Did you weep? As Barack Obama was announced as President-elect, I cried for a while. Whether you shed tears of joy or disappointment, we all witnessed a historic victory. I never dreamed that our country would elect a black president in my lifetime. Our nation seemed too haunted by our past. In 1964, as the Civil Rights movement began, Sam Cooke sang, “A Change is Gonna Come.” Yet, after a remarkable voter turnout, an unprecedented, multicultural moment has arrived. The election of Barack Obama as president proves that “Change has come.” So how shall we respond?
Despite a Democratic majority in Congress, will President-elect Obama be met with cooperation or resistance? Many white evangelicals may be tempted to view Barack Obama’s presidential victory as “Obacalypse Now.” Seventy-five percent of white, born-again voters backed Senator John McCain. Do these Christians want to go down in history as having led the opposition to one of the most important and beloved presidents in American history? Or can Caucasian Christians come to see this election as more opportunity than tragedy? It is not too late to come alongside this remarkable moment. Before anyone starts throwing stones, I encourage the conservative Christian community to pause, reflect, and maybe even repent.
Countless emails were forwarded to me during the waning days of the campaign. They took on an increasingly desperate air. I was told our nation was “in harm’s way.” I was encouraged to pray for “a person of righteousness to rule.” One compared Obama’s infomercial to the techniques of Adolph Hitler’s Nazi propaganda. It was alleged that Barack was actually an African-Arab. Clearly, some people of faith are very scared.
Focus on the Family’s incendiary “Letter from 2012” spun the most alarmist scenarios. Under President Obama, they predicted a left leaning Supreme Court would embrace homosexuality with such aplomb that the Boy Scouts are banished, Catholic adoption agencies are outlawed, and Christian broadcasting will be prohibited as hate speech. (Perhaps they understood the spirit behind their letter better than they realized.) Time will tell whether Focus will be seen as a prophetic or pathetic. Obama’s victory may be a financial boon to ministries baptized in the politics of fear. They may redouble their efforts to divide those that God longs to join together. But as people of faith shouldn’t we repudiate such blatant appeals to our worst instincts?
Are we ready to resume our role as agents of reconciliation? Can we recover our biblical calling to pursue righteousness and justice? Those noble words are linked 55 times in the Hebrew Bible. Memorable verses like Isaiah 1:16, Proverbs 21:3, and Amos 5:24 unite justice and righteousness as complimentary aspects of a glorious vision. This is where things are made right, where God’s people begin to resemble a peaceable kingdom, where shalom reigns over our relationships.
Some churches emphasize personal piety, stressing our need for purity and righteousness. Other congregations focus upon our public responsibility, the need to reform social structures and provide for the poor. The ancient Jewish community could not imagine one without the other. Their faith was holistic, not subdivided into public and private realms.
We must not mistake America for ancient Israel or anoint ourselves a “Christian nation.” (See Pastor Greg Boyd's excellent Myth of a Christian Nation for more detail). The Christian left must not mirror the misplaced hopes of the Religious Right. We do not place our faith in a political party, but in a single person, Jesus of Nazareth. Our allegiance is not to Republicans or Democrats, red or blue states, but to a king robed in purple splendor. But we must live out our private faith in public ways, practicing personal purity while advocating liberty and justice for all. Now is not the time to go Amish (although I respect their fervent commitments).
This election offers contemporary Christians an opportunity to embrace a more complete faith. White evangelicals have much to learn from the embodied faith of black Christians who have prayed and marched for their rights to vote
and worship. They worked with whoever would rally to their cause to alter American history. What happens when justice and righteousness unite in even a brief holy kiss? Those rare moments produce remarkably far-reaching results.
In his 2007 Address to the American Academy of Religion on “The Folly of Secularism,” Dr. Jeffrey Stout of Princeton University suggested a way forward. He chided secularists who would seek to remove religion from the public square. Stout suggested that the most hateful preachers will continue on their mission with or without government protection or permission. But the idea of banishing such speech from the political process is ill-founded folly. A secular America might come to resemble Islamic nations where religious moderates find solace only in alignment with religious conservatives they might otherwise disdain. Stout challenges us to resist calls to an exclusively secular or a Christian America.
Writing a year before the economic meltdown, Stout suggests, “If a new coalition is going to succeed in breaking the hold of billionaires and bosses on our political institutions, it will have to include millions of theistic moderates, as well as a lot of people more like me, who consider themselves atheists, agnostics, and “spiritual but not religious.’” I caught a glimpse of the coalition Stout described at the American Academy of Religion’s convention in Chicago this week. I saw Obama stickers on black Christians, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. Even a few evangelicals dared to “Barack the vote.” Their buttons included references to verses like Micah 6:8 and Matthew 25. Will God’s people act justly and love mercy? Will we put into practice Jesus’ challenge to feed the hungry and the thirsty, to look after strangers, to care for the sick and visit prisoners? We all witnessed how greed possessed those in power. The profound voter turnout demonstrates how desperately we long to take back our government.
Stout noted how, “People who sincerely wanted conservatism to be compassionate and American foreign policy to be just and humble are wondering what their true friends might be in the age of Katrina and Guantanamo Bay. They were shocked that their leaders were dividers, that the prosperity which was supposed to be trickling down to the poor was actually getting sucked upward by the richest of the rich.” We all feel conflicted by the justifications and lies that sold us on war in Iraq. All this disappointment has resulted in the political realignment that surrounds us. What will we do with this distinct moment in time?
Stout concluded his address with inspiring examples of historic reforms. Committed Christians combined with liberal intellectuals to usher in the abolition of slavery, women’s right to vote, and the civil rights movement in America. We’ve seen how Polish citizens overwhelmed the Soviet Union with religious and political force. Apartheid ended in South Africa when reformed minded Christians like Desmond Tutu and Allan Boesak teamed with the political acumen of Nelson Mandela. Can you see the implications? Enduring social reform arises when left and right, Christian and secular forces unite for the common good.
An Obama presidency offers Christians a remarkable opportunity to fuel a massive social movement. Much good can be accomplished on behalf of the poor, the marginalized, and the oppressed around the world if we form some unlikely coalitions. We can work together on creation care, protecting the environment for the sake of our children. We can advocate educational reform that may reduce the number of lives languishing in prisons. Surely we can make college more affordable for working families. We can work to reduce third world debt, granting people the economic freedom they desperately deserve.
Or we can focus on the high profile things that divide us. Twenty years into the cultural wars, are we finally ready to ceasefire? Our single issue voting hasn’t resulted in substantive change. Most of my generation consider themselves conscientious objectors in the culture war. Will conservative Christians consider the (temporary) defeat of gay marriage the cornerstone of a political future? Or can evangelicals finally admit that the culture war is a failed project. Two-thirds of voters under 30 backed Obama. When the Barna Research Group asked 1000 young people what they associated with the word, “Christian,” those outside the faith said, “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” “anti-intellectual,” “anti-homosexual,” and “too political.” Do we really want to reinvest in a war that has produced such strange fruit? Are we willing to drive an entire generation away by continuing to define ourselves by what we’re against? The biggest wedge we’ve developed is between us and Jesus.
I was so grieved by the divisiveness that accompanied the 2004 election that I embarked upon a documentary that sought to heal the breach. Purple State of Mind was intended to be a survey of America’s voices. Instead, it became an opportunity to dig even deeper into how faith and doubt divide us. My college roommate, John Marks, and I demonstrated that we could remain friends despite our differences. We made the film as an act of hope on behalf of our children who inherit a remarkably diverse nation. Surely compassionate conservatism can work with a gracious liberalism to forge a future.
To an either/or Christian community, I wrote a both/and appeal, A Purple State of Mind book. It outlines how we can forge a united future even with those we vehemently disagree with. We must push past old divisions rooted in the fifties versus the sixties. We must bring together youth and wisdom. We must follow our creeds with deeds.
If white evangelicals devolve into obstructionist postures, we will guarantee continuing gridlock on much more than social issues. Pressing matters of war and economics deserve to take center stage. If suburban Christians actually embrace Obama’s historic presidency on matters they can agree upon, they may find a surprising ally, someone who shares concerns for justice, equality, and religious freedom. Breakthroughs begun by Christians in civil rights and voting rights in America could be extended around the globe. People of faith concerned about genocide in Darfur could join forces with an Obama White House. Religious freedoms may be extended in the Sudan, in China, in the Middle East if Christians uphold their biblical mandate to pray for their leaders. I hope and trust that is not too big an “if” to wish for amidst a fearful mood of “Obacalypse Now.” To those who opposed him, President-elect Obama has already declared, “I will be your president, too.”
EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Comments
Beautifully written, inspired and deliciously hopeful. Thank you Craig. Thank you. I love the imagery of the 'King robed in purple splendor' bridging the gap between the red and blue, unifying the bride to live out it's faith publicly advocating liberty and justice for all! What a world that will be. May His will be done!
May beauty, truth and goodness prevail in us all!
Cheers,
nappyD
So well stated. And yes, I wept. I wept like a baby thinking of what this means for my own African American son. No matter what side we're on, it's historic.
Thank you for this post. It is very powerful.
Craig,
Good one man, good one! You have a way with words!
Craig,
This is the most thoughtful article I have seen in a long time by an evangelical!
The culture war is, as you suggest, a failed project. Worse, we are quickly moving toward the fringe of American society and taking our message of Christ with us.
But it will take courage to say to our Christian brothers and sisters that we need to engage the Obama administration, which I support, in a positive way. I am not optimistic that enough Christian maturity exists to allow that the happen. The environment in recent years seems rather to favor demagogues who use politics to raise financial support on a long-term basis. I consider the "Letter from 2012" to be such a shameless, alarmist attempt by one group.
May your article achieve wide circulation!
Blessings,
-Barry
Great post, Craig! It is wonderfully thoughtful. We are living in extraordinary times. God is on the move, as C.S. Lewis said about his lion-hero Aslan. God's movements are so deep and wide right now that we may wake up in 2012 and say, "Whoa! Has the Lord not done this?"
So thanks for a powerful post. I'm linking to it on my blog today... And thanks for the shout-out on my blog! I deeply appreciate it.
Judy Howard Ellis
A very thoughtful and timely post. I hope it will resonate with folks- especially the abundance of christians who appear to be freaking out right now.
Thanks, Craig.
As a Republican white woman, I also wept after Obama won. I voted , for many reasons, for McCain. But... I also liked the man, Barack Obama. I could not help be struck by the magnitude of his win. When he first came on the scene I felt excited that there could be this man (I had never even heard of him until that time) that may be able to bridge some large, noticable gaps in our society. I still maintained that I had more in common with McCain and his plans for our country, but still maintained interest in what Obama was saying. When he won, I did tear up and felt a wonder at what many people in our country felt--that this win is an exciting, historic event that so many of our population will never really understand. I am praying for our new President Elect, his family, his administration and for all of those who (just based on the color of his skin or his past connections, etc...) would seek to destroy or belittle him. I do believe that God can and will have His hand on this man and all of those around him. We would all do well to pray and thank God for our new President Elect!
Lovely thoughts, Bonnie. This is exactly the spirit my post attempted to inspire. The painful realities outlined in the book, Divided by Faith by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, could actually be addressed and even healed during this opportune time. White evangelicals have a chance to follow the lead of black, Latino and Asian Christians (for a change!). We may even get closer to approximating the colorful kingdom of God.
Craig,
I appreciate your comments. As someone who served as Director of Evangelical Coalitions at the Senate Republican Conference and graduated from Fuller, I'm sensitive to this conversation.
I wonder how important Christian critique will be for the Obama administration. I completely agree with your encouragement to be co-belligerent; to focus on our commonalities. This will be important for Republicans to remember. Nonetheless, Obama's administration will need to make a list of priorities. How will the Christian community speak into this? When he announced at a Planned Parenthood speech that one of the first things he wanted to do as President was pass the Freedom of Choice Act, overturning Bush's ban on partial-birth abortions, how should we respond? When Democrats in Congress want to implement non-discrimination laws upon faith organizations that require faith-based organizations to hire regardless of faith orientation, how should we react?
I would encourage you in your posts to consider what is going to happen with a Pelosi led congress. Often people say the most powerful person in DC is not the President, but the Speaker of the House. How do we unite to promote good policies that care for the poor and the environment but stand against policies that are abhorrent to our values as evangelicals?
Make no mistake, these next 2-4 years will have a mix of both. Policies that evangelicals can unite to support and policies that are severely depraved and detrimental to our society. It will be interesting to see if the religious left - namely Wallis, will ever take the courageous step to be a voice calling out in the wilderness. Likewise, if Republicans will have the courage to work with the Obama administration to promote sound economic policies that help all classes.
Hi Jeff,
I wish I knew how it has worked out for the evangelical right to have special access to the White House during the Bush years. Some believe the right was used while others think they actually influenced a few things. Even if you do not enjoy that access in the Obama administration, that may actually be a good thing.
Why should the message of Christ be reduced to just another special-interest lobby? I personally think the questionable political experiment of joining Christ to the Republican Party, and specifically to the Bush White House, has had at least one very negative consequence: recent blogs (not this one) indicate a great deal of rage toward evangelical Christians who are considered responsible for electing Bush and bringing about the wreck our country is in today. That really does not help the gospel.
Also, I think it is a terrible disservice to American evangelicals to train them to make political decisions around a single issue: abortion. Any politician willing to mutter a few words can gain their allegiance. After all, President Bush had eight years and two appointments to the Supreme Court to get Roe v. Wade overturned. It did not happen; it is very unlikely to ever happen. Yet the (false) hope that such a result will come is sold year after year. It's amazing they keep going for the bait.
A third bad effect of the Jesus-Republican package is the corrupting influence of it. Many Christian groups flouted the law that grants them a 501(c)3 tax exemption in order to support a specific candidate. Are we now to use lawless means to maintain an alliance that is supposed to advance Christian issues? Jesus will not thank us.
I also consider it unhealthy for Christian groups to raise money by alarming their followers with prophecies of doom. Jesus did not put us here to play that game.
I think it is enough for American evangelicals to use the First Amendment to advance their ideas. That way both Republicans and Democrats can join in. If we go into this without joining a single political party, then if the administration goes bad, the cause of Christ does not go down with it.
Best wishes on reshaping the Republican brand.
-Barry
Jeff,
Thanks for offering the insights forged from your position in D.C. A 'Christian left' which repeats the blind fealty of the Religious Right would be just as damaging and short sighted. So yes, Wallis has to actually prove he's above party politics. I am hopeful (for now) that Obama will be able to push past the grandstanding and partisanship that has ground our government to a halt.
History has proven that when conservative Christians join forces with progressive politicians, we get significant social change (probably because it breaks partisan gridlock). That is what I'm anticipating--for the sake of my children and the world they'll inherit....
“Can two walk together except they be agreed?”
Yes, “change has come”. But, Craig, what convinces you that the change is for the better and is to be automatically embraced? Pardon my lack of enthusiasm for this “unprecedented, multicultural moment”. I rank among those you define as “white, born-again voters”. Your statement seems to relay a sense that the color of Obama’s skin is reason enough to celebrate. The color of one’s skin is of no concern to me. America has made tremendous strides at every level through numerous government programs and policies to rectify our past mistakes with regard to color, and I refuse to be held liable or made to feel guilty about what occurred in America some 150 years ago.
Might you define how you came to the conclusion that this man who is yet to take office is “one of the most important and beloved presidents in American history”? What convinces you that when he leaves office, his changes, which we are yet to witness, are not going to have been harmful to the life of our nation? Is the hope of so many based on nothing but the fact that a black man is now President? I do not apologize for my vote nor do I apologize for my opposition, which is based not on skin color, but rather on my concerns about his political life’s history and socialist views.
As far as “reconciliation”, with who or what are we to be reconciled? And who is it that God seeks “to join together”? “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) What am I to agree to for the sake of “walking together”? What am I to give up to usher in this “peaceable kingdom” where things are “made right”? Whose definition of “right” are we to accept?
Am I guilty of not “acting justly and loving mercy” by voting for John McCain, a Vietnam veteran and former POW, as opposed to a community activist from one of the most corrupt political machines in history, the Chicago Democrats, with a shady past and a list of associations which include domestic terrorists, an anti-Semite, white-hating Islamic leader, and a spiritual advisor/pastor who espouses hatred of America and Black Liberation Theology, which is just another form of racism? Where in those entities is the “acting justly and loving mercy” to be found? My “worst instincts” tell me that a politician who espouses judicial activism as a means of “social justice” is a danger to my freedoms guaranteed me by the Constitution.
With regard to “this age of Katrina and Guantanamo Bay”, let us take a peek inside. Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters to ever strike the United States. Many died, drowned in the rising waters. According to Stout, it seems conservatives were not compassionate enough to prevent this disaster, (i.e. President Bush is to blame.) The outpouring of concern and money to help the people of New Orleans by other Americans is a true reason to have hope for our nation. Certainly the response of the federal government left much to be desired in the aftermath of the storm, but the real disaster occurred long before Katrina, caused by government social programs that that have stripped people of any sense of personal responsibility for their own well-being. What is compassionate about chaining the poor to a morally-bankrupt welfare system that teaches them to accomplish nothing for oneself except to keep their hand out for a little “free” money, one that keeps them entrenched in poverty their entire life? How tragic is the human disaster caused by a government run program supposedly based on compassion for the poor, yet has taken away any sense of personal responsibility, even to the point of not knowing or even wanting to remove one’s self from harm’s way. This lack of personal responsibility was also revealed in the lack of action on the part of the local and state governments, who seemed to share the same view that Washington, not the local officials, was responsible for everyone’s safety and deliverance.
As far as Guantanamo Bay is concerned, the terrorists we hold there rank among the most dangerous individuals on the face of the earth. I assume in order to fit the bill of “just and humble” as it was stated, we are to look the other way and pretend terrorism has not impacted our nation. What great crime had the United States perpetrated against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan prior to 9/11? Are we to view the attacks on our nation as our just recompense, as Obama’s spiritual adviser stated, which we are not to respond to for the sake of humility? Consider the unjust actions of the Taliban in its rule over the people of Afghanistan, and the potential the people now have to form a nation and government that is not murderously oppressive. Consider how many more Americans as well as others around the globe might now be dead if President Bush and the legislators, including Democrats, had not authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban. Also consider how many innocents might die if these detainees were released, all for the sake of being “compassionate”.
Lest we skip over Iraq, it is clear you, Craig, believe the mantra of “Bush lied-they died”, a politically divisive statement if there ever was one. When Central Intelligence reveals to the President “the weapons are there - it’s a slam dunk”, what should his response be? Did foreign intelligence agencies who proclaimed the same information also lie? Your opposition to the war to remove Saddam Hussein, a known torturer and murderer of his own subjects, would be easier to accept if it were not so tainted with your obvious hostility toward our current president and administration.
Your criticism of the Religious Right seems somewhat hypocritical in that you now call upon the “Christian Left” to “join forces with an Obama White House”, while obviously condemning the efforts of the Religious Right to utilize politics to effect change. I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ shared on a personal basis, individual to individual, is our responsibility as Christians. It is our highest calling. But as a Christian, my faith is an integral part of my life’s decisions, including my choice in elections. It has to be if Jesus is Lord. I mark a ballot with regard to a candidates stand on moral and cultural issues as well as Constitutional ones. To do so otherwise would be defying my own God-given convictions. Should I not be concerned with political matters nor attempt to include my faith in the political process? You call on “suburban Christians” to “embrace Obama’s historic presidency on matters they can agree upon”. Am I required to embrace Obama’s socialist agenda to show I am concerned about “justice, equality, and religious freedom”?
Am I to agree with those who pursue agendas that are absolutely contrary to my Christian convictions or my convictions as an American who holds dear the Constitution and its intent? Would God have me lay my convictions upon the altar of compromise for the sake of not being judged as the “opposition”? My “worst instincts” also tell me that a nation that slaughters the unborn in grievous numbers here, as well as promoting it around the globe, is trampling on dangerous ground. Somehow, I can not reconcile the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, which the president-elect supports with no restrictions, with “our biblical calling to pursue righteousness and justice”. Yes, the Bible tells us to execute justice for the widow, the orphan, and the alien, in other words, the most helpless of society. Show me one more helpless and innocent than an unborn child in the womb of its mother.
If I am no longer to define myself by “what I am against”, does that mean I have to accept that which contradicts my understanding of sin and disobedience? Is my change of speech going to redefine my stance on issues? If, rather than railing against abortion, I declare life exists in the womb of a mother and we do not have the right to arbitrarily kill it, am I no longer going to be called anti-choice or anti-woman, (i.e. “opposition”)? Doubtful. If I counsel a woman that God would want her to keep her baby and not kill it, are you and other Obama supporters suddenly going to view me as “reconciled”? Hardly. Are you going to join me in supporting the mother who keeps her child, or will you excoriate me for not minding my own business? Rather than arguing against homosexual marriage, if I state marriage is defined as one man-one woman, am I suddenly more virtuous in your eyes, Craig? Will others like you “join together” with me to restore the sanctity of holy matrimony as God ordained it, or will I be labeled a “stone-thrower”? If I state each individual, as an American, is responsible to care for himself and his own, does it make my opposition to government entitlement programs more palatable? If I state the Church of Jesus Christ as well as the American people in general, rather than the government, are to care for the poor, does this represent a “change” that individuals like yourself are going to embrace? If I voice my concerns over Obama’s associations with radical organizations and individuals, will you join with me in resisting extremist policies and ideas which grow out of those associations, or will I be rebuked as a “divider”? Am I to accept the opposing argument for the sake of a “peaceable kingdom”?
Am I to celebrate “change” for the sake of change? Is God going to be pleased with me if I give up my convictions for the sake of “reconciliation” or someone’s definition of a “more complete faith”? Am I to declare surrender in this “culture war”, a war which, by the way, was thrust at me and others like me, initiated first by those who want to pervert the righteousness of God and destroy the morals and values I believe in, all for the sake of not being divisive?
I also long to “take back our government”, to take it back from those who believe they are entitled to things they have not worked for and from the greedy politicians who enrich themselves from the public coffers and play upon the entitlement mentality of their constituents. I long to take it back from those who believe it exists to provide them with all of their needs and wants from cradle to grave. I long to take it back from the socialists/Marxists who have entrenched themselves in the public education system and higher academia, teaching and preaching ideals totally contrary to our free republic. I long to take it back from the forces of political correctness who squelch freedom of speech and expression and who blame America for every wrong ever committed in this world. I long to take it back so that which I work for is mine to do with as I see fit, rather than have it confiscated and redistributed by the government, all in the name of someone’s twisted definition of fairness. I long to take it back for the sake of my sons and their future, to assure true freedom as our Founders intended.
Yes, we witnessed a historic event. But does that mean we must lay aside our convictions of right and wrong and join in support of this individual, all for the sake of not being judged as the “resistance”? Is my opposition to such matters as abortion, homosexual marriage and government-forced wealth redistribution to be considered “throwing stones”? Am I to abandon my faith in order to “come along side this remarkable moment”? Am I to disavow the principles of freedom and personal responsibility that are absolute necessities in pursuit of the American Dream and the survival of America? Am I to be judged hateful for voting against Barack Obama, not because of skin color, but because of my beliefs about America and my concerns for her future and Obama’s past? Am I to be called selfish and greedy due to my belief it is wrong for the government to confiscate what one has worked for and redistribute it to others who have not? If the answer to these questions is “yes”, as it appears to be hinted at in your article, then the need for repentance may be more widespread than you are likely to admit.
Yes, time will tell, but what if, Craig, the “Letter from 2012”, in hindsight, is recognized as “prophetic” rather than “pathetic”? Will your call for those “to embrace a more complete faith” still be heard? Countless times since the election I have read statements concerning taking a wait and see approach. I have no problem with this. Let us see what President Obama unveils, what “change” he will bring? The question is will these changes be positive or negative? If they are negative, will you, Craig, be willing to stand and declare it, or will you remain acquiescent as you have instructed others to be, all for the sake of “coming alongside this remarkable moment”?
Also, let us keep in mind the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, came to this earth 2,000 years ago. His return is promised in the Bible, but He will not reappear as a politician in the 21st century.
JW,
Whew! I think you covered it all.
Thank you.
JW,
Hey, if this prophecy thing really catches on, we can all get rich writing fantasy! The only problem is that a lot of competition is already headed to market.
-Barry
Well, JW, we'll see how it plays out. I'll be glad to offer some regrets and retractions as needed down the road. But in the meantime, I don't hear too many evangelicals offering regrets or repentance for a wholehearted embrace of the deceitful and vengeful Bush administration.
My post was suggesting that before figuring out new ways to resist change supported by black, Latino, Asian and younger Christians, we might be wise to assess how profound, worldwide sympathy following 9/11 turned into nearly global contempt. Somebody's got some serious explaining to do, but it doesn't seem to be the backers of President-Elect Obama (yet!).
Reconciliation is clearly needed between white, suburban Christians who voted 75% against Obama and the 98% of black Christians who supported him. We may agree to disagree, but we also may have plenty to learn from each other about the majesty and mystery of God's kingdom.
JW - Can't add too much too your post. Good job!
Craig - I read "A Purple State of Mind." It was one of the better books dealing with Christians, politics and modern culture. I agree with you on several issues. The path Christians have taken into politics have overshadowed the goodness and compassion of Christ. Unfortunately, your writing leaves the reader with the impression that we cannot believe in moral absolutes and still be compassionate. There are black and white issues. I don't beat people over the head with my opinions, nor do I chastise those whose opinions differ. When asked though, I will give an account of my beliefs without apology. I am not ashamed! Yes we can find some middle ground and we should have civil debate about all the issues, but compromise my beliefs -- Never!
Dr. Film,
I am a Christian. I believe with all my heart that Jesus is my personal Savior and the Savior of mankind. We are fallen and in no way can we save ourselves. We are here on earth to serve one another, love one another, and spread the gospel to the four corners of the world. I am not here to be popular or pervert the Gospel in anyway to accommodate another’s worldview. I will not sit on the fence when it comes to certain issues that I regard as top priorities as a Christian. I am vehemently pro-life and anti-gay marriage. There is no gray area. When the Lord says in Exodus 20 that we are not supposed to murder, I am pretty certain that means I should not pour sulfuric acid on my underdeveloped child to take its life, that was entrusted to me by the Creator of all things, while still in the womb. Do you not think that is something I should stand up for? When the Lord says marriage is to be between a man and a woman, there are no loopholes. Because I do no support those things does that mean I hate those who do it? Absolutely not. I don’t believe I should be labeled “uncompassionate” because I refuse to tolerate sin.
I for one am a Christian that gets annoyed with those who vote solely on those particular issues. I am a firm believer that the Bible is the best voting guide. Along with those issues, it addresses issues of taxes, war, dealing with the poor, capital punishment, and any other. I am not afraid to tackle anyone of these topics. I have researched and sought guidance from my Christian professors on these issues. I can assure you, each one is there. I do not vote Conservative, I vote Christian. So as a “Caucasian Christian,” what am I supposed to be repenting as you so suggest? If you are suggesting that I am to repent for not voting for a man that supports murdering the future doctors, teachers, presidents, etc, or a man that supports allowing a man and a man or woman and woman to marry, then I am officially baffled. It is not because I am white or because I am conservative, it is because I am a Christian I WILL NOT support policies that blatantly go against God’s Word. Obama could have been blue or pink or clear or even running as a conservative and I still would not have voting for him. John McCain was not my first choice as president but his policies were not as extreme as Obama’s. We are commanded to pray for our leaders, and that I shall do daily, but am not commanded to drink the Obama Kool-aid and follow his policies silently. I will not stand on the sidelines and watch Satan degrade a nation that was founded on Christian beliefs.