No Nation Under God
Guest post by Jason Stellman
In her Newsweek article titled “One Nation Under God,” Lisa Miller reports that President Obama met with a team of moderate Christian leaders in Washington on November 30—among them Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo—for the purpose of articulating “a vision of Christianity that will counter a new—and newly powerful—religious-right rhetoric in advance of the 2012 election.”
The reason for such a meeting of the minds is obvious, especially if you’ve been watching Fox News: America enjoys a kind of divine Most-Favored Nation status in the world, and that status is being compromised by socialists who are calling our most beloved core values into question.
What’s motivating religious conservatives now, says Campolo, is a vision of America as God’s own special country, and free-market capitalism as crucial to the nation’s flourishing. Everyone who doesn’t see things this way, according to this perspective, is a socialist or a communist—“Pinkos who are subverting America under the auspices of the president of the United States,” he says. “The marriage between evangelicalism and patriotic nationalism is so strong that anybody who is raising questions about loyalty to the old, laissez-faire capitalist system is ex post facto unpatriotic, un-American, and by association non-Christian.” Support for Obama, in other words, equals an abandonment of American principles equals godlessness.
And there is little doubt who is leading the charge: “And the spokesman for this movement, adds Campolo, is the Fox News commentator Glenn Beck. ‘There’s no question in our minds about that.’” In fact, Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, goes as far as to say that “Right-of-center independents and religious conservatives believe that America is an exceptional place,” says “If you’re going to be a candidate or a leader of a party and you’re seen as a person who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, you’re going to have a hard time winning.”
Miller explains:
Evangelicals characteristically see themselves as a persecuted group whose values are under assault by the mainstream culture, and Beck has most successfully (and visibly) reframed those values in terms of patriotism. The enemy is no longer “moral relativism,” a term that encompasses sexual promiscuity, divorce, homosexuality, and pornography. It’s socialism, the redistribution of wealth, immigrants—a kind of “global relativism” that makes no moral distinction between America and every other place. Beck speaks frequently about God’s special destiny for America. “We used to strive in this country to be a shining city on the hill,” he said at the “Restoring Honor” rally in August. “That’s what the Pilgrims came here for. That’s what they thought this land was. It’s what our Founders thought … It is the shining example of a place where people work together in peace and friendship and worship God and make things better together.”
(Of course, it wasn’t Glenn Beck’s spiritual ancestors who ventured to the new world on the Mayflower since his religion hadn’t been invented yet. In fact, in the nineteenth- and twentieth centuries Mormons like Beck were routinely persecuted by the very Christians whose vision he hopes to resurrect, ironically enough.)
Miller also highlights the fact that it is the idea that America occupies a unique place in God’s divine plan that helps account for certain aspects of U.S foreign policy:
This sense of America’s divine mission in the world grew. In the middle of the 19th century, legions of Protestant missionaries fanned out across the globe on errands from God, hoping to teach others the lessons of democracy and the Gospel—ideologies that were inexorably intertwined. “We wouldn’t be in Afghanistan if it weren’t for the missionaries of the 19th century,” says Grant Wacker, professor of American religious history at Duke. “It’s this whole complex of ideas: the world is our province, and we have both the right and the obligation to tutor the rest of the world.”
In other words, our city-on-a-hill national vision not only allows us, but in some sense obligates us, to play the role of earth’s guardian-slash-provider whose job is to export our religion, our democratic ideals, and our fast-food restaurants to those who either long for such things, or who would do so if they truly knew what’s best for them.
How ought Christians react to all this? What should be our response to learning that, come presidential campaign season, both the Democrats and Republicans will be playing tug-of-war with Jesus?
I would like to offer a handful of observations that I hope will help clarify our thinking on some of these issues, as well as provide some fodder for further discussion and study of these matters.
First, no matter their political persuasion, all Christians should feel very uncomfortable with the idea that the solution to the conservative politicization of the Christian faith is cheering on liberals when they try to do it. It is extremely anachronistic for anyone, whether on the left or the right, to try to claim divine sanction for free-market capitalism or biblical justification for universal healthcare. The Bible is not a political manual or blueprint for earthly utopia.
Second (and speaking of utopias), we must remember that the biblical doctrine of the liberty of conscience means that one man’s utopian dream is may very well be another man’s nightmarish dystopia. This is why those who long for their ministers to “take a prophetic stance against the culture” need to be careful what they wish for—they may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to listen to a 12-week sermon series on the evils of multinational corporations and their role in the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians during our so-called liberation of Iraq. You see, the thing about prophets is that their hearers have no veto power, nor do they have any say about which sins the prophet chooses to rebuke (and chances are, since “judgment begins in the house of God,” they will pick sins to rebuke that Christian tend to find tolerable [instead of the obvious ones]).
Third, America does not have any role in God’s redemptive plan for planet earth. The kingdom of Christ is manifested in this age in the visible church, not in any nation-state, regardless of how noble its history or how lofty its ideals. Many Reformational people have learned this lesson only partially—they have trashed their Left Behind novels and admitted that they were wrong about Israel, but they still haven’t figured out that they’re wrong about America, too.
Fourth, Obama is not a socialist. Even if our president’s wildest dreams were fulfilled, he would still be miles and miles to the right of much of the rest of the industrialized West. Say what you want about President Obama, but he is a smart man. It would be politically suicidal for him to make any actually progressive moves such as ending our for-profit healthcare system, or re-tailoring U.S. foreign policy in a truly systemic way. Sure, progressive moves such as these may be popular, but the unfortunate fact is that the desire of the people is only one of a host of other concerns. Thus when we take a couple steps back and analyze our two-party system, it becomes apparent that the only thing that distinguishes Republicans from Democrats is not the overall vision for our domestic and foreign policy (they both agree on this), but the miniscule details of that overall plan about which they disagree. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Lastly and most importantly, American Christians need to remember something that we so easily forget, and that is that our true homeland is an eternal, heavenly one whose allure cannot be compromised by the goings-on of the culture war. It is remarkable that, for all the passionate Christian devotees of right-wingers like Glenn Beck or lefties like Jim Wallis, there are very few evangelicals in this country who can articulate the doctrine of justification in a coherent and biblical way. In other words, we Christians seem to have sacrificed the one thing that makes us unique—the gospel—on the altar of some baptized political ideology for which the divine Son of God isn’t even necessary.
So even if America does cease to be particularly special or unique in the world, we can rest assured that the church will always be so, for it is her errand that cannot be mimicked, and her message that cannot (and must not) be co-opted by the powers that be, whether on the right or the left.
—
Jason Stellman is the pastor of Exile Presbyterian Church in the Seattle area. He is the author of Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and the Not Yet (Reformation Trust, 2009), and The Destiny of the Species (forthcoming). He blogs at Creed, Code, Cult. He is a regular contributor to Modern Reformation:
“Called to Serve” by Michael Brown (Book Review) – May/June 2008 Vol: 17 Num: 3
“Christ & Culture Revisited” by D. A. Carson (Book Review) – Sept./Oct. 2008 Vol: 17 Num: 5
“Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism” by Michelle Goldberg (Book Review) – Jan./Feb. 2008 Vol: 17 Num: 1
Shortchanging the World?: “American Christians and Worldiness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World” by C.J. Mahaney (Book Review) – July/August 2009 Vol: 18 Num: 4
The Destiny of the Species – Nov./Dec. 2009 Vol: 18 Num: 6
Where Grace is Found – July/August 2007 Vol: 16 Num: 4


December 13th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I love the article and agree! I do think that referring to the difference between Republican and Democratic governing philosophy as \to-ma-to and to-mah-to\ is over-simplifying a little bit.
Other than that, I couldn’t agree more.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
It is always frustrating to me that a ministry which I support and who I find to be immensely helpful in theological matters can be almost tone-deaf with regard to political ideology. There are fundamental and deep differences between the left and right(yes even in America, that tomato tomahto comparison is agonizingly thick-headed) and the fact that people I vehemently disagree with theologically may be on the right, in NO way invalidates their criticisms or evaluations of political matters.
To be specific. I don’t care if Glen Beck is a mormon if he is telling TRUTH about political matters. While I disagree with American exceptionalism based on a redemptive historical premise, I am convinced that the White Horse Inn is way too concerned about this element and way to shy in criticizing the large beams in the eyes of the christian left.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Steve,
Thanks for your comments.
Putting aside how deep and fundamental the differences are between the right and the left in this country (and just to point out, I didn’t use those terms, but rather said “Republicans and Democrats”), I would like to challenge what you said a bit.
Why is it a source of frustration for you that those with whom you agree theologically disagree with you poitically? Aren’t these two very distinct spheres? The desire on your part for cohesiveness seems to beg the question, for you’re assuming that one’s theological beliefs should carry with them certain political beliefs as well. The whole point of my article is to argue the opposite.
So instead of being frustrated, you should just rejoice in this phenomenon. After all, don’t you want the liberty of conscience to come to your own political conclusions without having to be force-fed them from the pulpit with a “thus saith the Lord”?
Distinguishing the two kingdoms protects you, is what I’m saying.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
In the main, I agree with Jason Stellman. It is indeed sad when a church member does not understand and cannot articulate how one becomes right with God, but can adequately represent Glen Beck’s position on a given policial issue. I have always cringed when pastors begin their political discourse and display their political preference from the pulpit even if I don’t necessarily disagree with what they say. The pulpit needs to be relegated to the preaching of the Word of God and the gospel of his Son. And regardless of how much I may even agree with someone’s political position, if it comes from the pulpit, I get extremely annoyed and angry.
I understand the fear that theologians/pastors like Jason Stellman have in regard to the church trading in their identity and message for politics. However, it seems to me that there are more specific reasons \Christians\ have voluntarily chosen to head full speed for the conservative right and find their \Christian identity\ in this group. Mr. Stellman says it’s \tomayto, tomahto\ when it comes to a political reason, but Christians actually see, and it is overwhelmingly the case, that \liberals\ and a majority of the democratic party are in the foreground on issues which wish to hypocritically abolish the word \Christmas\ from the Holiday season, but would not dare speak a word against building an Islamic structure near 9/11; \liberals\ and a vast majority of democrats support abortion rights even up until the child is partially born (yes, even our own very intelligent President); liberals and democrats claim compassion for spending up to 1/3 of the budget on welfare and thereby supporting a great deal of ungrateful irresponsibility. (How many times have our esteemed Reformed theologians visited their local welfare offices and simply observed what happens there in one afternoon? How many governmental programs would they volutarily unfold their wallet to? How many programs would be morally repulsive to their eyes? Do they encourage their deacons to be so reckless within their own churches?. Are we saying that government taxation doesn’t reflect the bestial nature of the state?)
There are so many other examples that could be given (public education, college education, flag burning, etc.) which could be elaborated upon as to why Christians flood the \Christian right\ and view liberals and the democratic party as a threat. They are a very marginalized group of people. I can understand why they find themselves at home where they are.
So I think Mr. Stellman’s interpretation of tomayto, tomahto is overly simplistic to say the least and I believe he may be somewhat myopic due to his own political opinions. I completely agree, however, that the church should be the church and should preach the gospel.
December 13th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Jason,
Thanks for your comments.
What you are saying only proves my point about liberty of conscience, though. You write of things like public education and welfare in the same sentence as abortion, as though it were equally obvious to everyone that both are wrong. But what if some Christians don’t think that welfare is wrong? Like the ones that benefit from it, for example?
And likewise, a left-leaning Christian can just as easily point out all the sinful practices of the right and then ask, as you do, why more Christians don’t disagree with those practices.
My point is that both sides engage in sinful behavior but are usually only able to see the sins of their opponents. So at the end of the day it comes down to personal judgment, pragmatics, and a whole host of other issues when determining which party to align with.
But what we mustn’t do is demonize one side and canonize the other, it’s just not that simple.
December 13th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Jason Stellman wrote: Fourth, Obama is not a socialist.
Stanley Kurtz is an adjunct fellow of Hudson Institute and a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He wrote a book that he did not want to write. He did not want the infamy of saying that Obama is a socialist, but after researching Obama, he had to let the evidence speak for itself. He is the reluctant author of:
Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. It is heavily documented with the much of documented evidence coming from the socialist organizations and socialist figures that Obama connected himself with. Please read the book before you blow-off the damage that can be done to our nation by this kind of political ideology.
As for this article, I think you can do better than this. It looks like a mixture of good advice, some gross generalizations about the lack of doctrinal understanding among laymen, an over-emphasis on Fox News/Glen Beck as the primary influence on Christian conservatives, a limited view of Puritanism’s City on a Hill legacy that lacks a broader perspective of Christian liberalism’s utopian social gospel over the last 150 years, and an apparent need to be more widely read in both liberal and conservative political views so that they can be distinguished from their Christian influences and where they intersect with Christian beliefs. Political views cannot be blown off as merely a matter of conscience or an easy tit-for-tat on the sins of each side. Ideologies have consequences.
It seems to be your opinion that the majority of Christians cannot tell the difference between political ideologies and Christian theology. You may be right. I think you are making a caricature of Christian laymen. Many of us are well aware of the differences between different ideologies and different theologies and where they do and do not intersect.
Many Christians do understand that they can offer what salt and light they have into our local and national conversations about politics, economics, and the social issues of our day. It is in these settings that all kinds of friendships can be made and openings for the gospel can be made within these friendships.
Please don’t take up the popular pastoral position of complaining about how few people understand the doctrine of justification. Perhaps Christian understand justification better than you think.
If one understands justification, it frees one to roll up their sleeves, get to work, and to not be afraid of getting our hands dirty. One of our common shared vocations is that of citizenship and this vocation gives all of us the opportunity to love our neighbors by being involved citizens. Citizenship includes politics and it doesn’t necessarily correlate that an active interest in politics usurps God from the throne that is rightfully his alone.
Sometimes, I think pastors live in a church bubble that insulates them from the world. It’s so easy to sit on the church steeple and judge all of the flocks scattered across the nation. Maybe it is easy to fail to see how many Christians do long for an end to this messy world and eternity with Christ.
It is so easy to magnify faults. We will not see perfection in God’s children in this life, we will need to wait until heaven for that. Until then, we will all speak and act imperfectly, including pastors. Until then, we will continue to seek to know the Word, seek to find the comfort of the gospel and the sacraments, and respite from our daily concerns whether personal, local, or national.
I thank God that it is a merciful Christ who will judge each of us. Some Christians do not think it is particularly Christian to passively sit by and let beneficial things go down the tubes without making any effort to stem the tide of disaster that surrounds us. We do not choose to passively fold our hands, or isolate ourselves within the ‘right’ church circles, or hide within the four walls of the perfect ‘orthodox’ church so we can escape the problems of our neighbors, communities, or nation. Some of us remember well how disastrous the changes in political ideologies were under Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Moa Tse-Tung, etal.
To be concerned about such things does not mean that we lack faith in God or that we have forgotten whose kingdom we live in. It means God has all kinds of callings for us to serve him in this world. Please take the time to mature in years and broaden your view of how many different ways God calls his children to serve and love him in this world.
December 13th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Frustrating post, Mr. Stellman. You raise a lot of political points with which I disagree and then run and hide behind a shield of theology.
I agree that I do not want a church to be either conservative or liberal in politics. I want a church that deals with the eternal truths of salvation, not secular politics. There are other organizations I can join for my political work.
So, the question, then, is why did you raise so many political issues and not want them discussed? American exceptionalism, for instance. There is no question that the United States is unlike any other country in history. It was founded on an agreement of ideas, not ethnicity or geography. One of those ideas was that the rights of the people come from God, and that political institutions are established to protect those rights.
That does not mean that God is rooting for our success. It does mean that we are trying to discern God’s will for us. As a nation we may often do that poorly, just as I as a person often do that poorly. I am indeed a sinner, as are ALL of my countrymen. But I try to repent of those sins and ask for forgiveness. America at its best does the same. We paid for our sin of slavery with the blood of 600,000 soldiers. That is exceptionalism at work.
By the way, the snarky comments about Glenn Beck were out of line. I was at his rally and it was a wonderful moment of hope and ecumenical comity. Perhaps you don’t believe in ecumenicalism, but I do, and I was grateful to hold hands with Mormons, Jews, Catholics, and many others to reaffirm our shared values.
December 13th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNvKSrdm_s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Just like their are philosophical positions that are more consistent with the christian worldview e.g. objective vs subjective views of epistemology, there are political philosophies that are not compatible. The threat of violence against the non-violent used by socialism to accomplish its goals render it incompatible with the Christian faith.
December 13th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Lily, I dare you to ask a random professing Christian what the doctrine of justification means to them and can almost guarantee that they will look at you like you asked them the question in Mandarin instead of English. A lot of the doctrinal teachings that should be coming from the pulpit have been replaced with political rhetoric. A legalistic “If you’re a Christian and are not voting this way you need to pray about it” type of preaching from both sides should not take place in worship service.
I think you are failing to understand what Jason is trying to say here and are generally being obtuse. IF you listen to the WHI at all you know that Evangelicals have a problem with message and its not political but what we as disciples of Christ are called to do. Share the gospel. Christ and his saving work alone making people right before a holy God. Be disciples- learning God’s word and his ways. Whether you are a democrat of republican should never get in the way of that.
As followers of Christ first and foremost we are called to love God and our neighbors. Doing that certainly isn’t sitting back or being passive in a church bubble because it doesn’t depend on votes or political wrangling. If more professing Christians focused more on those 2 things then what ever party you belonged to would be so irrelevant. We really would be light and salt in an effective way rather that being the political pawns of either party.
December 13th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Lily,
Thanks for your comments.
Well, I hardly find it surprising that someone who works for a conservative think-tank wrote an article calling Obama a socialist (!), but that is beside the point.
I hope you understand that it was the Newsweek article that mentioned Glenn Beck so often. At times I couldn’t tell if you were disagreeing with me or with Lisa Miller. So to be clear, all the portions in the yellow boxes are citations from her article. I didn’t write those parts.
As for what I said about many evangelicals not being able to articulate the doctrine of justification, that comes from my many years as a participant in megachurch evangelicalism on three continents, as well as my reading of men like Mike Horton, who demonstrates pretty conclusively that this is the case. Sure, there are exceptions, but I never indicated that there weren’t.
I will ignore your condescending exhortation that I mature in years and broaden my horizons.
And I agree with you that we as Christians are to roll up our sleeves and “do earth.” There’s nothing in my article that indicates otherwise. My point (which no one seems willing to engage) is simply that the Christian faith must not be politicized by either the right or the left.
Do you agree or disagree with that, and why?
December 14th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Even if Obama is a Socialist, which I don’t see that he is, a Statist maybe, a Socialist no, I think his policies and his choice of leadership and the fact that on the most talked about issues he has not differed much from his predecessor speak for himself:
1. he’s continued the corporate welfare/ bailouts of Bush II
2. he’s upped the ante on Bush II’s War in Afghanistan
3. he’s increasing military aid to Israel, like Bush II
4. he’s kept many of Bush II staffers around
5. he didn’t push for a public option on healthcare
6. he gave in to extending tax cuts to the .3% richest of Americans even though it will cost the nation 1 Trillion USD, stats from Bernie Sanders
7. We’re still in Iraq with no end to military occupation in sight
8. we’re pretending we don’t see Israel annexing Occupied Palestinian Territory in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
It’s a facade we choose to believe that we have a vigorous political discussion going on between the Republicans and Democrats because we have Beck/ Palin on one side and Obermann and whoever else on the other side, sorry I don’t get any TV channels. Real vigorous political engagement would represent a multiplicity of ideas from all over the political sphere, regardless of how deep or shallow one’s pockets are, unfortunately that is not the kind of Democracy we have. Capitalism and Democracy don’t always play out as nicely as we’ve been led to believe, especially when you have very small percentages of the population controlling the majority of the wealth.
.
Peace,
Rana
December 14th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Greg,
I agree that I do not want a church to be either conservative or liberal in politics. I want a church that deals with the eternal truths of salvation, not secular politics…. So, the question, then, is why did you raise so many political issues and not want them discussed?
Well, I didn’t bring up American exceptionalism, Miller did in her Newsweek article to which I was responding.
But the reason I did bring up some political issues is to demonstrate what your church might be like if we don’t in principle demand that the faith not be politicized. I say “in principle” because many Christians only disagree with the politicization of the faith when the one doing it has the wrong politics. But I am saying that it is wrong to co-opt heaven with earth no matter which direction you lean.
American exceptionalism, for instance. There is no question that the United States is unlike any other country in history.
The point is not whether America is exceptional, but whether it is redemptive (by which I mean a tool in God’s hand to bring about his plan of redemption on earth). The answer is that it is not. The only redemptive institution is the church.
By the way, the snarky comments about Glenn Beck were out of line. I was at his rally and it was a wonderful moment of hope and ecumenical comity. Perhaps you don’t believe in ecumenicalism, but I do, and I was grateful to hold hands with Mormons, Jews, Catholics, and many others to reaffirm our shared values.
I assume you’re referring to my comment about the spiritual ancestors Beck invokes being persecutors of Mormons. Look, I have no problem with ecumenism in the civil realm (some of my best friends are ecumenists). What I have a problem with is using spiritual rhetoric to promote a certain political agenda. If you are a Presbyterian, then I would assume you agree since the Westminster Confession explicitly condemns this kind of thing.
December 14th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Jason,
I am indeed a Presbyterian and I agree entirely with you on not “using spiritual rhetoric to promote a certain political agenda.” Beck strictly avoided politics at his event, fwiw. Unfortunately, my denomination (PCUSA) is dramatically failing that test.
Greg
December 14th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Re: Ayesha’s comment
It appears that you angry and defensive. I am sure you know that it is not helpful to make dares and accusations. You might want to reconsider how you react to those whom you think differ from you. A difference of opinion does not necessarily make the other person an enemy.
I do not think I failed to understand Jason’s article. I differ with some of the things he said. I object to broad generalizations that seem to end up making caricatures of Christians who do not fit the WHI/Reformational mold. Please understand I am not critical the WHI/Reformational teachings – I am critical of those who use it to mischaracterize other Christians who don’t perfectly articulate their confession or completely agree with it (eg: Westminster). There is no harm in respecting the differences in the confessions and it is good to not forget that other confessions (eg: Book of Concord, Book of Common Prayer, etc) are Reformational confessions also.
I do not disagree that there are problems within many churches and it is a widespread problem not only in evangelical circles but also in confessional circles.
There have always been problems within the churches and the teaching sound doctrine and the preservation of the gospel is an ongoing challenge in each generation. To expect every Christian to be able articulate WHI/Reformational teaching to your satisfaction is unreasonable. It does not necessarily mean that a person does not understand the gospel or is somehow substandard if they do not adhere to the Westminster confessions. Different confessions are often saying the same things but in ways that reflect their particular use of language. One has to learn the language they use to appreciate other confessions.
Lastly, I agree that the need to teach sound doctrine and the sharing of the gospel are primary for the church. I do think it is unwise to expect everyone to be clones of the WHI. I do disagree that becoming a mature Christian means that political ideologies are irrelevant. I do not think that is true for those in professional ministry and especially not true for those of us who run businesses or other professions that are deeply affected by political policies. We need to be aware of what is happening and why.
Even though we all have different responsibilities, one common responsibility includes analyzing and critiquing the ideologies that surround us. Ideologies have consequences, just as theologies have consequences. We are not called to a mindless faith or to mindless interactions in the world. The danger seems to be in not giving proper consideration to these things.
December 14th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Re: Jason Stellman Comment
Re: Paragraph 1 – Your snark begs a few questions: Does this mean you think anything connected to conservatism is somehow suspect of not being able to provide untampered evidence or an objective opinion? Do you have training in research that would qualify you to critique this book’s scholarly work – especially without reviewing it?
Re: Paragraph 2 – Yes, I read the post several times before I commented. I noted that you seemed to be in tandem with the author of the article and not in disagreement with her. I also noted that you wanted to look at political ideologies in a reductionist view and portray it as a tug-of-war for Jesus. I suppose it could be easy to make that error if one’s main input is Glenn Beck or FOX TV. A similar mistake could be made by watching TBN and thinking one understands the Christian faith.
Re: Paragraph 3 – I do not disagree that a textbook understanding of justification is missing in many encounters with Christians. What I object to is the popular chest thumping that presents other Christians as not understanding what it means. I think this has been presented in a way that is detrimental far too often and it can cause others to stumble.
When time is spent with Christians, I usually find they do understand that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ and not works. Does this need development in all of our lives so we can continue to learn to articulate it better? IMO, yes, but that is no reason to look down on other Christians because they do not have the same level of textbook understanding or lack being a clone to WHI. There is no excuse for the way it is used at times to belittle those who are not WHI clones.
Re: Paragraph 4 – Your tone begs the question: Do you think you have reached the opus of your maturity and understanding of Christ, doctrine, theology, and the ideologies that surround us? I was not being condescending, merely observant of your post and church website information. I recognize your many past experiences, but that does not necessarily impart an all-encompassing wisdom and since you are in the position of a church pastor/teacher, you have a greater responsibility to take care of what you present to others.
Re: Paragraph 5 – You write that the point of your post was: “simply that the Christian faith must not be politicized by either the right or the left.”
Perhaps the reason no one commented on your point is because it is not clear in you post. I do not know why any Christian would disagree with the statement (above) with the acknowledgment that the key word is politicized. The church is always in danger of being politicized and has a long history of this happening. That is why it is so important to gain a working knowledge of different ideologies, heresies, and other such things that would like to hijack faith in Christ.
December 14th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I wonder how the ideas of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Glenn Beck got so closely tied to Christianity? My heart is beyond grieved when I see it.
December 14th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Greg,
The main point is about the spirituality of the church which is categorically opposed to the politicization of the church no matter the politics. Beck is a political figure, so even if his rally wasn’t explicitly political it sure was implicitly.
But think of it this way. During the 2008 election year Bill Maher appeared on NPR to give an interview on his film “Religulous.” During that interview he was explicit that Sarah Palin should not hold public office because of her religious beliefs and practices, which he deemed “witchcraft.” This was simply a secularist way of playing the religious card to make a political point, a sort of secular Constantinianism. Maher doesn’t like her politics, so he twisted her religious beliefs and practices into something bizarre (“Do we really want someone who pratices withcraft with her finger on the button?”). He was politicizing faith, and the point here is that he was just as misguided in doing so as any evangelical or Reformed believer who wants to baptize his/her religious beliefs, up to and including Palin herself and Glenn Beck.
The two kingdom point here is to protect Palin from Maher and vice versa.
December 14th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Lily,
Thanks for your new comments.
Your snark begs a few questions: Does this mean you think anything connected to conservatism is somehow suspect of not being able to provide untampered evidence or an objective opinion? Do you have training in research that would qualify you to critique this book’s scholarly work – especially without reviewing it?
My comment wasn’t “snark.” All I said was that I don’t find it surprising that someone whose job is to think conservative thoughts wrote a book labeling Obama a socialist. The author you mentioned works for a right-wing think tank, so you’ll have to excuse me for doubting your claim that “this was a book he didn’t want to write.”
I also noted that you wanted to look at political ideologies in a reductionist view and portray it as a tug-of-war for Jesus.
But Lily, that’s EXACTLY what is happening. Did you read the Newsweek piece? Obama is meeting with moderate and left-leaning Christian leaders so that he will be able to rebut the right-wing Christian leaders who will criticize him during campaign season. It’s a completely uncontroversial claim I am making here, and it seems that you just want to argue for argument’s sake.
For example, listen to these things you have said to describe me:
“popular chest thumping”
“look down on other Christians because they do not have the same level of textbook understanding or lack being a clone to WHI”
“belittle those who are not WHI clones”
“Do you think you have reached the opus of your maturity and understanding of Christ, doctrine, theology, and the ideologies that surround us?”
All of this was in response to this one phrase of mine: “… there are very few evangelicals in this country who can articulate the doctrine of justification in a coherent and biblical way.”
Do you see what I am getting at, Lily? You are attributing to me an attitude that I do not have , and that is unfair. I nowhere engaged in chest-thumping or down-my-nose-looking, nor have I faulted anyone for not being a “WHI clone.”
Your tone begs the question: I was not being condescending, merely observant of your post and church website information. I recognize your many past experiences, but that does not necessarily impart an all-encompassing wisdom and since you are in the position of a church pastor/teacher, you have a greater responsibility to take care of what you present to others.
When you tell someone whom you know nothing about, “Sometimes, I think pastors live in a church bubble that insulates them from the world…. Please take the time to mature in years and broaden your view,” that is condescending. Further, when you tell me that I attribute to myself “all-encompassing wisdom,” that is also condescending, insulting, and ad hominem.
Lily, until you demonstrate an attempt to dialogue charitably with me, I will not respond to any more of your comments. You have engaged in numerous personal attacks on me and my character, and I have better things to do than to argue with someone who behaves in such a way.
December 14th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
“Why is it a source of frustration for you that those with whom you agree theologically disagree with you poitically? Aren’t these two very distinct spheres?”
They are absolutely not distinct spheres. Theology drives ideology. To argue otherwise denies the obvious.
It is foolish to accept the premise in the article that Campolo, Wallis, et. al. are Christians. I have heard Campolo speak many times. His is a works based man-centered salvation. This drives his left-wing ideology.
Ask Tony campolo how a person is saved. He will not give an unqualified declaration for grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone.
December 14th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Rana,
tax cuts don’t cost money. Spending costs money.
The Bush tax rates aren’t cuts. What the democrats want to do is raise taxes.
December 15th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Re: Lily
If it sounds as if I’m being defensive it is because I’ve watched both liberals and conservatives politicize the gospel and I believe this muddies the waters of truth within the church. It lessens our effectiveness as a whole and keeps us distracted away from our main goals. I “dared” you because you made a gross generalization that the average Christian knew what the doctrine of justification means when there are studies that show that they clearly don’t. That is something to be angry about when you are sitting in various congregations and the pastor won’t even discuss why/how we are all there together. It shows that we have let something other than the gospel of Jesus Christ take center stage as the message coming from the pulpit. This was Jason’s main point. If you disagree with that that’s fine but when you make assertions you need to be able to back it up.
Secondly, the doctrine of justification is a Biblical teaching (not something cloistered to reformed/confessional circles). Paul clearly states these things for us in the bible for our own understanding. How is a Christian supposed to be an effective witness but doesn’t understand how they are saved? I wasn’t saying people have to know the confessionals but they should know what they believe. Since one of our main jobs as Christians is to share the gospel I think not knowing something so crucial might be a stumbling block if one ran into a non believer with tough questions. You don’t have to be a clone of the WHI to understand that knowing the tenets of your faith is important.
Thirdly, I didn’t say that political ideology should be irrelevant but that if we as Christians focused more on being salt and light that it would become irrelevant. To some professing Christians their political ideology is the gospel. Its probably a misunderstanding of how they are saved which causes them to fill that void with something that is not the gospel. A lot of evangelicals put what party they belong to ahead of whom they belong to. So much so that they don’t treat their neighbor as themselves. This calling seems to be ignored in some circles and responsibility laid at the feet of other institutions in others. You are correct in saying that we ought to analyze and critique ideologies and be mindful of the world around us. What you miss is the fact that we live in two kingdoms of which God is sovereign over both. We can spin our wheels putting our trust in earthly things like political parties but God’s providence has the last say. Its only right that the Church refrain from kowtowing to institutions that would seek to use it for its own gain. That is not part of our job description.
December 15th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Richard,
Two wars/ a military occupation cost money too. Tax rebates/ write-offs to oil companies and other big business also cost money.
Do you know what the tax rates were for the rich last time the nation was entangled in two wars?
Guess who benefits from the war industry?
The poor, uneducated Americans who sign up to get die?
Or the billion dollar no bid contracts gained by revolving door politicians/ military officers/ lobbyists/contractors/ businesses like KBR (formerly known as Kellog, Brown and Root), Halliburton, Xe (formerly known as Blackwater)?
Peace,
Rana
December 15th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Rana,
Talking points aside, what is the Gospel?
December 16th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Wow, I step away for a few days and come back with too much to deal with. Without engaging in tits for tats, let me add a couple of thoughts.
Politics versus religion. First let’s keep in mind that the word “politics” has many meanings. There is the electoral kind, with parties and ideologies. But there is also a “politics”that happens whenever people and power are involved. Even my congregation has internal politics of alliances and favored people. Politics is often seen as a dirty word, but it is just a fact of life in all human affairs.
Politics should not and can not influence the teaching of the church – ever. But the teaching of the church should certainly influence politics. How could it not? I am a Christian and I am also politically active. My belief in Christ informs my actions in every sphere of my life.
This is a very good thing, not a bad thing. Every effort to improve our society has been informed by Christians, from the abolition movement to the civil rights movement. The attempted application of Christian principles doesn’t always work well (think prohibition), but human activities are never without flaw.
The discussion of justification by faith alone reminds me of something C.S. Lewis said that all people of faith have more in common with each other than atheists have with any of them. I am happy to celebrate everything we have in common (even with Mormons) even while I will stand by and speak up for the principles of the Reformation.
Just quickly on Obama and socialism. He clearly is a socialist in the European, Democratic Socialism sense of the term. But it doesn’t matter what label we put on him (or anyone else), the real focus should be on the policies.
I am a bit surprised that no one on this list has raised the question of his faith, particularly his oft-repeated statements that individual salvation depends upon collective salvation. Can anyone here explain to me what “collective salvation” might be?
December 16th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I’m one of those Christians that are sick of the political activity within our churches. I do think many are aware of what happened at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church after it’s pastor died. Part of the reason for the schism there was because the incoming pastor refused to continue in the type of political action that the church had done before.
One of the things I find very disconcerting is how I find Christians speaking of our President as though he were our enemy. I would say this type of behavior coming from Christians is bad within the secular realm, much more within church activities and particularly from the pulpit; perhaps we could call it a “pulpit crime”?
I do think that Christians, particularly on the Right, have influenced our politics in a bad way. They have baptized their politics and speak in a religious way in the secular realm. Christians feel compelled to move towards conservatism because they perceive that it is conservative politics that are aligned with the Bible; they are not reasoned into certain political views, they are told “Thus says the Lord”. If you ask many of them why they support something, they might point to some portion of Scripture instead of offering a good argument. And it does seem that in order to counter this, those on the left are increasingly attempting to integrate a religious, in this case Christian, message in order to gain more support from religious people.
Christians have increased the polarity and hostility in politics. Since they think of politics in such a religious way, they view their politics like orthodoxy. So they dislike and even hate compromise, because to do so would be to betray their principles.
I would also like to point out that one can be an exemplary Christian and not be involved in politics. There is no requirement that you must support some particular law or party or that you must vote. I am quite fine with refusing to vote. How that does that affect my standing within the church? I am sinning by not voting? As for helping my fellow man, I don’t need to be involved in politics to do this. One example could be that on abortion; someone can be apolitical and yet be involved in one one way or another supporting women who are thinking of having an abortion.
I am thankful for the kind of work that people here at the White Horse Inn are doing. They helped free me from thinking that I must be a Republican; yes, there churches that are implicit and even explicit about this. They have made me a more thoughtful Christian, and I hope this good influence spreads to more Christians as well.
December 16th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Richard,
You said, “Talking points aside, what is the gospel?” What are you implying? I was merely responding to your talking points.
“When you can’t win an argument change the language, when you can’t change the language attack the person. ” Looks to me like that’s your aim. I was asked to comment on this article because of my views, it’s unfortunate you feel you have to make comments that imply I don’t know what the gospel is. The fact is Christians can disagree about politics and still be Christians.
Peace,
Rana
December 16th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
The article argued that President Obama is not a socialist but steered clear of his faith. It does mention Obama’s spiritual advisors, Campolo and Wallis. So I only challenged their faith statements.
President Obama has made it clear, stating specifically that he holds to a “big tent” theology.
In a Christianity Today interview (2004), he said,”I am a Christian…I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived…I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.”
…………..
“There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.”
FALSANI:
You don’t believe that?
OBAMA:
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
So the President, who I am sure has spoken at at least as many churches as any modern presidential candidate, holds to a very American faith. It is not Christianity. But it IS probably the dominant belief among American church goers.
December 19th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Politics should not and can not influence the teaching of the church – ever. But the teaching of the church should certainly influence politics. How could it not? I am a Christian and I am also politically active. My belief in Christ informs my actions in every sphere of my life.
Greg, on the one hand I’m not sure why politics is so adamantly dissallowed to influence the church but why the church is given a lot of room to influence politics. Maybe by \church\ you mean something less institutional and more individual or personal? Given how most American Protestants think, which is to say under-ecclesiastical, that is likely true, and hopefully the case because if you mean something institutional then that is something a doctrine of the spirituality of the church opposes as much as you and it oppose politics influencing the church.
In which case, that is exactly the kind of two-kingdom point Stellman is trying to make. Believers as individuals are at political liberty. The problem is when someone who has leftish politics thinks his enjoy heavenly sanction as opposed to the other’s rightish politics and vice versa. Another option is for people like me who are more agnostic about the power of politics in the first place and skeptical about what James Hunter describes and critiques as \the turn toward politics\ in our modern era. When you say you are politically active I take that to mean you’re more a believer in the power of politics than me. So what 2k wants to say is that not only may you as an individual believer and your political opponents as individual believers enjoy sacred space but also may you all and people like me who are more conservative about its power.
December 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Jason:
Politics and religion are not completely separate spheres. We must be careful of trying to take a middle road in politics. The nature of the thing is human opinions and ideas so we must be wary. There is a lot of right and wrong involved in politics, whether we like it or not. It doesn’t mean that you think that America is God’s gift to the world if you believe that it needs to be on a godly path as a nation. Of course the church should trump the state in a Christian’s allegiance; but I do not think there can be such a thing as politicizing your faith. Politics is an aspect of a whole person’s life and decisions, and what you believe on political issues will be affected by what you believe about God. That is partly why some political topics are so polarizing. If you believe that there are principles that political issues are formed on, then you cannot believe that people are just “claiming divine sanction.” There is right and there is wrong (on almost every topic), regardless of our opinions of it or what we think we know, so lets be very careful of claiming that both sides of an issue are similar or that they might be neither wrong, just because we may respect people on both sides. I am just as against demonization and picking out others sins as you are, but I am also going to seek God’s will in every area of my life and my country’s, and speak up for it.
Also, tangentially, what do you think about those who would still seek to establish a Christian nation?