John McCain is known for his black and white simplistic stance towards many issues, and Sarah Palin cloned him perfectly in the vice-presidential debates by saying if she had to carry on as president in the event of McCain’s demise she would continue to “get rid of the greed and the corruption on Wall Street and in Washington.”

Comments such as these which invoke holy war imagery in response to recent social and economic trends have endeared Sarah Palin to angry Americans, and especially to conservatives associated with the Republican right wing. They forget that self-interest is at the heart of capitalism and that “greed” in the housing market on which our economy is so heavily based is spread throughout all levels, including the consumer level.

Conservative commentator David Brooks follows the Republican Party and is perplexed that they selected Palin knowing she only appeals to a relatively small percentage of the population. Republicans are engaging in planned obsolescence.

…the Republican Party has become a small-town party, running against — as Sarah Palin did last night — against big cities, against the East Coast, to some extent, against newspaper readers.

I understand why they’re doing it, running against Washington. This is the way Republicans do populism. But in the long run, it’s poisonous and self-destructive. You cannot be a majority party in this country if the coasts don’t like you and people who read newspapers don’t like you.

And they have narrowed themselves. … And with Sarah Palin, short-term gain last night, but long-term turning people off. (David Brooks, Online News Hour,10/3/08)

It seems to me Joe Biden gave what could be considered pastoral advice to the Republican Party – actually it was grandfatherly advice to any listener — a few minutes after Sarah Palin’s holy war comments cited above, in his response to the last question about how to lead in Washington, about how to bring about a spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

Joe Biden shared what he had learned in the Senate, a principle he learned the hard way because he violated it first and then was taught by Mike Mansfield to see why the principle is important. Listen to this segment of the debate to hear Biden’s account. We only have space for the principle here.

This is the principle: Don’t question other people’s motives. Question their judgment.

Underlying this principle is the fact that each representative is sent to Congress because other people see something they like in those representatives. Biden left it up to us to meditate on the implications of this fact; but it does not take much time to realize that in a democracy each person must allow their opinion to be one among many. Our leaders should not see themselves as being at war with each other, but rather as representing people who elected them to work for the common good. They must then work with other community and business leaders on the same respectful basis to have any hope of enlisting their support and accomplishing anything worthwhile.

Without making any accusations, and in a gracious manner that admitted he was a sinner as much as any one else, Joe Biden shared this principle as he had received it.

By closing the vice-presidential debate on this note, I think Joe Biden achieved an intellectual triumph that no one has yet acknowledged.

In this one principle he undermined most of Sarah Palin’s appeal as John McCain’s running mate.

Most people recognize she is not yet ready for presidential level office. Her role is simply to draw right-wing voters to John McCain. She is a gamble for the Republican Party. And she is a gamble for the USA.

Joe Biden held up a mirror for the Republican Party to examine its own soul. The problem with all principles, however, is that it is much easier to hear them than to put them into practice.

HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion

In what it must consider an act of Wilberforcian moral leadership, the Bush administration seems to want to force an increase in the American birth rate and remove freedoms Americans currently enjoy in the name of freedom of choice for health care providers.

They propose to do this with the kind of superficial logic that manipulates thoughts the way someone first learning a foreign language manipulates words in a dictionary. Government officials transferred the reasoning they deciphered from public polling data into legal arguments as if the public has a consistent and logically held medical and ethical position on fertilization and abortion issues. They translated generic polling data into precise legal arguments.

You will have to read the logic for yourself as documented in this source; only the barest outline can be afforded in this post.

Here are key excerpts from this source:

There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus).

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and … the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation.

So [now] HHS proposes that anyone can enforce his or her own definition of abortion “within the bounds of reason.”

The practical outcome of this logic led to the next step in the following headline:

Redefining abortion

Federal officials considering a rule allowing health care workers to refuse to provide contraceptives

Already “an existing regulation allows health care providers with objections to abortion to abstain from providing it to patients.”

By extending the definition of abortion to cover contraceptives, the new rule being promoted at HHS “would allow health care workers who object to abortion on moral or religious grounds to refuse to counsel women on their birth control options or supply contraceptives.”

Who’s “Good” does this new rule serve?

1. Obviously this rule is not for the good of unwanted babies who will be born, since many providers may opt out. Nor is it for the good of poor people who will be channeled into less than healthy options for dealing with the resulting consequences of unwanted pregnancies or alternative attempts to avoid them. Given the state of the economy, we can be fairly sure that there is no intent to ensure that other providers will be made available in every situation.

2. The rule that exempted health care providers with objections to abortion from providing it to patients was good because it allows them to avoid the direct act of what they perceive as killing. But indirect acts such as providing supplies cannot so simply and so arbitrarily be prescribed because this is a far more complicated issue. Do everyday store clerks have the right to refuse to sell condoms? One can at least imagine a host of legal controversies and more business for the legal profession as a result. One can even imagine a backlash against the original exemption.

3. According to the Houston Chronicle, this federal administrative rule would probably void a great many state laws. This rule is obviously not for the good of democracy, because it does not reflect a democratic decision-making process nor does it come close to reflecting decisions made by that process in the past.

4. Instead, this rule is widely viewed as payback to the Christian and religious right for its support of the Bush administration. Perhaps it is a cynical concession to the belief that the Democrats will win in November and immediately overturn it. But what if they don’t win? After all, John McCain has sided with the religious right on abortion. Real leaders do not play with fire like this. One has to wonder whether tainted hiring practices have also affected this area of the Bush administration.

Fanaticism takes what is good to an extreme. As we pointed out above, exempting conscientious objectors from providing abortions was good. But sneaking in exemptions for indirect contributions, however defined, without extensive debate and democratic decision-making is fanaticism.

Avoiding fanaticism involves a bit of relativistic thinking. A truly Christian approach to social change is not absolutist. Following the Apostle Paul’s example, one does not simply appeal to God’s revelation, but also recognizes the importance of social mores, because the objective of God’s law is love and peace. The goal of such social action is always to gain voluntary agreement.

What is Good about this Rule?

Absolutely nothing as far as I can see, for reasons already cited above.

Then why is it proposed?

The stated reason based on public opinion polls cited and refuted above is also invalid. A professional philosopher could provide a better explanation and the Bush administration would have done well to consult one. Even research specialists would be able to spot some of the errors in this approach since they would recognize the limitations of interpreting social surveys.

The underlying rationale for the rule is patent, however. The rule extends the likelihood of denial of abortions by giving high status to the definition of pregnancy as simply fertilization (apart from implantation) and by allowing providers such as pharmacists who contribute indirectly to opt out of providing.

In giving “equal” status to such a narrow ethical stance it allows that view to dominate the broader approach much like having a significant number of non-drinkers in a church tends to mean that alcohol may not be served on church property even though there are also a significant number of drinkers, who may actually be in the majority. The strong must accept the weak, but the weak do not have to accept the strong, because the weak think they are right. A teaching that was intended to express mutual concern becomes a tool for domination of others in express violation of Jesus’ commands to the contrary. Christians who deny Jesus’ paradigm as they contend for the “kingdom” in the civil arena are doing no better than those Jesus condemned for their practice of Corban.

Incidents like these help us begin to understand why Jesus predicted that both the sheep and the goats will be surprised about the verdicts on judgment day!

I’ve already expressed my view on the fertilization issue in a previous post. It boils down to the belief that human beings are called to be more than mere physical matter, including even the aspects of soul that the Bible always associates with the body (which is everything that fertilization represents). We must be “called” in some sense to become human. In a Christian theological sense, we are all are born spiritually dead. To have any spark of life and a chance of making it, individuals have to be wanted. My mother-in-law used to tell my children they used to be “a gleam in your father’s eye.” For communities to survive, older members need to reproduce and draw younger members into them. There are no stand-alone human beings.

Our responsibility is to draw individuals into human relationships and into relationship with God. It is not an isolatable responsibility to protect fertilized eggs. You can’t ethically fulfill the duty of protecting a fertilized egg without also fulfilling the duty to draw that being into the human family. A commitment of our country to a higher birth rate given our history and current economic conditions must be accompanied by a correspondingly huge investment in relevant social services supporting this commitment. It is the very fact that this rule is being introduced in such a backdoor manner that demonstrates that it does not reflect the high moral caliber that its backers would like to claim for it.

I do not believe that the “fertilized” ovum that do not implant are human beings that will some day be resurrected like everyone else. But that is what you as a Christian believe if you believe what the Bush administration is promoting to take precedent over other established laws.

Does that sound “good” to you?

Dobson picks a fight with Obama

After a long silence politically, James Dobson just recently decided it was worth fighting over how Barack Obama interpreted the Bible and the U.S. Constitution in his Call to Renewal speech back in 2006.

That prompted my son-in-law to write a response to my analysis of Obama’s speech, and I am publishing a specially edited version of his response for this blog entry as follows –

It is unfortunate that James Dobson has started a quarrel with Barrack Obama over his accusation that Obama does not know how to interpret the Bible and has a “fruitcake” interpretation of the constitution.

There are two points that you make about Obama’s Call to Renewal speech of 2006 that I think are important for Christians to consider as Obama will now be the Democratic candidate for President.

1. Obama is sharing a personal testimony of how he has come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ and how he has processed (and I assume he continues to reflect on) his understanding of how to reconcile faith and politics.

2. The temptation is for us to usurp the authority of God rather than to speak humbly as fellow citizens and as believers in the New Testament, which says,

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

Dobson’s accusations do not represent a reading or interpretation of the entire Bible. What exactly is a biblical world view? Is it absolute and concrete? It seems that a lot of interpretation has to go into determining a biblical worldview — and then comes the real tough part of applying the worldview.

Almost immediately, Obama responded to Dobson by acknowledging Dobson, disagreeing on the key point of contention, and then he moved on. Obama took the high ground and applied the dictum in Proverbs: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.”

As a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I will be voting for Obama this November because he is a reflective fellow believer who wrestles with his faith and how he should apply the calling God has given him.

Obama’s life in the political arena might be one conservative Christians would do well to learn from. They may do more good for the cause of the kingdom than they are now with a single minded agenda focused only on rolling back Roe v. Wade.

– Andrew Hains, Bettendorf, Iowa

I have only two specific observations to add:

(1) Dobson has apparently driven up readership of Obama’s Call to Renewal speech. The link to it changed since my original blog post, and the new links shown above could not at first be reached, apparently because of the heavy traffic. I think as more people actually read the speech, more will be drawn to Obama’s point of view.

(2) If you listen to the CNN video recording, you will notice indeed that Dobson does grossly distort Obama’s main point since Obama says quite the opposite: Dobson claims that Obama says that “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.” But what Obama actually said in the Call to Renewal speech was,

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Obama is saying we should translate what we believe into language accessible to everyone and that we should fight for our beliefs. He is advocating a basic principle of communication, akin to learning another person’s language in order to communicate with them.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS RIGHT?

Books & Readers 2001 - 2007

There are signs that the American religious right is mellowing, and since the rapid pace of publishing on this topic has declined, this ongoing bibliography which has been appearing in the sidebar of this blog is now closed.  The following is the complete list of books that was compiled, with links to Amazon citations with editorial and customer reviews.

1. AMERICAN FASCISTS: THE RISE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT by Chris Hedges (Simon & Schuster, 2007)
2. AMERICAN GOSPEL: GOD, THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND THE MAKING OF A NATION by Jon Meacham (Random House, 2006)
3. AMERICAN RELIGIOUS DEMOCRACY: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE END OF SECULAR POLITICS by Bruce Ledewitz (Praeger, 2007)
4. AMERICAN THEOCRACY: THE PERIL AND POLITICS OF RADICAL RELIGION, OIL AND BORROWED MONEY IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Kevin Phillips (Viking, 2006)
5. A SECULAR FAITH: WHY CHRISTIANITY FAVORS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, by D. G. Hart (Ivan R. Dee, 2006)
6. BARE NAKED TRUTH: ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Stacey Tallitsch (AuthorHouse, 2005)
7. BELIEVERS: A JOURNEY INTO EVANGELICAL AMERICA by Jeffery Sheler (Viking, 2006)
8. BIG CHRISTIANITY: WHAT’S RIGHT WITH THE RELIGIOUS LEFT by Jan G Linn (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)
9. BLASPHEMY: HOW THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS HIJACKING OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, by Alan Dershowitz (John Wiley, 2007)
10. BORN AGAIN: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT GLOBALIZED by Jennifer Butler (Pluto Press, 2006)
11. BUSH’S FRINGE GOVERNMENT by Garry Wills (New York Review Books, 2006)
12. CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: KIDS, POLITICS, AND AMERICA’S FUTURE by Lawrence Grossberg (Paradigm, 2005)
13. CHRISTIAN AMERICA? WHAT EVANGELICALS REALLY WANT by Christian Smith (University of California Press, 2002)
14. CHRISTIAN CLERGY IN AMERICAN POLITICS by Laura Olson (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001)
15. CONFESSIONS OF A FORMER DITTOHEAD, by Jim Derych (Ig Publishing, 2006)
16. CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK, edited by James True, et al. (ABC-CLIO, 2004)
17. CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE by John Dean (Viking, 2006)
18. CONTEMPT: HOW THE RIGHT IS WRONGING AMERICAN JUSTICE by Catherine Crier (Rugged Land, 2005)
19. DEMOCRACY UNDER ASSAULT: THEOPOLITICS, INCIVILITY AND VIOLENCE ON THE RIGHT by Michele Swenson (IUniverse, 2004)
20. DOES AMERICAN DEMOCRACY STILL WORK? by Alan Wolfe (Yale University Press, 2006)
21. DON’T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT!: KNOW YOUR VALUES AND FRAME THE DEBATE: THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE FOR PROGRESSIVES by George Lakoff (Chelsea Green, 2004)
22. FAITH AND POLITICS: HOW THE “MORAL VALUES” DEBATE DIVIDES AMERICA AND HOW TO MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER by Senator John Danforth (Viking, 2006)
23. FASCISTS IN CHRISTIAN CLOTHING: THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY by Richard Weisman (iUniverse, 2005)
24. FIGHTING WORDS: A TOOLKIT FOR COMBATING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Robin Morgan (Nation Books, 2006)
25. FIXING AMERICA: BREAKING THE STRANGEHOLD OF CORPORATE RULE, BIG MEDIA AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by John Buchanan, et al. (Trine Day, 2005)
26. FOR A CHRISTIAN AMERICA: A HISTORY OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Ruth Murray Brown (Prometheus Books, 2002)
27. FUNDAMENTALISTS AND EXTREMISTS, edited by Douglas Long (Facts on File, 2002)
28. GETTING ON MESSAGE: CHALLENGING THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT FROM THE HEART OF THE GOSPEL by Peter Laarman, et al. (Beacon Press, 2006)
29. GOD AND CAESAR IN AMERICA: AN ESSAY ON RELIGION AND POLITICS by Gary Hart (Fulcrum, 2005)
30. GOD AND COUNTRY: HOW EVANGELICALS HAVE BECOME AMERICA’S NEW MAINSTREAM by Monique El-Faizy (Bloomsbury, 2006)
31. GOD IN PUBLIC: FOUR WAYS AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY AND PUBLIC LIFE RELATE, by Mark Toulouse (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)
32. GOD’S NAME IN VAIN: THE WRONGS AND RIGHTS OF RELIGION IN POLITICS by Stephen L. Carter (Basic Books, 2001)
33. GOD’S POLITICS: WHY THE RIGHT GETS IT WRONG AND THE LEFT DOESN’T GET IT by Jim Wallis (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005)
34. HARDBALL ON HOLY GROUND: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Stephen Swecker (Boston Wesleyan Press, 2005)
35. HEAD AND HEART: AMERICAN CHRISTIANITIES, by Garry Wills (Penguin, 2007)
36. HIPPIES OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: FROM THE COUNTERCULTURE OF JERRY GARCIA TO THE SUBCULTURE OF JERRY FALWELL, by Preston Shires (Baylor University Press, 2007)
37. HOW DOES RELIGION INFLUENCE POLITICS? edited by James Torr (Greenhaven Press, 2006)
38. HOW THE REPUBLICANS STOLE CHRISTMAS: WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WRONG ABOUT FAITH AND POLITICS AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT RIGHT by Bill Press (Doubleday, 2005)
39. HOW THE REPUBLICANS STOLE RELIGION: WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WRONG ABOUT FAITH & POLITICS AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT RIGHT by Bill Press (Three Leaves, 2006)
40. IN DEFENSE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: WHY CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS ARE THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND WHY THAT TERRIFIES THE DEMOCRATS by Patrick Hynes (Nelson, 2006)
41. IN GOD WE TRUST? RELIGION AND AMERICAN POLITICAL LIFE by Corwin Smidt, et al. (Baker Academic, 2001)
42. IS DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE HERE? PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW POLITICAL DEBATE, by Ronald Dworkin (Princeton University Press, 2006)
43. JESUS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN: THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT’S WAR ON AMERICA by Clint Willis, et al. (Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2005)
44. JESUS RODE A DONKEY: WHY REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE THE CORNER ON CHRIST by Linda Seger (Adams, 2006)
45. JESUS WAS A LIBERAL: HOW THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA IS A REJECTION OF CHRIST’S TEACHINGS, by Jerry Wilde (LGR Publishing, 2006)
46. KINGDOM COMING: THE RISE OF CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM by Michelle Goldberg (W.W. Norton, 2006)
47. LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION by Sam Harris (Knopf, 2006)
48. MIDDLE CHURCH: RECLAIMING THE MORAL VALUES OF THE FAITHFUL MAJORITY FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Bob Edgar (Simon & Schuster, 2006)
49. ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS: THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IN AMERICAN POLITICS by Clyde Wilcox, et al. (Westview Press, 2006)
50. OUR ENDANGERED VALUES: AMERICA’S MORAL CRISIS by Jimmy Carter (Simon & Schuster, 2005)
51. PERFECT ENEMIES: THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND THE GAY MOVEMENT by John Gallagher and Chris Bull (Madison Books, 2001)
52. PIETY AND POLITICS: THE RIGHT-WING ASSAULT ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM by Barry W Lynn (Harmony, 2006)
53. POLITICAL AGENDAS FOR EDUCATION: FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT TO THE GREEN PARTY by Joel H Spring (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005)
54. RADICAL CONSERVATISM: THE RIGHT’S POLITICAL RELIGION by Robert Brent Toplin (University Press of Kansas, 2006)
55. REAL PROPHECY UNVEILED: WHY THE CHRIST WILL NOT COME AGAIN, AND WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WRONG by Joseph James Adamson (Writers Club Press, 2002)
56. RELIGION AND POLITICS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: THE ONE, THE FEW, AND THE MANY, by Ted G. Jelen, et al. (Cambridge University Press, 2002)
57. RELIGION AND THE BUSH PRESIDENCY, by Mark J Rozell et al. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
58. RELIGION GONE BAD: THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT by Mel White (Tarcher, 2006)
59. RELIGION, POLITICS, AND AMERICAN IDENTITY: NEW DIRECTIONS, NEW CONTROVERSIES, by David S Gutterman et al. (Lexington Books, 2006)
60. RELIGION, POLITICS, AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: POST-9/11 POWERS AND AMERICAN EMPIRE by Mark Lewis Taylor (Augsburg Fortress, 2005)
61. RELIGION RETURNS TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE: FAITH AND POLICY IN AMERICA by Wilfred M. McClay, et al. (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002)
62. RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND POLITICAL EXTREMISM by Ami Pedahzur, et al. (Frank Cass, 2004)
63. RENDER UNTO DARWIN: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT’S CRUSADE AGAINST SCIENCE by James H Fetzer (Open Court, 2006)
64. RIGHT WING, WRONG BIRD: WHY THE TACTICS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WON’T FLY WITH MOST CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS by Joel C Hunter (Distributed Church Press, 2006)
65. SCHOOL BOARD BATTLES: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IN LOCAL POLITICS by Melissa M Deckman (Georgetown University Press, 2004)
66. SHAMELESS: SEXUAL DISSIDENCE IN AMERICAN CULTURE by Arlene Stein (New York University Press, 2006)
67. SKIPPING TOWARDS ARMAGEDDON: THE POLITICS AND PROPAGANDA OF THE LEFT BEHIND NOVELS AND THE LAHAYE EMPIRE by Michael Standaert (Soft Skull Press, 2005)
68. SO HELP ME GOD: THE INFLUENCE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT ON THE CAMPAIGNING OF GEORGE W. BUSH, by Katrin Erdmann (Lit Verlag, 2007)
69. STEEPLEJACKING: HOW THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS HIJACKING MAINSTREAM RELIGION, by Sheldon Culver et al. (Ig Publishing, 2007)
70. TAKE BACK THE RIGHT: HOW THE NEO-CONS AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT HAVE HIJACKED THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT by Philip Gold (Carroll & Graf, 2004)
71. TAKE BACK THE TRUTH: CONFRONTING PAPAL POWER AND THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Joanna Manning (Crossroad, 2002)
72. TEMPTING FAITH: AN INSIDE ACCOUNT OF POLITICAL SEDUCTION by David Kuo (Free Press, 2006)
73. THE BAPTIZING OF AMERICA: THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT’S PLANS FOR THE REST OF US by James Rudin (Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2006)
74. THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IN AMERICAN POLITICS: MARCHING TO THE MILLENNIUM by John C Green, et al. (Georgetown University Press, 2003)
75. THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT– OR WRONG?: EXPOSING THE CORRUPT TEACHINGS OF CORPORATE CHRISTIANITY AND ITS LEADING MEDIA EVANGELISTS by John Cord (Blue Dolphin, 2006)
76. THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, THE FAR RIGHT AND THE BOUNDARIES OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM by Martin Durham (Manchester University Press, 2001)
77. THE DECENCY WARS: THE CAMPAIGN TO CLEANSE AMERICAN CULTURE by Frederick S Lane (Prometheus Books, 2006)
78. THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: EVANGELICALS, LIBERTARIANS AND THE BATTLE TO CONTROL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY by Ryan H Sager (Wiley, 2006)
79. THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY: THE ALARMING CONVERGENCE OF MILITANT ISLAM AND THE EXTREME RIGHT, by George Michael (University Press of Kansas, 2006)
80. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF EXTREMISM: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IN AMERICA by Kimberly Blaker (New Boston Books, 2003)
81. THE GODLESS CONSTITUTION: A MORAL DEFENSE OF THE SECULAR STATE, by Isaac Kramnick et al. (W. W. Norton, 2005)
82. THE HIJACKING OF JESUS: HOW THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT DISTORTS CHRISTIANITY AND PROMOTES PREJUDICE AND HATE by Dan Wakefield (Nation Books, 2006)
83. THE HOLY VOTE: THE POLITICS OF FAITH IN AMERICA by Ray Suarez (Rayo, 2006)
84. THE JESUS MACHINE: HOW JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, AND EVANGELICAL AMERICA ARE WINNING THE CULTURE WAR, by Dan Gilgoff (St. Martin’s Press, 2007)
85. THE LAST CRUSADE: RELIGION AND THE POLITICS OF MISDIRECTION by Barbara Victor (Constable, 2005)
86. THE LEFT HAND OF GOD: TAKING BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Michael Lerner (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006)
87. THE MIGHTY AND THE ALMIGHTY: REFLECTIONS ON AMERICA, GOD, AND WORLD AFFAIRS by Madeleine Albright (HarperCollins, 2006)
88. THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION: HOW THE QUEST FOR POLITICAL POWER IS DESTROYING THE CHURCH by Gregory A Boyd (Zondervan 2006)
89. THE QUIET HAND OF GOD: FAITH-BASED ACTIVISM AND THE PUBLIC ROLE OF MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM by Robert Wuthnow, et al. (University of California Press, 2002)
90. THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK by Glenn H. Utter, et al. (MacKenzie and Harris, 2006)
91. THE RHETORIC OF OPERATION RESCUE: PROJECTING THE CHRISTIAN PRO-LIFE MESSAGE by Mark Allan Steiner (T & T Clark, 2006)
92. THE SINNER’S GUIDE TO THE EVANGELICAL RIGHT by Robert Lanham (NAL, 2006)
93. THE THEOCONS: SECULAR AMERICA UNDER SIEGE by Damon Linker (Doubleday, 2006)
94. THE TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS: WHAT THEY THINK AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE, by Andrew Greeley et.al. (University Of Chicago Press, 2006)
95. THE VALUES CAMPAIGN?: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT AND THE 2004 ELECTIONS by John Clifford Green, et al. (Georgetown University Press, 2006)
96. THY KINGDOM COME: HOW THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT DISTORTS THE FAITH AND THREATENS AMERICA by Randall Balmer (Basic Books, 2006)
97. TRUMPING RELIGION: THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT, THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE, AND THE COURTS by Stephen P Brown (University of Alabama Press, 2004)
98. TURN NEITHER TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT by Eric D Schansberg (Alertness, 2003)
99. UNCHRISTIAN: WHAT A NEW GENERATION REALLY THINKS ABOUT CHRISTIANITY… AND WHY IT MATTERS by David Kinnaman & Gabe Lyons (Baker, 2007)
100. UNCOMPROMISING POSITIONS: GOD, SEX, AND THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by Elizabeth Anne Oldmixon (Georgetown University Press, 2005)
101. UNDER GOD? RELIGIOUS FAITH AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY by Michael J. Perry (Cambridge University Press, 2003)
102. USING TERRI: THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT’S CONSPIRACY TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS by Jon B Eisenberg (HarperCollins, 2005)
103. WAIT! DON’T MOVE TO CANADA: A STAY-AND-FIGHT STRATEGY TO WIN BACK AMERICA by Bill Scher (Rodale Books, 2006)
104. WAYWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS: FREEING THE GOSPEL FROM POLITICAL CAPTIVITY by Charles Marsh (Oxford University Press, 2007)
105. WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS? HOW CONSERVATIVES WON THE HEART OF AMERICA by Thomas Frank (Owl Books, 2005)
106. WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT by Jan G Linn (Brown Walker Press, 2004)
107. WHOSE FREEDOM? THE BATTLE OVER AMERICA’S MOST IMPORTANT IDEA by George Lakoff (Farrar Straus Giroux, 2006)
108. WHY THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS WRONG: A MINISTER’S MANIFESTO FOR TAKING BACK YOUR FAITH, YOUR FLAG, YOUR FUTURE by Robin Meyers (Jossey-Bass, 2006)
109. WHY THE FUNDAMENTALIST RIGHT IS SO FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG by Gerald Paske (Marquette Books, 2006)
110. WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS WRONG ABOUT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE by Rob Boston (Prometheus Books, 2003)
111. WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE: THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IN AMERICA by William
112. WITH GOD ON THEIR SIDE: GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT by Esther Kaplan (New Press, 2005)

Brand Romney

Now that the religious right seems to have given its nod of approval to Mitt Romney for president, we can imagine the possibility of recognizing the Psalmist’s insight - that God will be laughing at our country - if the choice for our new president becomes a match between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

That election contest would surely expose some of our deepest national prejudices.  We would have to choose between a woman and a Mormon as head of state: a choice between two devils for some people.

What is especially interesting about this Brand Romney audio report is that politically speaking, Romney seems to operate a lot like Clinton.  They appear to be a good match to go against each other. 

What will clinch the election for either side, if these two finally do become the candidates, will be the hotheads who decide to not vote “on principle” -  in which case they might help the election become a test of which national prejudice is the strongest.  And the winner loses!

Jerry Falwell’s Odyssey  

Jerry Falwell was born and died in Lynchburg, Virginia.  Soon after graduating from Bible College, he founded Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg.  From that base he developed a complete educational system that extended through the university level, broadcast nationwide radio and television programs, published a journal and initiated a satellite-network, and during the 1980’s led the political action organization known as the Moral Majority, whose basic intention was to campaign on “issues its personnel believed were important to maintaining its Christian conception of moral law, a conception they believed represented the opinions of the majority of Americans.”  In 2004, he established The Moral Majority Coalition as a reincarnation of the former organization, which had disbanded in the late 1980’s.

Among conservative Christians and other conservatives, even those who did not agree completely with his positions, Jerry Falwell was generally appreciated for his moral activism.  Pastorblog.com has compiled these tributes into the following list.

• Joseph Bottum at First Things: Jerry Falwell, R.I.P.
• Deborah Caldwell at BeliefNet: Jerry Falwell and Me
• Chuck Colson: Statement from Chuck Colson
• Mark DeMoss: Statement from Mark DeMoss
• Howard Fineman at Newsweek: The Kingdom and the Power
• Billy Graham: Statement from Billy Graham
• Franklin Graham: Statement from Franklin Graham
• Douglas Howe at BeliefNet: Who Will Not Replace Jerry Falwell?
• T. D. Jakes: Statement from T. D. Jakes
• David Kuo at BeliefNet: Jerry Falwell’s Mixed Legacy
• John McCain at The Hill: McCain first out of the gate with Falwell condolences
• Al Mohler at On Faith:
  • Rev. Jerry Falwell: Vision and Vigor
  • The Measure Of The Man: The Legacy Of Dr. Jerry Falwell
• Bill Muehlenberg at CWN: The Reason for the Religious Right and The Legacy of Jerry Falwell
• Todd Rhoades at MMI: America Remembers Jerry Falwell
• Mark D. Roberts: Reflections on the Ministry of Jerry Falwell
• Pat Robertson: Statement from Pat Robertson
• Jay Sekulow: Statement from Jay Sekulow
• John Stackhouse: Jerry Falwell, Father of the Religious Right
• Gary Stern at LoHud: Falwell evoked strong feelings
• Cal Thomas at On Faith: Trying to Serve God and Politics
• David Wayne at JollyBlogger: On the Death of Jerry Falwell
• Jim West: Farewell Falwell
• Joel Willitts at Euangelion: A Word about Jerry Falwell
• Ben Witherington: Mr. Falwell Moves On
• Ed Young at CreativePastorsBlog: Falwell Mourned

However, Belief.net has a timeline of the headlines that highlight the legacy of Jerry Falwell for most Americans.  This list includes such things a resisting civil rights; supporting apartheid in South Africa; financing the video, The Clinton Chronicles; telling his supporters that the purple Teletubby, Tinky Winky, was gay; and claiming that on 9/11 God allowed “the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve,” and blaming “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians” and others who want to “secularize” America for those attacks.

This last claim about the cause of 9/11, perhaps more that any other, indelibly tarnished the memory of Jerry Falwell for many people because of its association with such an infamous act.  At least the sentiments of the moral majority concept claimed that he thought the majority of Americans really wanted the values he was promoting, and therefore allowed others to give him the benefit of the doubt.  A leader tries to draw out the best in people, and the moral majority concept allowed for that possibility.  But as follow-up interviews to his original remarks showed, Falwell really believed that God had lifted “the veil of protection” from America and allowed the 9/11 attacks because of his anger at America.  His deepest perspective on America was that it is an evil place that deserves this kind of violent punishing attack, thereby clearly confirming that he holds what George Lakoff calls a “strict father” view of political leadership, which has led to the political entanglements of the religious right.

One has to wonder if there was a growing sense of pessimism or frustration for Jerry Falwell after all his hard work with so little to show for it, since the general public was not responding as expected if he really did have a moral majority on his side.  It is too soon to have a full historical perspective; but we can already note the following report by Ann Rodgers, referencing an interview with Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz, author of American Religious Democracy: Coming to Terms with the End of Secular Politics:

Mr. Falwell was both symbol and catalyst for a reversal in how American Christians viewed political activism, he said. In 1965 he criticized the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., not for opposing segregation, but for mixing faith with politics, Dr. Ledewitz said.

“He said that religion was private, that … a minister such as Dr. King should be winning souls,” Dr. Ledewitz said.  “Over the course of his lifetime, the situation would turn completely. Liberals today are the ones who say that religion should be private, and conservatives are the ones saying that the Word must be preached in terms of public life. Jerry Falwell embodied that change. In many ways this change is a consequence of his activities.”

Over the course of Jerry Falwell’s life, conservative Christians became much more politically active and he was a leader in this movement, which is now often referred to as the religious right.  I think the following excerpts from an editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette perfectly sum up this problematic movement:

For taking his labors beyond the vineyard of his church and into politics, he is mourned now by religious conservatives across the country for energizing the issues they care about, especially abortion and marriage for gays. Their tributes to his historical importance are accurate. He was … “a great general in the culture wars.”

That he and others turned the Republican Party into their designated party of God presents an affront to the faith of everyone else. In recent presidential elections, the mix of politics and religion has led to narrow moral issues derailing a proper accounting of issues that affect all Americans….

The invitation for Newt Gingrich to speak at the upcoming Liberty University graduation ceremonies epitomizes this alliance, although he claimed this is not an endorsement.  As anyone can see, however, something is being endorsed here.  So what is it?  The evasiveness is obvious.

Jerry Falwell believed that as a pastor he was called to serve his congregation and that, at best, he could only seek to influence government.  He said in a 1993 Wittenburg Door interview, “What I don’t believe in is a God-called pastor running for office. …Use your calling to influence government, not to control government.”  But his vision for influencing government went far beyond the boundaries of his congregational outreach, and extended into the entire life of the nation, and ultimately vested itself in the Republican Party as the best hope for the nation, for all practical purposes, although I’m sure that his supporters could point out exceptions that would only prove the rule.

Since nobody controls the government, all anyone can do is get involved in the process. And the most that anyone can hope to do is influence the outcome, to one degree or another.  What Falwell says about pastors could in some sense apply to multinational CEO’s as well; but you do not have to hold a government office to exercise more influence that some others who do hold office.  And once people get involved at the level of party politics, they then get involved in loyalty ties that often come into conflict with objective beliefs.  Not speaking out because of loyalty ties is what makes organizations work.  When an organization is functioning well, you can usually assume that either loyalty is suppressing the truth or that the participants are agreed on the truth that is the basis for that organization.  Politics, like business life and union life and church life, tends to put pressures on the individual to give priority to loyalty.  That is the nature of group life.  Leaders are in the best position to create an environment that works against that tendency and that promotes tolerance and diversity of viewpoints.

For me, the real test of Jerry Falwell’s leadership will be how his church and schools fare without him.  Has he created a self-sustaining ministry - a ministry based on the ongoing presence of the gifts of the Spirit?  Or is it a ministry primarily based on his presence?  An institution as large as the one he oversaw cannot function on the strength of one head; but how much it depended on external donations is another matter.  I noticed several times over the years that his charitable fund raisers said in effect that a portion of the funds donated would go to the project being described.  Presumably the rest went to the local and media accounts.  How these media ministries will be restructured without him at the helm is yet to be seen.  

Those who were closer to Jerry Falwell may have heard a different message; but those of us from afar have often heard him more negatively, as one whose message resulted in trivial and sometimes absurd statements rather than centering on what is really needed for national renewal: a message that has nothing directly to do with politics. That’s what the “Old Time Gospel” in the Old Time Gospel Hour is all about.

Katherine Harris

Why do you want to be United States Senator for Florida?

Florida Baptist Witness

Published: August 24, 2006

Many people feel that a lot of conservative Christians are trying to impose Christian standards of morality on the United States, that they are trying to pass laws in America that are in conformity with the Bible, or laws that will prevent any change in traditional moral standards.  When a member of Congress such as Katherine Harris comes out and says, “if we [Christians] are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women…  we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended,” as she did in this interview, then this serves to confirm their fears.

Rosie O’Donnell’s recent remark that “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state” should be viewed more as an expression of vehement reaction against the religious right than a literal, well-thought-out analysis.  She is a comedian who was responding spontaneously in an interview situation, but the feelings that triggered this response had no humor to draw on.  She displayed poor judgment, but she also demonstrated the exasperation of those who feel threatened by the approach being taken by the American religious right.  We can rant about her poor logic (thereby making ourselves look superior), but we would do better to acknowledge her exasperation at feeling oppressed by activist Christians.  When we do not reckon with the reactions of those we are influencing, we are guilty of what the Bible calls knowledge without love, although a case can also be made that the religious right often seems to be acting in ways the Bible calls zeal without knowledge.

This ongoing conflict generated by the aggressive tactics of religious groups can be experienced rather directly in the bibliography on the sidebar of this blog, WHAT ARE THEY SAYING ABOUT THE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS RIGHT?  This is a list of a large number of the books on this movement published in the past five years:  pro, con, and relatively neutral surveys.  Most of these links lead to descriptive reviews and many lead to reader reactions, all of which taken together can give a fairly good picture of the public perspective on this movement.  One can simply sample a random selection of these links and get a fairly good feel for what is happening in America.  [This bibliography can be copied and pasted into a word document or email message for later reference.]

Many critics have criticized Katherine Harris for her remarks, but I think it is worth noting that the larger context of her statement is the demand placed on her by the Christian public she is seeking to represent.  When one reads her statements, it is clear they are not clearly articulated; but even more disturbing is the overall context of the implied demand for conformity to a preset agenda contained in the questions to which she and the other candidates for public office were exposed.  There is a clear message in the questions that if one does not answer a certain way, then one will not be an acceptable candidate.  These are litmus test questions that have clearly demarcated answers for the readers of this publication.  In some ways a person who has little or minimal Christian commitment has an advantage because they can be more objective and distanced; but someone like Harris who is part of that culture is almost caught off guard with the need to be precise and may try too hard to show her true colors.

The periodical doing the interview was the Florida Baptist Witness.  This weekly publication has served the Florida Baptist State Convention of Southern Baptist Churches since 1884. It describes itself as follows -

“With a circulation of more than 42,000 Baptist homes, Florida Baptist Witness newsjournal reaches pastors, church staff members and laypeople across Florida and around the World. The WITNESS is a 12-16 page tabloid published 46 times a year and dedicated to quality news effecting lives of Southern Baptists in Florida and worldwide.”

This denomination reports it had 1,044,831 members and 2,078 churches in Florida in 2005.  The total Florida population in 2005 was 17,789,864, so this one denomination represents about 6% of the state, which is significant since attendees who are not members probably increase those numbers significantly.  Then one needs to consider that this is only one denomination that is contributing to the religious right in notable ways.  And Florida plays a significant role in presidential elections.

This interview with Katherine Harris was part of a series of special reports on the 2006 primary elections, which sought to interview all the gubernatorial and U.S. senatorial candidates, most of whom agreed to be interviewed.  They were all asked substantially the same questions with only slight variations depending on their answers.

The actual questions asked of Katherine Harris were -

1. Why do you want to be United States Senator for Florida?
2. Why are you the best-qualified candidate?
3. What is your personal religious faith?
4. Are you involved in a local place of worship? If so, in what way?
5. One day when you stand before God, if He says to you, “Why should I let you into my Heaven?” What you would say in response?
6. How does your faith impact the way you view your responsibilities as a public official?
7. What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?
8. Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?
9. Do you support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman? Why or why not?
10. Do you support the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment?
11. Setting aside for the moment the public policy questions related to abortion, is abortion a moral evil? Why or why not?
12. What public policy limits on abortion have you supported or will you support in order to decrease the number of abortions in our nation?
13. What is your view of Gov. Bush’s efforts on behalf of Terri Schiavo?
14. Should food and water be defined as extraordinary care, thus permitting such care to be denied to persons like Terri Schiavo?
15. What is your view on state funding of embryonic stem cell research?
16. Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?

When we take a second look at these questions, we begin to wonder about Florida Baptists, about what kind of outlook they have and what social problems they consider to be the most important.  Do they believe that forcing a discussion of one’s intimate relationship with God into a public political forum can be done without being intimidating?  Do they see gay civil rights, abortion, end of life care, and embryonic stem cell research as the major political concerns of the day?  Are problems such as immigration, poverty, and education of no concern to Florida Baptists?  Is this media exam of the candidates at its essential root an expression of social concern or an expression of anger?  Do they believe in pursuing God’s objectives in the political sphere or are they simply trying to plug a few holes in the legal system?

The emphases reflected in these interview questions suggests a candidate identification process based on the following priorities:

• Priority #1 — Identify Christian candidates or the next best substitute (# 3-7)
• Priority #2 — Identify candidates who hold the “correct” positions on four major current moral controversies (# 8-15): gay rights, abortion, life-sustaining policies for those in a persistent vegetative state, and stem cell research
• Priority # 3 — All other political positions are optional — the church shares no other common concerns about social issues (#1-2)

One can see, however, that the order of the questions (#1 and #2) allows the interviewee to ennunciate a political vision that could lead readers to become more temperate in how they interpret subsequent questions.    One must have an intimate understanding of this kind of audience and also be an especially articulate spokesman for his or her own position if it varies with the viewpoint of this audience in order to gain acceptance.  That is probably why many wonder whether anyone but a southerner can succeed in the South.  You have to have a very large morally compelling vision driving your overall agenda if you are going to be forgiven for some of your “shortcomings” on the litmus test issues.  You are only given a very small window to show you have a compelling vision of leadership, and you need to use it when you are given the chance.  You can fail on the details if you can win on the big issues; but you have to use your window of opportunity.

Although it is rather apparent that Priority #3 is the lowest priority in the ranking for Florida Baptists as a whole, it is unclear which of Priorities #1 or #2 is more important.  It is difficult to figure out overall priorities because individuals are different than groups, so there can be much variation. And to a certain extent, these interview questions represent the religious media of their denomination and are not necessarily a representative sampling of membership concerns.  Nevertheless, the media influences the denomination’s membership and helps create the religious culture in which the next generation is raised - a culture which the succeeding generation will either accept, reject, or modify.

When we look at this interview from this perspective, we can see Katherine Harris on her own terms.  Basically she presents no vision for Florida; she does not give compelling positive reasons for electing her.  Instead, her responses to questions # 1 and 2 are summarized in her macho posturing claim: “I have proven that I will not kowtow to the media and all the pressure. I won’t kowtow to even the part of the elite in my own party when they want to do something that’s not right for Florida. And I think that I have a history that proves I’m not going to do what’s popular. I am going to do what’s right.”  She then goes on to give all the “right” answers on the ethical controversies in questions #8-15.  It is in clarifying her Christian identity and philosophy in response to question #6 that she makes her now infamous remarks.  Instead of focusing on positive position statements of what she wants to accomplish, she went through the interview as if she was being graded on an exam and tried to argue why she should get top marks.  Her approach comes across as quite juvenile.

TENETS OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Although it now appears that Katherine Harris lacks the political support to get elected, it is still worth examining the three problematic statements she made in this interview because they represent widely held sentiments among those in the religious right.

Separation of church and state “is a lie”

When you read it, this statement is easily recognized as a poorly worded way of saying that belief in separation of church and state does not mean that Christians should not get involved in politics - it is “a lie” if a Christian thinks they shouldn’t get involved in political issues.  Harris’s lack of clarity on this point is the one most commented on, and its wording was so convoluted hardly any one even fully quotes it, though critics complain endlessly about it.  The source of this animosity seems to be that this phrase has become a mantra for the religious right, and has been used at least by Alan Keyes, Republican Sen. Russell Prescott, Pat Robertson, and Dennis Durband.  The exact meaning of this phrase is not really clear but it has drawn a lot of counter-reaction and stirs up a good deal of misunderstanding regarding the Christian message.  What makes all this so bizarre is that the very idea of the separation of church and state stems from Christian thought.

One would think that Harris should have been able to better articulate what she meant since she had previously presented her ideas at a Reclaiming America for Christ conference in March 2006.  However, I think one offended blogger captured the import of what she meant in the following explanation -

Separation of church and state is “a lie we have been told” … separating religion and politics is “wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”   Electing non-Christians allows ‘legislating sin.’   “If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”

So what she is really getting at with this declaration, along with those other Christian right advocates, is that since God works through people to do his will, people need to cooperate with God and choose Christians to run the government so they can make decisions in keeping with God’s will.  In one sense this is reasonable logic, except for the assumption that Christians are the best choice to do God’s will.  When we look at biblical history, we see that God has usually chosen non-believers to do his will in the political sphere. And one of them was so noteworthy, that he was even dubbed a “messiah” (anointed one).  One would be hard-pressed to make a case from the Bible that putting believers in power ensures godly leadership of a country.

We Need More Than Just Secular Laws

The second problem is a substantive one, where Harris says “if we [Christians] are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren’t involved in helping godly men in getting elected than [sic] we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our founding fathers intended and that’s certainly isn’t what God intended.”  Now, no one intended that religious people should be excluded from participating in politics; but the problem with this statement is the claim that becoming “a nation of secular laws” is not what our founders intended.  I think it is quite clear that our founders DID intend that our country would be based on “secular” laws in the sense that they were not to be based on the teachings of any religion and were not to favor any religion.  When the Constitution was first written, no church was established with preferential status.  This was a rather unique approach to political science, and only a couple of colonies had taken that approach.  Most of them had had established churches.  Most nations in Europe had established churches.  By creating a constitution without an established church, and establishing a basis for law without reference to God, it is rather clear that a “secular” lawmaking process was intended and initiated.  The First Amendment added a few years later further clarified that no laws should be made that favored a given church or supported a religion - this would further ensure that religion would not become a source of political power.

One tends to forget that America was born basically out of a marriage of Enlightenment and Puritan thought, and that by the time of the revolution less than about 20% of the population held formal church membership.  Although Christian belief was widespread, there was a wide variety of belief from traditional to deist.   And although there was a good deal of personal piety, there was an even greater fear of political conflict over religion, which had been a major characteristic of the European experience which the colonists had sought to escape.  So while the founders respected both church and state, they wanted the social functions of politics and religion to be separate. The founders really did intend our nation to be a nation of “secular” laws.  At the same time, they expected both religious and nonreligious people to bring their beliefs into the discussion of public policy.  They were not excluding the expression of anyone’s beliefs.  Some do argue that the founders implicitly agreed to a shared non-doctrinal, generic faith that could be described as a civil religion (more like deism than Christianity).  But in any case, the law-making process was a procedural one: it was neutral - secular - and was not to be influenced or prejudiced by government support for religious viewpoints.  (Unfortunately, the way politicians actually run the show can prejudice the operation one way or another, rather than keeping it neutral.)

As secularization has increased in society, the tendency to identify morality with what is legal seems to be increasing, and the American religious right seems to be encouraging this trend.  Rather than recognizing that the law can never adequately define morality, the distinctive trademark of the religious right is to promote restrictive laws defining the moral behavior of Americans.  It should be noted, however, that the tendency to propose a law to solve practically every problem is almost an American character trait.  My point is that Christians need to escape this cultural mindset, for as the Apostle Paul said, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world” (Rom 12:2).   Laws formed in a pluralistic, democratic society are at best “based on human commands and teachings” (Col 2:20-22).  Christians should primarily be concerned with ensuring an environment where they are free to choose the moral options they believe in, NOT where everyone else must also adhere to those options (1 Tim 2:1-2).

We Need to Take Back This Country

The third problematic issue is Harris’ statement, “But that’s why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It’s time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit.”  

When she says Christians need to “take back” America, Harris is not reflecting reality.  This ruse allows her to avoid presenting a vision for the future.  She is simply feeding off of and reflecting the belief system of the Baptists and the religious right who are her support base.  Furthermore, what she “recommends” is exactly how she is being examined in this interview - questioning each candidate about their views on social ethics to expose them on a kind of moral report card.

This method looks an awful lot like a twisted adaptation of the methods of nonviolent resistance, where the goal was to get the perpetrators of violence to expose themselves to public shame in order to appeal to their sense of conscience.  But in this case it is an aggressive, in-your-face challenge to come up with simple yea or nay answers to complex ethical questions.   Politicians like Harris think they have an advantage with this approach since they hope to reap votes through it.  But for educating the public, this approach will tend to create polarization and misunderstanding of the issues.  From a biblical standpoint, this approach is directly contrary to instructions not to foster argumentativeness, since these issues are invariably controversial matters and not clear-cut absolutes.  Politicians will usually graciously handle a method such as this simplistic moral report card approach because they need to protect their public image; but the approving church will experience vicarious training in aggressive incivility and the disapproving public will be outraged.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ACCORDING

TO JESUS

For Christians to try to take control of a country, even if legitimized as “taking back this country,” is contrary to the approach that Jesus taught for his followers.  Jesus was very specific about how his followers were to exercise their social influence.

Do not impose your will on others

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  (Matthew 20:25-28)

Luke’s version includes a little more background detail to help us better grasp the significance of this teaching session with Jesus -

“Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:24-30).

When Jesus says we are to be servants, he is identifying servanthood with the waiters and waitresses at a dinner party, where the guests are having all the fun, a much more vivid image than simply applying “servant leadership” as we are likely to do today, where we are more likely to put the accent on the leadership so we can keep all the privileges that go with rank and influence.  He is actually describing what it should feel like to be around a group of his followers, what we might call the social climate or the social milieu. It is a group atmosphere he is describing when he says “not so with you.”  The style of interpersonal relationship he advocated was to be a distinctive mark of the groups of his followers.  If everyone is serving everyone else, then this will have an equalizing effect on social relationships.  So this is not just a personal responsibility, but also a group reputation that should characterize us.  That means we should be critiquing ourselves.  How are we doing at serving each other?  Is this the way we are leaving our mark on society?  Are we treating others in society this way?

The immediate context that elicited this instruction was the request by James and John, through their mother, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.”  We can see that Jesus’ followers accepted him as “Messiah,” as God’s anointed king over a coming kingdom.  Jesus seems to allude to God’s warning in 1 Samuel 8 when he refers to “the rulers of the Gentiles”  -  when the Israelites first wanted “a king to govern us, like other nations.” God warned them that in rejecting him they were choosing leadership by kings who would, in effect, “lord it over them” like kings did in the other nations.  But God accepted their decision.  Now, after a long teaching process culminating in Jesus, God had, in effect, transformed the concept of “kingship” into something they did not expect and therefore did not recognize.  Jesus did not look like the typical self-serving “king” over his kingdom, and his disciples were to follow his example.  In this incident, in fact, he joins the three main strands of eschatological prophecy (which were usually separated) and applied them to himself in a messianic sense: the godly yet powerful king, the Son of Man, and the suffering servant. 

God-like leadership involves long and patient endurance motivated by love and characterized by seeking the good of those being served.  It does not force its way on them, but neither does it simply let them suffer the fullest extent of their self-defeating ways when they reject the truth.  It is only by fully grasping this prolonged picture of God’s love in the Old Testament, which is encapsulated ever so briefly in the famous words of John 3:16 - “God so loved the world” - that we can begin to grasp what Jesus is saying when he says that this is the style of leadership that should characterize his followers.  I think those who might think this command only applies to relationships within the church will miss the point entirely.  Biblical Christianity recognizes that God intends for us to be conformed to the image of Christ, and that total transformation includes the image of servanthood.

Make yourself known by serving others

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”  (John 13:34-35)

Not emphasizing authority, rules, and law as the basis for social relationships might ultimately be seen as fostering passivity.  But Jesus had a more proactive stance in mind when he spoke of love and servanthood.  This command was given a little after Jesus washed his disciples’ feet after entering the meeting room for their last Passover meal together, because none of the disciples were willing to volunteer for the job since a servant usually did it.  By doing it himself, Jesus literally embodied the role of a servant.  Then he said, “You call me `Teacher’ and `Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.”  (John 13:13-17)

Taking the role of a servant toward each other and toward others, “giving a cup of cold water in Jesus name,” to meet human needs, or to pursue justice for others - this seems to be the role that Jesus had in mind for his followers.  This is a role that might be described as being with people in their need and helping them.  It is an echo from the OT where we hear God saying that he is with the poor in their distress.  It gets at the heart of what God desires - relationship with and between human beings - since it is not the sacrificial system that pleases him, but the harmonious relationships that are the objective of his moral law.  At the same last Passover meal where Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, Jesus said that although he was going away, God would send his Spirit to be with and in his disciples, that they would experience a unity together and that the Spirit will come along side each believer to help and to guide.  In the same way as Jesus was sent, believers are sent into the world to represent God’s love, to come alongside people to serve them according to the full range of their needs, presenting God’s Word to them so they may get to know God as well. 

Some Christians will be called into public service and into political service, where they will be able to contribute according to their capabilities and insights.  But the real concern these days is to what extent the church as the church, or Christians as organized groups should be focusing their energies onto political activities.  Other than possibly offering prophetic guidance (broadly understood) or contributing to consensus development for the common good as participants in the democratic process, there does not seem to be any basis in the Bible to justify such a diversion from the authorized Christian mission.

How should we respond

when others do wrong?

It seems like the foundational issue we face is how we are supposed to react when we see that things are not right. This has always been the human problem, and responding to the wrongs of others has often made human problems even worse.  This predicament has unique ramifications in a country like the United States, where maximal freedom is presumed, and therefore people will have freedom to sin with impunity.  The Epistle of First Peter presents a classic answer to this question in the worst possible scenario, in the face of pending persecution, and argues that we should continue to honor and respect everyone and continue to do good, following the example of Jesus himself.  But since Jesus was living in continuity with the entire biblical tradition, a closer look at the biblical background may help us better understand the example of Jesus.

The way the Bible presents it, Eve committed the first sin in Eden, but sin entered the human race through Adam.  So it was his acceptance and confirmation of her act that initiated the social problem of sin.  Adam’s sin was really the second sin and consisted of choosing to side with Eve rather than asking God for further clarification about the instructions regarding the tree they perhaps were not even to touch.   Rather than counseling her against the choice she had made, by reminding her of God’s instructions and advising her to repent, he also made the same choice for himself.  Paul says Eve was deceived, but Adam chose deliberately.  But Paul also says that sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. 

At the very least, this initial incident illustrates that instruction is called for in response to human sin.  In large part, that was the moral function of the Mosaic Law.  The Mosaic Law also had civic (political) and cultic (ceremonial and religious) functions, but the moral functions concern us here.  We also see the Apostle Paul advocating use of what we might call various counseling strategies to deal with human sin at the same time that he disparaged the use of law as a method of dealing with sin.

The role of the Old Testament prophets may be seen, in part, as God’s response to Israel’s sin.  And Jesus summarized his ministry just before the crucifixion as one of giving God’s word to people that they might live, that they might have the restored relationship to God that was broken at Eden.  Likewise, Jesus’ disciples are sent into the world to fulfill this same purpose, to spread God’s Word.          

When Paul says that even godless state authorities are authorized by God to “bear the sword” against those who do wrong, he is not suggesting that the Christian mission includes taking up that sword.  If anything, he is accepting, along with Jesus, a fundamental distinction between the concerns of believers and rulers.  A ruler should be “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” according to Paul.  Paul views the state as the social context in which Christians can simply obey the civil law and get on with the task of fulfilling their mission of love for one another and outreach to others.  

The Apostle Peter, possibly writing on the eve of persecution by Nero, still wrote along these same lines -

“Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech.  He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it’ “  (1 Peter 3:9-11).  In other words, our response to the sin of others, following the example of Jesus, should not be retaliation, but rather to do good and to seek peaceful relationships with everyone.  Paul similarly says, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:17-18).  Passages such as these are the basis for seeking broad agreement - peaceful relationships - on political and civil matters, rather than attempting to manipulate social policy in controversial directions.

In contrast, Katherine Harris explains how the religious right wants to respond to the sin around us as follows -

“If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright [sic]. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.”

For the sake of the argument, take one of her issues and grant that abortion is wrong.  If the government passes laws allowing abortion, the main concern for Christians should be to provide freedom for Christians to not have to submit to abortions or provide them against their conscience.  That is the extent of biblical doctrine, that we be free to serve God and to advocate for God’s will.  But what the religious right wants is to impose God’s will as the law of the land and outlaw abortion.  What I have been arguing is that this is not the approach God demonstrates or advocates in the Bible.  Furthermore, there is not agreement even among Christians on the technical details that would be needed to objectify the moral decision-making factors involved in the abortion issue so that they could be enshrined into law. 

The biblical presentation of Christian discipleship provides no basis for Christians to seek to impose civil laws on others as part of the Christian mission.  To do so is to attempt to use the sword rather than the Word to change behavior. This is not what Christianity is about.  Christian discipleship is about growing in our own relationship with God in response to God’s Word while, at the same time, sharing God’s Word with others so that they may also know God.  Gaining a hearing for God’s Word is perhaps the greatest challenge facing Christians today.  There is a big difference between proclaiming God’s Word and getting God’s Word heard with understanding by interested listeners. 

Theoretically, the goals of the religious right would be valid in a democratic society if they could get almost all Americans converted to Christianity, and then they all voluntarily voted for the laws being advocated by the right.  But this objective fails to take account of what the Puritans learned in Massachusetts, who started off with a unified consensus.  But they then faced the reality that each succeeding generation must make its own moral commitments.  The conditions motivating the continuation of specific moral standards cannot be dictated from generation to generation.  It is not good enough to have statutes in writing; they must reflect the beliefs of the people themselves.  If laws did any good on their own, Massachusetts would not be where it is today.  Not many people would characterize Massachusetts as the prototype Puritan state today!

The American religious right should not be considered a Christian movement when it tries to deal with human sin by creating human laws - in many ways it is antithetical to the biblical message.

It is not Christlike to impose controversial laws on a resistant population.