Everybody seems to be impressed with how evangelicals have become so much more socially conscious nowadays; but as someone who grew up in this tradition, I am as distressed as ever about what went on at Saddleback Church this past weekend.

What is so great about presidential candidates meeting in a church? The kind of religious group candidates meet with should not be an issue.

What horrifies me is the report card format used to measure the candidates, particularly when the issues are as significant and complicated as abortion. There really is a sense in which the medium becomes the message. The message must adapt to the medium, and therefore becomes shaped by it. In effect, moral questions become variations of asking for the meaning of life in 25 words or less.

The warts of the report card method for measuring political candidates are highlighted on the Jim Lehrer Online News Hour video excerpts which highlight the abortion portion of the proceedings at Saddleback Church.

To me it plays like a cartoon that creates the humor of grief — not the humor we usually think of as comedy.

Warren: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is I a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention.”

Warren: At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?

McCain: “At the moment of conception,” he answers promptly, with a slight “did I get it right?” inflection we can all recall from school days. Then the crowd claps as if he has just won a prize. McCain goes on to tell a touching personal story of his own adopted daughter; but this is irrelevant to answering a question about when human rights should be legally compelled in every case, which is what “getting human rights” is all about. But the crowd has been induced to produce more applause, and we are left here with a little vignette of the irrationalism that can be fostered in churches.

Shaping the Message

Notice there is a slight difference in these questions. The first question asks for a thoughtful opinion (“in your view”). The second one asks for a straightforward answer (“what… is”). In each case the requested answer was supplied. Perhaps this was because Pastor Rick Warren just responded to each man naturally because he really knew each one fairly well and wanted to make him feel comfortable. But the fact is that each one was “set up” to produce a different kind of response, and they produced it.

Much more significant, though, is the response of the crowd to Senator McCain’s precise and absolutist answer, which stands in sharp contrast to Senator Obama’s nuanced response. The crowd wanted the easy answer. Who cares about difficult cases? Let those people suffer in silence. The law of the land should enforce the right of a not yet implanted ovum to survive (since fertilization happens before implantation).

I suppose it would have been impolitic for either candidate to answer that “babies” should have human rights from the moment they are defined as “babies.” That would have been the Solomon-like answer; but we would not have accepted this response in our day. This answer would have pushed the issue into the kind of discussion it deserved, and the format did not allow for this kind of dialogue.

Ultimately such snippets of moral opinion by political leaders may have extremely little to do with their policy decisions. Only a more extensive discussion could have determined that. Apparently, from all reports I’ve seen, NOTHING was actually learned about how either candidate would actually lead the country on the abortion issue.

I did not see the complete televised discussion; but most Americans will not see it either. Most will not even see this News Hour excerpt. Those that care about the abortion issue will just erroneously hear that McCain does not believe in abortion and Obama does. There was no significant discussion of the abortion issue in this venue. When we read about the Lincoln-Douglas debates that focused on the moral issue of slavery in their era of American history, we see the candidates themselves conducted extended public discussions of this issue.

Now all we want to know is whether someone is Pro or Con.

Christians know Jesus said “If you are not on my side, you are against me. If you don’t gather in the harvest with me, you scatter it.” (Matthew 12:30) So we know that Jesus has drawn a line between faithful followers and those who are not.

But judging by how some Christians are reacting to the abortion issue it seems like some of us have let Jesus’ teaching form a paradigm in our mind for a host of other issues. This makes it easy, without even thinking about it, to identify following Jesus with following a political leader. If Obama is for abortion, then he must be against Jesus. We don’t even care if he really is following Jesus.

That really seems to be the template set in the brains of some Christians. Give credit to Rick Warren for trying to dispel that notion, even if at the same time he pandered to the majority that pays his salary.

Unfortunately this type of staging does not play well in the minds of many young people outside the Christian camp. They see these snippets and the mindless clapping in the name Christ, and they push further away. It’s hard for them to tell whether this is a scene from Saturday Night Live or if is it real.

Social action, yes. But social action characterized by love that draws people to Christ — not actions that push them away from him.

I think the message got distorted by the medium in this venue.

Will We Divide Between Fear and Hope?

This coming presidential election is shaping up to be a contest between our fears and our hopes.

There are so many ways to capitalize on fear.  Here is yet another:

Charles Krauthammer laments the rise of John McCain, but then lays the blame on George Bush, saying…

Mr. Bush remains popular in his party. Even conservatives are inclined to forgive him his various heresies because they are trumped by his singular achievement: He’s kept us safe. He’s the original apostate sheriff.

So George Bush has kept us safe, has he?

Has Charles Krauthammer forgotten about 9/11, an event that was not entirely unpredictable since it was the second attempt on the twin towers?

What George Bush did do was use the failures of the past to declare a war on terror and then use that “war” to justify all sorts of over-reaching of his presidential powers in many areas, all in the name of that war.

What is Charles Krauthammer trying to do by telling us that George Bush has kept us safe?

It’s the same thing we can expect the Republican campaign to do as it begins to rally its support for John McCain - to tell us we will only be safe if Republicans are in control.

There are lots of ways to respond to this claim.  Is it true?  Is it probable?  What has happened in the past?  What are the differences between Bush, McCain, Obama, and Clinton?  Do presidents really have much to do with the effectiveness of national security, or are military and other civil servants the major influence? Etc.

What I am more interested in, however, is the use of scare tactics on the American people, since they are the ones who elect the president.  And claims such as this one by Charles Krauthammer contribute to that kind of manipulation.

Why make such an outrageous claim?

For one thing, there is still nearly another year to go in President Bush’s term.  But Krauthammer is betting that nothing will happen before then.

He is not talking about American soldiers on active duty; so the “we” who are safe are not those of us who identify with those who are in that poorly planned military mission in the Middle East. 

He is not talking about our lost American prestige around the globe; so he is not talking about the security that comes from the solidarity of support we receive in the family of nations. 

Krauthammer just means we have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11 when he says George Bush has kept us safe.

But since, as FBI Director Robert Mueller said, “terrorists operate seamlessly across borders and continents, aided by sophisticated communications technologies…; and they patiently and methodically plan and prepare their attacks,” there is a reasonable likelihood that we will be attacked on American soil sooner or later.   

And since many indicators suggest that the next president may well be Democratic, Krauthammer is playing the odds that an attack on American soil will occur within nine years from now but after 2008, and therefore that attack can be “blamed” on the next Democratic president! 

And of course, if there is no attack in the first term and this Democratic president is re-elected (since exposure favors the incumbent), then the odds are even greater that an attack will occur in the second term.  Demonizing the Democrats is thereby a gamble about whether an attack is more likely in 2008 or during the following eight year span. 

Assuming the Democrats win the election, Krauthammer and the Republicans will have a large window in which to claim Americans made a big mistake in rejecting the Republican candidate, if a terrorist attack on American soil does occur.

Now let’s just say McCain does win in November 2008.   And let’s say we are attacked on American soil during McCain’s term of office.  Will anyone start blaming him?   Who in their right mind would do that? 

So why would anyone in their right mind think that a president from either party would be careless about national defense?

Only Republicans allow themselves to get away with this stupid argument.