because they are beholden to a wider constituency. They are subject to state and federal laws, and must protect the rights of a wide array of groups with each of their policies.

Meanwhile, the bottom-up group is passionately committed to one point of view, and they are always trying to sway public policy in their direction. The top-down group needs these people, because they do research and advocacy and healing action that the government does not have the time or focus to do. Often, the best public policy comes from healthy interaction between the two groups, when each understands the other’s role and place in the process.

My soapbox is this; I think Christians have a problem with taking their passionate personal politics –things that can only be fixed in a bottom-up sort of way- and assuming that their vote can only go to a candidate who agrees with their bottom-up politics. This is a false construction, because a government official is elected to do a top-down job, not to advocate for a bottom-up group.

So, when a politician asks for votes, Christians often ask these questions. Is he a Christian? Where does he stand on abortion? Where does he stand on illegal immigration? Where does he stand on homosexual marriage? Where does he stand on the war? Where does he stand on use of the Confederate flag? Where does he stand on gun control? And so it goes.

I do not think those are the healthiest questions. I think the standards we should have for our top-down officials are these: Is this candidate likely to make societal order healthier? Do they have experience and a good track record in that area? Can my bottom-up advocacy interests interact well with this candidate? Will the candidate make good policy decisions? Do they understand good governmental policy?

Now, here is where I get controversial.

From a top-down perspective, to me, the abortion battle is over. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no government official can push it back in. We will not end abortion without a massively scaled reformation in the moral structure of the United States.

As a result, I do not think it is wise for Christians to be single-issue voters. We should not make abortion a litmus test for our vote.

Hear me out on this. I am not suggesting that we stop supporting pro-life causes, or staffing Crisis Pregnancy Centers, or advocating required ultrasound machines in abortion clinics. Those are all valuable bottom-up approaches, and I think we should increase those things.

However, I do think we should stop saying we will not support a candidate (or an entire political party!) on the basis of their perspective on a small number (sometimes single!) of moral issues, rather than on their effectiveness as an administrator. Instead, we should use the election period to be discerning about which candidate will most effectively administer an orderly society with good policy choices.

The powerful thing about this understanding is that it gives a healthy forum for policy debate. If an administrator is committed, first and foremost, to good policy, then they will hear both sides of an issue. When he does, the two sides know that they have to focus on why their perspective is healthiest from a societal perspective, rather than arguing about whose moral worldview is better.

So on abortion, as I mentioned, I do not think that voting in dozens of yes-men who are pro-life is a good approach… because pretty soon they screw up various other policy areas, and the public gets sick of them, and they get kicked out. And the abortion problem remains.

Instead, we need officials who realize that abortion is not a legal problem you can solve through changes in the law. It is a moral problem that can only be solved by bottom-up groups proclaiming a different moral perspective.

However, if those groups can show that abortion creates serious detriments to societal health (a case that can easily be made), then a government official can create an environment for those groups to work in. He can see the importance of requiring free use of ultrasound machines in abortion clinics (which statistically does far more to reduce abortion than electing a pro-life president ever has!). He can support the legitimate mission of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. He is, in essence, working in tandem with the bottom-up groups- he works for a healthy society, and they work for their individual issues. And he can do all those things without being a committed pro-life candidate.

Christians need to stop pretending that a foolish administrator who agrees with their moral system is the best thing for society. Instead, they should use their votes to support someone who will make the legal order stronger and wiser, so that there is a safer environment in which to address societal ills.

The great Augustine of Hippo once wrote to a judge named Macedonius regarding some criminals. Augustine’s goal was to advocate against a penalty of death, even though he acknowledged that Macedonius had the right to give the death penalty. He said this:

“Your strictness is, therefore, beneficial. Its exercise assists even our peace. But our intercession is beneficial as well. Its exercise modified even your strictness. You should not object to being petitioned by the good, because the good do not object to your being feared by the bad.”

Augustine understood the separate roles of the judges (government officials) and the intercessors (interest groups). The one has a role of enabling a lawful and orderly society; the other has a role of advocating and healing. For Christians to have true value in whatever free society we inhabit (oppressive societies are another discussion), it is imperative that they seek wise administration and openness to advocacy from government officials, rather than dogmatic commitment to specific moral perspectives.