The Divine Butler

You should check this out. It's a tad on the long side, but it's worth the watch, and it might answer some questions about politics and what not.

Political Ads

Like everyone else who lives in America, I'm not what you would consider a "fan" of political ads. They're just a bunch of ranting about misleading subjects designed to get you to hate a person enough to not vote for him or her. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of this. Also, the ads tend to be full of stuff that's just not true (again, both parties are guilty of this). I especially like the Al Franken ad that says something to the effect of, "Only one candidate in this election has never voted for a congressional pay raise - Al Franken." Well, to my knowledge, Franken has never been in congress, so he's never HAD the opportunity to vote for a congressional pay raise, so of course he hasn't voted for one! That's like me saying, "Joel Detlefsen has never voted for a congressional pay raise." You'd think I'm an idiot because I've never had the chance to vote for such a thing. Also, Dean Barkley, the Independent candidate was only in congress for something like eight days - did he vote for a pay raise in that amount of time, and if so, why? He wouldn't be around to enjoy it. You see, political ads are just dumb.

This political season introduced me to Ashwin Madia, a democrat who's running against Eric Paulsen for a seat in congress. Before this election season, I've never heard of Ashwin Madia, but republican ads would have me believe that he is a liar, and a worthless human being. I'm sorry, but I can't make that judgment simply by a 30 second TV spot! I can understand negative campaigning, but trying to persuade people to feel angst against someone they've never met (or heard of until a month ago) seems pretty wrong to me.

My wife commented tonight that she can't wait until Wednesday, because all of the political ads will be off the air. That got me thinking: if the political ads are true, and these people are the lowest scum on the face of the earth, and they represent us in congress, shouldn't they be running all year long? If these people really are as bad as the ads say they are, isn't that worth reporting to us in February and March, even if it's not an election year? Lying is lying, and stealing is stealing, whether it's an election year or not. The whole political system is extremely screwed up - your own politicians, whether you're a republican or democrat - only think it's important to report the evil of their opponents to you when their own butt is on the line. In other words, they'll only speak out against what's wrong and stand up for what's right when they need YOU to re-elect them. The rest of the time, they're just as guilty as the people they're railing against. Something is very screwed up with that line of thinking, and it needs to stop. Remember that the next time you think about making a campaign contribution.

Is Abortion As Relevant As Poverty?

A couple months ago, I subscribed to Relevant Magazine. I figured it would be beneficial since I'm not too immersed in pop culture these days and I didn't really want to pay for Rolling Stone. I've received a few issues now, and for the most part I've at least appreciated being kept abreast on current Christian music, issues, ideas, and other crap.

My first interaction with the magazine came when I followed a link that said a "high profile" evangelical had backed out of a commitment to pray at the Democratic National Convention. I read the news story and first learned about Cameron Strang and his magazine (and to be fair, I commended his decision to not pray at the convention). I then subsequently subscribed to the magazine. But now that I've received a few issues and had the opportunity to read Mr. Strang's columns, I'm starting to have second thoughts.

This month's issue features an article by Strang entitled "What It Means To Be Whole-Life" (I wanted to link the article here, but it isn't available on their website yet - check back in a few days). In the article Strang identifies his differences with the democratic party by citing the abortion issue:

"My primary disagreement with the democratic party...is my belief that life begins at conception, and it is our moral duty to protect innocent lives. To me, that is not just a matter of faith; it is a matter of objective fact."

I commend Strang for his beliefs, and I share them, however I found myself adamantly disagreeing with Strang as he went on:

"However, and this is where many on the right miss it, the example Jesus set for us to stand up for the defense of the innocent does not end at birth. Just as they do for abortion, Christians should be on the forefront of standing against things that take millions of innocent lives around tehworld every day - systemic poverty, preventable disease, unnecessary wars, slavery, genocide. The list goes on."

There has been a recent movement amongst Christians and politics that has for some reason placed the abortion issue on the back burner. I recently heard a talk radio host say that abortion is an "old and tired issue." It seems that this thinking has permeated into the Christian realm as well, and now Christians (like Strang) are either equating or elevating issues like poverty and disease above the abortion issue, and likewise asserting that Christians either haven't or aren't doing enough about these things. I've got a couple of problems with this line of thinking:

Abortion and poverty aren't comparable. To say that Christians need to speak out about poverty on the same level as abortion is not correct. Our country has experienced 50 million abortions since Roe V. Wade. That's 4,400 baby deaths per day. I understand that things like poverty and disease take an incredibly large number of lives each day as well, but there is at least one significant difference: poverty and disease occurs amongst people who have been born - amongst people who have the ability to do something about their poverty or disease. Unborn children have no recourse - no action that they can take to protect themselves, no voice even, to protest to the action being taken against them. Thus, we are their voice. Also, the crime being committed against unborn children is far more violent and immediate than poverty or disease. So then to say that poverty is as much an immediate concern as abortion is inaccurate.

I also take issue with Strang in that Jesus didn't tell Christians to push the government to make social reforms, he told Christians to do it themselves. You will never find Jesus in scripture telling his disciples to write their congressman and push them to feed hungry people. He told them that they themselves should feed the hungry people. The responsibility lies on Christians to do the work, not on Christians to push others to do the work. This is usually the reasoning that a lot of Christians have used to justify their support of Barack Obama, but they haven't read their Bibles closely. Change (a buzz-word I'm beginning to deplore) comes through the gospel and the Christians who preach it (see this post for more on that) - not through government and politics. In that case then, Strang is wrong when he says that social reform needs to be in the forefront of a Christian's political thought (To be fair, you may find some double-speak in this statement, in that abortion is a political issue and Christians are attempting to use the political system in order to see it overturned. That's fair. However, I think there's a difference because the government has endorsed and justified this practice, and has legitimized the practice in the eyes of the public. Therefore, it seems reasonable to use the political system to fight against it. Also, we must never lose focus in that our immediate concern is for life. What would be the easiest, quickest, most efficient way to save life in regards to abortion? Overturning Roe V. Wade. Also on the other hand, several non-political pro-life actions have been taken by Christians and Christian organizations to combat abortion. So in that sense, there is much that is being done outside the political realm).

Lastly, I am dissappointed in Strang's ignorance of history. He says that "Just as they do for abortion, Christians should be on the forefront of standing against things that take millions of innocent lives around the world every day - systemic poverty, preventable disease, unnecessary wars, slavery, genocide." Well, I don't know where Mr. Strang's been, but Christians have ALWAYS been on the forefront of standing against poverty, disease, war, slavery, genocide, and any other barbaric practice the history of this world has ever seen. Christians are ALWAYS the ones who build the hospitals, feed the hungry, care for the sick, speak out against slavery (William Wilberforce, anyone? Not to mention all those missionaries who are active but don't get the headlines), and protect the innocent. Here's an interesting fact for ya: the largest demographic by far of parents who adopt children are, you guessed it, Christians. Why? BECAUSE we care. BECAUSE we are on the front lines. BECAUSE we obey Jesus. BECAUSE we stand up for those who cannot stand for themselves. Check the facts. History backs me up on this. No other group has done more for this world and those who inhabit it than those faithful Jesus-following Christians who follow his example. So then to say that Christians either don't care or aren't vigilant about these issues is ignorant, and actually, a bit insulting. Check your history books, Cameron.

Strang concludes his article by encouraging his readers not to be "pro-life" but instead, "whole-life." Strang says:

"...we need to embrace a more holistic definition of Christ's love and example. We need to be "whole-life." Whole-life means standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. It means seeing a need...and giving your life to serve it....Being whole-life means living out Jesus' example in our world today - fighting injustice, promoting life, being good stewards of our natural and financial resources, and showing God's love in a tangible way."

I'd actually take Strang's corny catch phrase one step further and say that Christians should be "Whole-Eternal-Life." In other words, even if we save babies, cure disease, end world hunger, and bring an end to all wars, people still need a Savior. Filling their stomach won't save their souls. We must never lose sight of the gospel in any social endeavor.

Believe me, I'm not trying to justify anyone or any group of people by saying these things. There are of course still many ways that we as Jesus followers can and should be standing up for justice, and again, I think we are. If anything, though, Strang is correct in that the battle is never over - it's a matter of eternal vigilence. We can't just be standing around, patting ourselves on the back for our good acts of charity - we always need to be standing up for justice. If indeed Christians have become lax in this area, they need to read the Bible and get busy. Let's just not lose sight of history and the truth.

Politics, Activism, And The Gospel

I found this great article by Johnny Mac in my email and thought I would post it here. It's definitely not the typical evangelical diatribe. It is however, a good reminder that our hope is in the power of the gospel to transform hearts and lives - not politicians or governments. If only Christians put as much time into studying and reading their Bibles as they did into politics and government...

With the nation focused on the November elections, we thought a post on politics might be appropriate. The point of this article is not that we should abstain from any participation in the political process, but rather that we must keep our priorities straight as Christians. After all, the gospel, not politics, is the only true solution to our nation’s moral crisis.

We can’t protect or expand the cause of Christ by human political and social activism, no matter how great or sincere the efforts. Ours is a spiritual battle waged against worldly ideologies and dogmas arrayed against God, and we achieve victory over them only with the weapon of Scripture. The apostle Paul writes: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:3-5).

We must reject all that is ungodly and false and never compromise God’s standards of righteousness. We can do that in part by desiring the improvement of society’s moral standards and by approving of measures that would conform government more toward righteousness. We do grieve over the rampant indecency, vulgarity, lack of courtesy and respect for others, deceitfulness, self-indulgent materialism, and violence that is corroding society. But in our efforts to support what is good and wholesome, reject what is evil and corrupt, and make a profoundly positive impact on our culture, we must use God’s methods and maintain scriptural priorities.

God is not calling us to wage a culture war that would seek to transform our countries into “Christian nations.” To devote all, or even most, of our time, energy, money, and strategy to putting a facade of morality on the world or over our governmental and political institutions is to badly misunderstand our roles as Christians in a spiritually lost world.

God has above all else called the church to bring sinful people to salvation through Jesus Christ. Even as the apostle Paul described his mission to unbelievers, so it is the primary task of all Christians to reach out to the lost “to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me [Christ]” (Acts 26:18; cf. Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9).

If we do not evangelize the lost and make disciples of new converts, nothing else we do for people--no matter how beneficial it seems--is of any eternal consequence. Whether a person is an atheist or a theist, a criminal or a model citizen, sexually promiscuous and perverse or strictly moral and virtuous, a greedy materialist or a gracious philanthropist--if he does not have a saving relationship to Christ, he is going to hell. It makes no difference if an unsaved person is for or against abortion, a political liberal or a conservative, a prostitute or a police officer, he will spend eternity apart from God unless he repents and believes the gospel.

When the church takes a stance that emphasizes political activism and social moralizing, it always diverts energy and resources away from evangelization. Such an antagonistic position toward the established secular culture invariably leads believers to feel hostile not only to unsaved government leaders with whom they disagree, but also antagonistic toward the unsaved residents of that culture--neighbors and fellow citizens they ought to love, pray for, and share the gospel with. To me it is unthinkable that we become enemies of the very people we seek to win to Christ, our potential brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Author John Seel pens words that apply in principle to Christians everywhere and summarize well the believer’s perspective on political involvement:

A politicized faith not only blurs our priorities, but weakens our loyalties. Our primary citizenship is not on earth but in heaven. … Though few evangelicals would deny this truth in theory, the language of our spiritual citizenship frequently gets wrapped in the red, white and blue. Rather than acting as resident aliens of a heavenly kingdom, too often we sound [and act] like resident apologists for a Christian America. … Unless we reject the false reliance on the illusion of Christian America, evangelicalism will continue to distort the gospel and thwart a genuine biblical identity….American evangelicalism is now covered by layers and layers of historically shaped attitudes that obscure our original biblical core. (The Evangelical Pulpit [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], 106-7)

By means of faithful preaching and godly living, believers are to be the conscience of whatever nation they reside in. You can confront the culture not with the political and social activism of man’s wisdom, but with the spiritual power of God’s Word. Using temporal methods to promote legislative and judicial change, and resorting to external efforts of lobbying and intimidation to achieve some sort of “Christian morality” in society is not our calling--and has no eternal value. Only the gospel rescues sinners from sin, death, and hell.

If I Were A Muslim, I'd Be Furious.

I was doing my usual duty on Facebook tonight when I came across a link posted by one of my friends (actually a guy I haven't seen in 10 years) that showed me the "Obama Tax Calculator." It's a widget that supposedly calculates the size of tax cut that Obama is going to give, after you input your gross income, dependents, etc. (although the whole thing is a bit of a joke, because there's no way Obama can do all the things he says he's going to do and give a tax cut to 95% of the middle class - but that's another blog for another time).

After finding out how astronomically huge my Obama tax cut would be (supposedly $1000, compared to McCain's shabby $320), I stumbled my way over to the official Barack Obama website. It was my first time on the site, so I had a good chuckle as I looked everything over. But then I came to a graphic and link about half way down the page on the right hand side that said: "Fight the Smears. Help push back on the false and divisive methods of our opponents." Being the sick kind of person who likes conflict, that's the first place I clicked. What I found absolutely amazed me (dare I say, shocked me?).

The "Fight the Smears" link takes you to a page that lists several of the attacks and negative campaigns that have been leveled against Barack Obama, accompanied by a button next to each issue that reads, "Get the Facts." Apparently when you follow that link, you learn about the truth that clears up the "lies" that Obama's opponents have been perpetrating.

Now for what I found to be shocking (seriously, I can't believe they're getting away with this): about two thirds of the way down the page, one of the "smears" that is reported is that Barack Obama either has had in the past or currently has some ties to the Muslim faith. That's right - apparently saying that someone is a Muslim is a smear tactic! The Obama website defiantly states: "Barack Obama is a committed Christian, not a Muslim." (emphasis on Muslim is original) Can you believe that? The Obama campaign has basically said that to be a Muslim is a sub-par, undesirable state of being, and our candidate has nothing to do with it! If I were a Muslim, I would be a tad offended!

I then followed the "Get the Facts" button and found this (I couldn't be more honest when I say that I am blown away that this was on the Obama website): "Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years. But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone’s faith to denigrate them politically, that’s an attack on people of all faiths." (emphasis mine)

I couldn't believe that when I read it! Let's break that sentence in italics down: "Shameful shadowy attackers..." Apparently if someone says you're a Muslim, it's shameful. "...have been lying about Barack's religion..." This is going to sound like I'm a member of the nerdy God Squad, but I could care less if someone was slandering my religion, because everything about me (the way I live my faith) says otherwise. In other words, if anyone called me a Muslim, everyone who knew me would know that it's not true, because I follow none of the Muslim traditions. In fact, my life is a display of the Christian faith, so there's no question, and any accusation to the contrary would be meaningless. Apparently, the case is different for Barack. "...claiming that he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian." Understand that my surprise over this whole statement isn't so much over the fact that Obama is a Muslim and/or Christian so much as it is that I can't believe that the political correctness nazis haven't crucified him over this statement and this section of his website. It is overtly anti-Muslim, and extremely "intolerant" (I use this word only for dramatic affect, not because I personally think it's intolerant - at least be consistent, liberals).

There are several other things on the "Fight the Smears" page that I found to be interesting (interesting in a roll-on-the-floor-laughing-because-they're-so-absurd sort of way. For example the fact that you have to tell people you're ok with the the pledge of allegiance is in and of itself a little odd, or that you consider water to be "ridiculous," or that there is such a thing as a "radical anti-abortionist" - is that the same thing as being "radically pro-life?" If so, sign me up).

My shock over this webpage is mostly born out of amazement that the knee-jerk society we live in today is either a) knowingly allowing this seemingly obvious religious bigotry to take place (a fact that is extremely hypocritical, if it is), or b) completely blind to it because of their undying, Messiah-like devotion to Barack Obama. Take your pick - either way is pretty scary.