The last week was one of the most eventful, and yet most uneventful weeks in recent pro-life history. Here’s the condensed version:

On Tuesday, January 31, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation announced that they would no longer give grants to Planned Parenthood. Pro-life advocates cheered, donated money to Komen, and sent them messages of encouragement. Pro-choice advocates booed, donated money to Planned Parenthood, and sent Komen messages of discouragement.

A few days later, Komen announced that they would continue giving grants to Planned Parenthood. Pro-life advocates booed and accused pro-choice advocates of lying and bullying. Pro-choice advocates cheered and accused pro-life advocates of lying and being insensitive to breast cancer.

Now most of the nation hates Komen, Planned Parenthood has received a huge boost in donations on top of Komen’s returning grants, and pro-life advocates have to discern what this means for their movement.

Perhaps a good place for the Church to begin its soul-searching in this drama’s aftermath is with the activist tactic that shaped the drama: boycotting.

What Happened?

By most accounts, the blow-up over Komen’s funding of Planned Parenthood began last year when LifeWay Christian Resources recalled a pink Bible they sold which benefited Komen, due to complaints about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood. In a statement, LifeWay said:

Though we have assurances that Komen’s funds are used only for breast cancer screening and awareness, it is not in keeping with LifeWay’s core values to have even an indirect relationship with Planned Parenthood.

This action undoubtedly put some pressure on Komen to end ties with Planned Parenthood, but it wasn’t the only source of pressure. As WORLD Magazine’s Marvin Olasky pointed out, Life Decisions International might have also influenced Komen’s decisions to cut funding, since Komen had been on their boycott list. In a blog post released after Komen cut their funding, LDI appears to take some credit for the foundation’s change in policy:

Many people are rushing to take credit for the Komen decision, including some who were thoroughly opposed to our boycott… While a handful of individuals played key roles, the real heroes are the countless numbers of pro-life activists and organizations that have continued to pressure the charity over the years.

Similarly, LifeNews.com implies that pro-lifers deserve some credit for Komen’s decision:

After years of protests and criticism from pro-life advocates, the biggest breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced it is halting further grants and donations to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

[Note the deceptive language in this statement. Komen made donations to Planned Parenthood's breast cancer work, not their "abortion business."]

Fox News reported that the Alliance Defense Fund “praised Komen”:

…for seeing the contradiction between its lifesaving work and its relationship with an abortionist that has ended millions of lives.

And finally, Slate’s Rachael Larimore wrote:

[T]he Komen foundation would not have acted as it did if it had not been hearing similar complaints from pro-lifers for years. It could not have been a decision that it made lightly. I’m grateful that it listened to the concerns of men and women who told them they would not donate to Komen as long as it had a relationship with the nation’s largest abortion provider.

It’s clear that LifeWay, LDI, and “countless numbers of pro-life activists and organizations” had been pressuring Komen for years to sever ties with Planned Parenthood. Furthermore, many of these groups believed that Komen’s initial decision was influenced by their boycotts and public criticism. These groups had good reason to believe that they were influential, since Komen initially indicated that they cut funding to Planned Parenthood because of an ongoing investigation regarding the illegal use of funds to provide abortions, which happend to be the primary concern pro-life advocates had with donating to Komen: 

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.

Even Planned Parenthood and its supporters agreed about the reason Komen severed ties with them. From USA Today:

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has depicted Stearns’ probe as politically motivated and said she was dismayed that it had contributed to Komen’s decision to halt the grants to PPFA affiliates.

“It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying,” Richards told the Associated Press. “It’s really hurtful.”

The story quickly spread that Komen had given in to the pressure from the pro-life movement, which resulted in a backlash from the media, politicians, and former Komen supporters. This led Komen to release a new statement saying that the primary reason that they would stop giving Planned Parenthood grants was because they did not offer mammograms. Rather, they only referred women to places that did mammograms and then reimbursed the women from Komen’s grants.

This motivation seemed far less political and quite reasonable: why give money to an organization that would only have to pass it along to another organization? That can’t be efficient. So now, Komen’s goal was to make better use of their funds so that they could do more to help women, but it was too late. The narrative had already been written.

The Ironic Responses

The way Christian and conservative groups responded to Komen’s second statement is revealing. They immediately began criticizing Planned Parenthood and the media for accusing Komen of making a political rather than a logistical decision.

Casey Mattox, Alliance Defense Fund:

Despite Komen’s plea that “[m]aking this issue political or leveraging it for fundraising purposes would be a disservice to women,” Planned Parenthood immediately made this issue political and leveraged it for fundraising purposes, accusing Komen of bowing to political pressure.

Wizbang:

Imagine that. An organization whose sole purpose is to fight against breast cancer wanting to give their money to organizations that actually aide in fighting breast cancer… So it seems that the narrative that Susan G. Komen is some sort of right-wing extremist, anti-abortion group doesn’t really hold water, now does it?

Randall K. O’Bannon, National Right to Life News Today:

[W]hen Planned Parenthood and their media machine swung into action, they talked not about what Komen’s Brinker began with in her video — that “We have the highest responsibility to ensure that these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible” — but that PPFA was ‘alarmed and saddened’ at the decision, which they attributed to “political pressure”.

Please catch the irony here: those who praised Komen for responding to pro-life complaints by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood were now mocking Planned Parenthood and “lefties” for accusing Komen of responding to pro-life complaints by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood. While I’m confident that pro-choice advocates lied and used deceptive language during this ordeal, I am much more troubled by some of the arrogance and deception coming from Christians who ought to know better.

The irony, unfortunately, only gets worse. Once Planned Parenthood supporters began to complain to Komen and threaten a boycott, Christian and conservative groups called them “bullies.”

Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI):

Pro-life people want all corporations, be them for-profit or not-for-profit, to stop supporting Planned Parenthood. Failure to do so will result in a boycott. We are not demanding that they fund pro-life groups. Pro-abortion apologists, on the other hand, want all corporations to give money to Planned Parenthood. Failure to do so will result in a boycott. And once a corporation begins to support Planned Parenthood it better not even think about having a change of heart. Isn’t that extortion? If these people truly cared about the health of women, they would accept the Komen decision and urge Planned Parenthood to seek private funding.

Rod Dreher, The American Conservative:

The liberal blacklist. Of course I support anybody’s right to withhold money or approval from any organization for any reason. But let’s just be clear what’s going on here. Komen broke ranks, and for the cultural left, that cannot be understood, forgiven, or overlooked; Komen must be ruined. Nothing Komen or Nancy Brinker has ever done for women in 30 years matters to these people. This is war.

Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress:

Yesterday’s insane reaction to Komen, by the press and the government gave me a mental image of Moloch, enraged and stomping and roaring because there was a threat of less meat coming to his fire.

Today, Moloch is appeased; the media’s heartbeat and respiration are returning to normal. They and their pals in DC can take a nice, deep cleansing breath and sit back and smile, understanding what they have just demonstrated to themselves, their enemies and the world: you don’t have to fall in love; just fall in line, or you will fall, altogether.

The Day of the Bully has dawned.

The message here seems to be that it’s okay for pro-life groups to boycott Komen because of its relationship with Planned Parenthood, but it’s not okay for pro-choice advocates to boycott Komen for its relationship (or lack thereof) with Planned Parenthood. It is just when we do it, but bullying when you do, both sides seem to think.

In the end, Komen caved to the greater pressure of Planned Parenthood’s supporters and returned (probably) to its policy of funding Planned Parenthood.

A Moratorium on Boycotts 

Everyone wants to cry “Foul!” when the Other Side uses its power to force its will on someone, but when we do it, it’s not only justified, it’s heroic. And I think this impulse, this feeling that it is somehow unjust for the Other Side to use its power to influence private organizations, has some truth to it.

Christian activism tends to take two forms, political and economic. The basic method in both cases is the same, though: we work for justice and goodness by using our votes and/or dollars to influence those in power. This is, after all, the way our country, with its free market democracy, works.

While I don’t want to argue that we should totally abandon political action or dismiss money’s influence, I do think that the Komen situation reveals the dangerous nature of attempts to force positive change through coercion. This kind of change is fickle and passing. If we can force Komen to change their policies with our boycott, then what is to stop another, bigger boycott from forcing them to change back? As we have seen with Komen, the answer is “nothing.” Whether it is through votes or dollars, coercing someone to accept our position is nihilistic: it suggests that real change — change of heart and mind — is impossible, or unlikely, and so the safest bet is to make it profitable to adopt our beliefs.

Perhaps instead of using our power to influence our country, we ought to offer the world an alternative that persuades with its beauty. Russell Moore touched on this in his Christianity Today article:

We don’t need a Christian foundation to compete with the merchants of death. We don’t need one more coalition with enough signatures to counter the threatened boycotts of the abortion rights peddlers. And we sure don’t need to sell bumper stickers with a line drawn through a pink ribbon.What we need, first of all, are churches who recognize that this isn’t all that surprising. Mammon is a jealous god, and he’s armed to the teeth. We need to create the kind of counter-culture that constantly shines the light of Christ wherever these false gods exist in our own affections. And then we need to demonstrate what it means to believe that a person’s life consists in more than the abundance of his possessions.

How do we create this counter-culture that Moore mentions? I think of efforts like Care Net‘s pregnancy centers, which give support to women with unwanted pregnancies. Missions like this work to demonstrate Christ’s love by caring for and meeting the needs of others and doing the hard work of providing alternatives to abortions.

I’m not arguing that Christians should not have initially boycotted Komen, nor that we should never use boycotts, but I do think that this mess shows this tactic’s deeply problematic nature. Rather than devote time, money, and energy to forcing Komen to cut ties to Planned Parenthood, rather than complain because the Other Side used its influence to get Komen to recant, and rather than complain about the (probably very real) media bias, let’s offer the world an alternative that actively demonstrates Christ’s love.

In addition, the local chief of the homicide unit stated that: “It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with his anger and frustration, apparently. . . .The wife of the defendant has indicated it was his intent to kill (Jessica’s) father. We’re still investigating motive, but the family says it’s very clear that the motive was not religion.”

While it is true that part of the step-father’s controlling behavior did include trying to force his step-daughter to wear a head-scarf, Geller goes far beyond what is reasonable by claiming that there is “overwhelming evidence” that it was an honor killing.

Voices like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are very dangerous, particular for Christians and conservatives–people who are prone to having a very low view of Muslims.

First, grossly, negligently, and cruelly exaggerating evidence in order to call a murder an “honor killing” distracts from the very real and horrible reality of honor killings, abuses, and misogyny done in the name of Islam.

Second, these exaggerations from influential bloggers fuel racism, hatred, and xenophobia. If you have any doubt about these, read some of the comments they receive on their sites.

Third, these voices are quite popular among Christians.

If we want to have a chance at ministering to our Islamic neighbors, sharing the Gospel with them, meeting their needs, and loving them as ourselves, we have to treat them with respect. We can begin respecting them by reading, sharing, and supporting commentators and bloggers who speak truthfully and in love.

“This ‘Obama is Stupid’ statement or implication has become a common trope of the Right in recent months, and one we see in the mouths of many writers and politicians.

But, thankfully, this is not some hit piece on Gingrich or an excuse to mock the Right; Dr. Garrett calls our attention to the core issue: a fundamentally unChristian tendency across the political spectrum to dismiss and diminish the Other Side.

“[A]s hard as it might be for us to stomach, as appallingly stupid as it might sound, we have to be open to the possibility that we might be something less than totally right, and that those we oppose may be less than totally wrong.”

“Which vision comes closer to actual culture? As Christians we must begin with Scripture. In Scripture, life is imitation, copying. We are called to imitate (or copy) Christ (John 13:15) and the apostles who imitate Christ (2 Thess 3:7,9; Heb. 13:7; ); Christ is himself the very imitation or copy of the Father (Heb. 1:3). We reproduce by making copies (Gen. 5:3), imitating or copying God in the creation (Gen. 1:26). Trinitarian life is imitation, is copying, as each member of the Trinity copies the others (John 12:49; 16:13). Trinitarian life is collaborative, a sharing culture within the Godhead.”

While I certainly agree that US copyright law is profoundly flawed, primarily because of the substantial influence of powerful media corporations, I’m less sure that remix culture is the heart of a genuine folk culture. And I’m not convinced that it is accurate to use the Trinity as the basis for just copyright law. Regardless, this is an important issue for Christians to wrestle with. As I’ve said before, if we take Romans 13 seriously, then we need to fight for laws that are reasonable and just, rather than counter-intuitive, convoluted, and harmful.

“I wonder about this too in part because of the recent news about Danny Chen, the 19-year-old Chinese American soldier who shot and killed himself in Afghanistan after a reported excessive and race-based hazing he underwent there. Reading Jennifer Gonnerman’s sketch of his home life, we learn that Danny grew up in New York’s Chinatown. To make ends meet, he and his parents shared the same bedroom. We don’t hear much about these Asian Americans, the ones who don’t go to Harvard or Berkeley–the non-model minorities.”

“Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry?”

While these incidents, if accurately represented by Gingrich, are invasive and unfair, they hardly qualify as intolerance or bigotry. Inconvenience, yes. But “bigotry”?

She then argues that a “secular bias” has prevented us from discussing the role of religion in our wars in the Middle East:

“A successful GOP candidate will have to be adept at reframing the debate: Secular bias characterizes not only the debate on social issues but also U.S. efforts to fight two wars in the heart of the Islamic world without mentioning religion.”

I’m not sure why Belz believes that the US doesn’t mention religion regarding its two wars in the “Islamic world.” Isn’t it publicly stated that the “war on terrorism” is a war against certain extremist Islamic groups? In any event, how is this a secular bias? I’d actually argue that the attempt to frame the Islamic world as radical, irrational, barbarians who are incapable of rational negotiation and dialogue, a vision of the Muslim world shared by many in the Church, is the truly dangerous secular bias–the bias that suggests that only those (like Americans) who can tidily divide their religion and their politics (and are thus “secular”) are civilized.

Finally, Belz describes the “secular bigotry” that affects the economy and the Federal Budget Crisis. She observes that despite the fact that 40% of the Federal budget goes to entitlement funding, and that the broken family is a major contributor to poverty, candidates are not allowed to defend and promote the family:

“Yet cultural elites who champion ‘choice,’ who promote same-sex households and childless lifestyles, are the first to demand higher taxes—and to ridicule a pro-family candidate like Santorum—whose six children someday will be wage earners and taxpayers contributing to their parents’ retirement plus others.”

Let me say that I agree with Belz that we should be concerned about the government limiting our rights to do charity work, and about the media silencing conversations on the importance of families to social stability. But I cannot agree that these are examples of bigotry. In fact, I’d say that both Gingrich and Belz belittle actual bigotry (racial or otherwise) by referring to inconveniences and biases with such strong language. I’m reminded yet again of the victim complex of the US Church.

A running theme in my column last year was the various ways in which the church has wrongly adopted vicious and self-interested discourses and rhetoric which are so popular in our country. Charity is seen as people-pleasing or being “PC.” Complex issues are reduced to simplistic caricatures and fiercely defended. Opponents are mocked. Giving offense is a badge of honor. And opposing perspectives are summarily dismissed.

I’d like to add another item to this list of ungodly conceptions about how Christians should speak:  Our duty is to tell the Truth and share the Gospel, and nothing else. So, we should not be concerned with what people think about us.

To help clarify what I want to talk about, here are a few variations of this belief:

If you care what people think about you, you’re being pragmatic and will probably compromise your faith.

We’re told the world will hate us, so there is no sense in being concerned about how others perceive us, especially the ungodly.

Some Christians have been so brainwashed by “political correctness”  that they are worried about hurting people’s feelings rather than telling the Truth.

We are to be God-pleasers, not people-pleasers.

A few weeks ago, I was shocked to come across a passage in Romans that I believe radically challenges this view of how we ought to interact with people:

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

(Romans 12:16-18 ESV)

I had a number of reactions to this passage.

First, how antithetical this is to our tendency towards arrogance and disregard for others, particularly online. Truly, how often do we consider whether or not our words will promote harmony? Our culture delights in and rewards those who spread controversy, but do we? Should we? There is currently an entire sub-culture in Christianity that subsists on criticizing and stirring up controversies, all under the name of “discernment.” At Christ and Pop Culture we try to ensure that we discuss issues that we believe are important to and for our readers, but I’m sure we’ve also fallen at times to the temptation of spreading controversy over promoting harmony.

Second, note Paul’s warning about repaying evil here. Perhaps you don’t feel that you “repay evil for evil,” but it is quite common for Christians to justify their political party or politician or a mocking portrayal of an opponent by saying, “Well, the Other Side does this all the time.” Isn’t this the kind of logic that Paul commands us to reject?

Third, what struck me most about this passage is the command to “give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.” Not only does Paul command us to spend time considering how others will evaluate our actions, but he even calls us to act on their evaluations, to do what will be “honorable in the sight of all.” So, although we should not be seeking the approval of men, we ought to do what is good or honorable in the opinion of all, when possible. I think that this idea has many implications for how we speak and act in the world. We might ask ourselves:

Can I tell the truth in this circumstance without offending this person, or is there a less offensive way to say this?

Can I speak out against this political ideology so winsomely that my opponents will admit that my actions are honorable?

Can I correct this brother or sister so that all people see my love for them?

Can I share the Gospel to this person so that they and other unbelievers agree that my methods are good and honorable?

So often, we allow the rightness of our cause (or the perceived rightness, as is all-too-often the case) to justify all kinds of arrogance and disregard for our neighbors, but Paul calls us to use actions and words that befit the rightness of our cause.

If Christians (myself very much included) would consistently and seriously pursue adopting habits of speech that befit our calling, I am convinced that we would honor God before the world, win over enemies with our love and reasonableness, and divert time away from unprofitable debates and controversies so that we might devote ourselves more to loving our neighbor and fulfilling the Great Commission.

Last Monday was Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day when we offer a gesture towards admitting to our country’s horrible history of racism and acknowledging the courage of MLK to oppose it. As nice as that is, I can’t help but think about the way many Christians still think about race and racism. Things I’ve heard, read, thought, or said in the church:

“If they want to improve their lives, they should stop being so lazy and arrogant and get to work.”

“Our government is the real problem. If we just cut these people off from the welfare they are abusing, they would be forced to do real work.”

“Their culture is immoral. It promotes promiscuity, violence, substance abuse, disrespect of authorities, and playing the victim.”

“Their problem is that they don’t stop talking about ‘Racism’ as if it’s still an issue. Racism is done. Only hillbillies are racists these days.”

“Black people are making white people racist by stereotyping all of us as racist and taking our jobs and education and school-grants. Just treat everyone equally and racism will be gone!”

In other words, the church has an incredibly serious problem, which is itself a part of a national problem of immense proportions: Many of us assume that racism and racial discrimination are no longer significant issues in our society, when in fact they are. For example:

An incredible percentage of the Black male population of the US is incarcerated.

According to one study, white men make 11% more hourly than black men, even when you take factors like education into consideration.

As if that weren’t bad enough, black unemployment is usually around twice white unemployment. Yeah, you read that right. Think 8% unemployment sounds bad? Try 16%.

Have a traditionally black name? It could be harder to find a job.

Are you a black woman? You will probably not get married, in part because many elegible black men are in jail.

Young black man in New York? You’re probably going to get stopped and frisked by the police. Try not to look suspicious. And remember to respect and trust the police.

We could go on, but you get the point. Much of contemporary racism is structural. It has to do with our school systems, the media, hiring practices, unconscious (or conscious) racism in business, racial profiling, the decline of marriage, single-parent homes, etc. Yes, there are still plenty of people who are consciously and openly bigoted, but I suspect that the majority of discrimination that a black person in the US experiences comes in the form of unacknowledged institutional racism.

I believe that the racial discrimination facing black people in the US is easily one of, if not the biggest problem in our country and our churches. I know, you want to say our biggest problem is the economic crisis, but when you consider unemployment, the wage gap, cost of incarceration, and social programs for the poor, I have to think that discrimination is also costing us a lot of money and productivity. Racial discrimination is a destructive force in our society which profoundly hurts everyone, but particularly the victims of abuse.

. . . . . . . . . .

With these concerns, it was with great excitement and joy that I received the news that John Piper was to publish a book on racism: Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian.

This is the kind of high-profile exposure that we need to make the US church recognize institutional racism and take action. I was even happier when I saw that Piper began to give his book away. Unfortunately, it seems that while Bloodlines calls attention to racial inequality and the importance of racial reconciliation, it does so without accurately representing structural racism or presenting a reasonable solution.

Dr. Mark Mulder, associate professor of sociology and director of the urban studies minor at Calvin College, published a critical review of Piper’s book at Comment. He claims that Bloodlines has three major flaws. First, Piper “seems to have no sense that whites have more culpability than African Americans in this race/racism equation.” Second, Piper downplays the role of institutional racism by emphasizing personal responsibility. And third:

“[B]ecause he does not understand structural racism—Piper actively promotes the ‘miracle motif’ as the antidote to racism in the U.S. He argues that the answer to racism ‘is not government help or self-help, but the gospel of Jesus Christ’ and that ‘what is needed is a miracle.’ In essence, Piper asserts that conversion to Christianity is the only hope for the race problem. Such an attitude demonstrates an extreme obliviousness to the insidious nature of modern racism.”

Mulder concludes: “Yes, as Piper elucidates, the gospel gives powerful hope and impetus for reconciliation. However, racial justice also necessitates that Christians be committed to actively addressing the insidious structural nature of racism.”

Although I have not had the opportunity to read Bloodlines yet, if Mulder’s review is accurate, I have to agree with him that Piper’s solution ignores the reality of institutional racism. However, I think Mulder ultimately undervalues the role of the Gospel in racial reconciliation.

The Gospel does more than give “powerful hope and impetus for reconciliation”; it demands our humility, self-sacrifice, love for our neighbors, and hunger for forgiveness. I agree with Piper that the Gospel must be at the center of any attempt of racial reconciliation in the church. But I also agree with Mulder that the Gospel must motivate us towards critiquing structural racism, as opposed to only looking to change some attitude inside of us and our neighbors.

. . . . . . . . . .

I have no specific suggestions for how the church in the US ought to proceed with facing modern racism, but I do have a few general ideas:

1. Educate yourself. If we can’t acknowledge that institutional racism is real, we can’t do anything about it.

2. Begin with the Gospel, with Christ’s ultimate work of reconciliation and what it means for our neighbors. Allow that to humble you, to expose your pride and prejudices, and to embolden you to love ever more.

3. Read the thoughts of Anthony Bradley, one of my favorite voices in the PCA, on how we can love the city and minister to minorities. Bradley, I think, gives us a good place to start.

Lord willing, the church will lead society in racial reconciliation, and in so doing will reveal itself to be Christ’s disciples by loving one another. And there are some hints of it already happening.

Update 01/23/12

Just to be perfectly clear: I am grateful that Piper wrote this book and I agree with him that the Gospel must be at the heart of any attempt at racial reconciliation.

Update 01/24/12

I had this chance to read over Piper’s chapter on the structural vs personal approach to racism in the US, and I think I understand Mulder’s point a bit better. Piper clearly asserts that structural racism exists and must be addressed, however, he favors personal responsibility by devoting more time to pointing out the flaws in some failed attempts to address structural racism. So, to be clear, Mulder’s problem seems to be that Piper tries to be “fair” by giving structural and personal approaches equal time, but he ends up privileging personal activism when the emphasis ought to be on structural changes. Here’s Mulder again:

“The weight of social-science evidence consistently demonstrates that racial inequality in the U.S. has more to do structural discrimination than with personal responsibility.”

“Piper rightly asserts that Christians finding their ultimately identity in Christ would be a significant step toward reconciliation. What he gets wrong is his assumption that that would qualitatively change residential segregation, employment discrimination, and impoverished school districts.”

Today, he’s offering his new book, Bloodlines, as a free PDF.

So, not only did he go against the evangelical culture by addressing racism, he also went against the evangelical culture by giving away his book.

High five, Piper.

LAUER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I’m curious about the word ‘envy.’ Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

LAUER: Yeah but envy? Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as ‘envy,’ though?

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail. (Transcript from ThinkProgress).

or Watch:

So much of politics comes down to the language we use in our discourse. For Romney and many others, it is morally and politically justifiable to dismiss the concerns of many U.S. residents about inequality because those concerns come out of “Envy.”

Envy is resentment, discontentment, inappropriate longing. It is sin. Why should we dignify sin by acknowledging it as a reasonable concern? And so, Romney tells us that these concerns must be voiced in “quiet rooms” — out of the public conversation.

In other words, we must discuss the real problem of inequality in private so that the masses (the “99%”) aren’t led into envy.

What is so frustrating about Romney’s words here is that he surely is correct that many people who resent our country’s inequality are envious and don’t realize the complex nature of income distribution (I sure don’t!), but by dismissing all concerns, even the legitimate ones, and absconding with the debate to outside of the public’s purview, he utterly misrepresents and belittles many people.

“Here’s the reason Chesterton’s bowshots at Calvinism do not bring me down. The Calvinism I love is far closer to the “Elfland” he loves than the rationalism he hates.

He would no doubt be baffled by my experience. For me the biggest, strongest, most beautiful, and most fruitful tree that grows in the soil of “Elfland” is Calvinism. Here is a tree big enough, and strong enough, and high enough to let all the paradoxical branches of the Bible live — and wave with joy in the sunshine of God’s sovereignty.”

Although his response was far to terse for my tastes (and the subject…), Piper’s comments are worth a read.

“The email, which has been posted in various places on the Internet, refers to a bumper sticker that reads ‘Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8.’

Psalm 109:8 says, ‘Let his days be few and brief; and let others step forward to replace him.’

The email states: ‘At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!’”

O’Neal apologized and explained that the verse was meant to refer to Obama’s days in office, not his life. However, the surrounding verses make it clear that the “days” refer to his life:

“May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow!” (Psalm 109:9, ESV).

I don’t really think that O’Neal meant to imply that we should pray for his assassination, but this embarrassing episode does highlight the incredible need for us to love our enemies, even our political ones. As a Christian, O’Neal should not have been mocking the First Lady, referring to her as “YoMama,” and he should have been thoughtful enough to consider the context of Psalms 109. If nothing else, he gave his political enemies and those who already view Christians as arrogant and hypocrites good reason for their prejudices.

While some of these “acts” are legitimate instances of persecution, the dominant theme of the list is the loss of political and cultural favor. The most interesting act was #1: the passage of SB 48 in California which mandated that public schools teach students about the contributions of homosexuals to our country.

How could teaching the historical fact that homosexuals have accomplished important things be “anti-Christian”? This is how DefendChristian.Org described the act:

“California Governor Jerry Brown signs a bill forcing public school curriculum and textbooks to “celebrate” homosexual, transgender and bisexuals.”

In their article on this bill, the site urges readers to join the effort at StopSB48.org to repeal the bill. And according to StopSB48.org and the Family Research Council’s president, Tony Perkins:

“[SB 48] will require public schools to teach children as young as five not only to accept but also to endorse transgender, bisexual, and homosexual identity and behavior.”

Another major Christian organization fighting the bill, SaveCalifornia.com, describes the dangers of SB 48 this way:

“Children as young as kindergarten must be taught to admire persons who engage in homosexuality, same-sex “marriages,” bisexuality, and transsexuality. . .”

“Children must be taught to support the political activism of so-called ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning’ (LGBTIQ) political groups.”

“Teachers are required to positively portray homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriages,’ bisexuality, and transsexuality.”

This bill is an “anti-Christian” act because it imposes a non-Christian morality upon our children, forces them to admire homosexuals, forces them to support the homosexual political agenda, and prevents teachers from pointing out the negative aspects of these sexual orientations.

The problem is that the bill requires none of these things. Here’s what the bill actually says:

“[The bill] require[s] instruction in social sciences to include a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other cultural groups, to the development of California and the United States.”

It also forbids the adoption of instructional material that “contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation. . .”

DefendChristians.org, StopSB48.org, The Family Research Council, and SaveCalifornia.com all misrepresented this bill by grossly exaggerating what it required.

They would probably respond that the wording of the bill is vague enough that some schools could abuse it to promote or “celebrate” homosexuality, which is possible, but the bill does not require it. The bill only requires a “study of the role and contributions” of these groups and forbids teachers from teaching anything that reflects “adversely upon persons on the basis of . . . sexual orientation.”

There are legitimate concerns about SB 48 (e.g. the vague language which could lead to abuses of the law), but overwhelmingly, the Christian organizations that have fought against the bill have grossly exaggerated and misrepresented the bill, much to their shame. Instead of honestly and charitably noting that people of various sexual orientations have done great things while calling for clearer language in the bill, these groups presented a straw-man version of the bill and called for its repeal.

I have three take-aways from DefendChristians.org’s top-10 list and the Repeal-SB 48 movement:

1. The readers of DefendChristians.org conceived of SB 48 as an “anti-Christian” bill, when in reality it was an contra biblical-morality bill. We have grown so attracted to the idea of persecution that when the worldly government does not favor our moral system, we take it as an attack on us and our beliefs, rather than a sign of how the Church’s failure to be a witness to the world has led to a shift in society’s morals.

2. The response to Christianity’s decline as the defining moral system in our nation has been largely political and forceful. DefendChristians.org called upon its readers to contact NBC and demand that they fire the person responsible for leaving out “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance before two sporting events. If NBC will not choose to support our faith, we must force them to. Similarly, if California and its government accepts and promotes sinful lifestyles, we must use political pressure to force them to change. This is another instance of Christian nihilism.

3. Many Christian organizations misrepresented the facts of this bill and framed it as an attack on our children. While it is true that the bill was poorly worded and could potentially lead to abuses, for Christians to present worst-case-scenarios as the clear and stated intention of the bill is dishonest.

As citizens of heaven, persecution should be defined for us by the Cross and the long history of Christian martyrs; our response to the increasing secularization of our culture ought to be first and foremost spiritual and relational, not political; and our political statements, as all our statements, must be honest, charitable, and accurate.

Gnostic Myth # 1: Christianity isn’t a Religion, it’s a Relationship

By relocating the nexus of religion in the private experience of each individual and self-consciously downplaying the public and corporate aspects connoted by the word “religion”, much of contemporary evangelicalism has unknowingly drunk deeply from the wells of Gnosticism. In the process, much of the modern church has lost the categories with which to think about Christendom, viewing the faith primarily through an individualistic lens.

It’s a good list–well worth reading and musing over. My only real point of disagreement (or at least, hesitation) is myth #5:

Gnostic Myth # 5: It isn’t Going to Last Forever

Agreeing with the Gnostics that the physical world is destined for the cosmic rubbish heap, many evangelicals have assumed that the only work which lasts forever is the work of saving souls. Raising families, building cathedrals, reading novels and trimming hedges are only of temporal importance. This is often motivated by an unconscious dualism between creation and redemption, as if God’s purposes for the latter had nothing to do with His original intensions in the former.

While I certainly believe (as a good little reformed boy) that all work can and should be to the glory of God, and is therefore meaningful and good beyond the temporal, I worry that Robin’s line of thought leads to the idea that our creations on earth will literally last, in some eternal way. I have read the book Robin recommends on this topic, David Hegeman’s Ploughing in Hope, and was troubled by Hegeman’s poorly supported claim that our cultural works will last into eternity.

But then again, perhaps I misread Hegeman.

What are your thoughts about this list, gnosticism in the church, or the temporality (or lack thereof) of our works?

At a school assembly here in South Carolina on Sept. 1, a preacher described how Christ saved him from drugs, telling his rapt audience that “a relationship with Jesus is what you need more than anything else.” A rapper shouted the Lord’s praise to a light show and most of the audience stepped forward to pledge themselves to Christ while a few remained, uncomfortable, in their seats.

Watch for yourself, if you dare:

The whole event makes me uncomfortable, for the kids, the rapper, everyone. On the one hand, I’m glad that the Gospel was preached, but on the other hand this does strike me as if it were giving the impression of the government endorsing Christianity, which is not a road I’d like to go down.

And I guess the other thing is that it doesn’t strike me as a very effective way to witness.  I know some like to say that any concern for effectiveness is “pragmatism,” but the reality is that every person who shares the Gospel picks and choses when he or she will share, and we make those decisions (in part) based on whether or not we feel the time is appropriate. Considering how much being forced to sit through a (arguably) cheesy Christian concert and message could turn a young kid off from Christianity, I’m not sure this was such a wise choice.

Thoughts?

After watching this appalling scene in a debate last September, I decided that I could not support Rick Santorum. Notice how he treats Paul as a traitor for suggesting that our foreign policy had some part to play in 9/11. Not only was he unwilling to consider the idea that we might have had some blame, he and the crowd try to silence and shame Paul for not believing an overly-simplistic view of the Middle East and the “war” on terror.

How is it that we admire humility in people but not countries?

It seems to me that Santorum’s words are opposed to the kind of openness to complexity and correction that should mark us as Christians. As I admonished us earlier this year in a Citizenship Confusion post:

We should be able to say that American foreign policy directly motivated the 9/11 attackers without removing any culpability from their actions.

We need to say that homosexuality is a sin and same-sex attraction probably has a biological basis.

We need to say that most Muslims in America are peaceful, law-abiding citizens and some are violent jihadists.

We must boldly proclaim that Islam is a false religion while defending Muslims’ rights to build mosques in the U.S.

But it is not good for us to think of ourselves as Great White Saviors who swoop down from our safe communities in our new cars, listening to Arcade Fire singing about the plight of white suburbia just to condescend to help the poor, helpless black or Hispanic family by providing them with The Answers. It’s going to look a lot uglier, messier, and harder than that.

We need to humbly work alongside minority brothers and sisters to learn how we can help. And that is going to take time and a lot of conversations.

Anthony Bradley has just edited a collection of essays by top, scholarly, New Black Christian leaders, titled: Keep Your Head Up.

While I have not had a chance to read it yet myself (darn grad school), knowing Bradley’s reputation, I suspect it will be a great place to start some of these practical discussions about moving toward race reconciliation and social justice. If you get a chance, take a look at the book’s site and read the free except.

If we desire to see significant and redeeming change in race issues in our country, the Church ought to be at the forefront. And Bradley’s collection, which emphasizes the Gospel, looks to be a thoughtful beginning to this discussion.

There’s a term for girls like Jess. She is what Bailey Doogan calls a “Logo Girl.” Ten years ago, Doogan, an American artist, wrote of her experience creating Mortie, who, after numerous tweaks and Frankensteinian adjustments, “ended up with the requisite cuteness” to fall in line with the other little logo girls we inexplicably know, love, and tattoo on our arms. Logo girls like Mortie or the Coppertone Sun Tan Lotion Girl represent the “small, cute, and plucky” tendencies in the grown-ups who buy the products. They possess “a guilelessness bordering on consciousness, an unconsciousness bordering on stupidity.”

On one hand, this “Logo Girl” strikes me as just another objectification of a woman as the Transcendent Other: the ineffably beautiful girl who can justify and fulfill the existence of any man great enough for her love.

On the other hand, the first hand is significant enough to negate the other hand.

“These seem to be the most pressing issues that are destroying cities. I’m not saying that the arts, coffee shops, Trader Joe’s, organic farmers’ markets, pubs with European bear, and the like, don’t matter but black men don’t end up in prison because there were no art shows in their neighborhoods. But they will say that they never had a father (85% of youth incarcerated for any reason are from fatherless homes). It seems that having an HIV/AIDS care community is more needed than a Christian Study Center or a live music venue.”

The only push back I’d like to offer is in some of the particular actions that Bradley suggests. For example, he acknowledges that black unemployment is about twice (16%) the rate for whites, but his solution is that we need more job opportunities. Will more jobs actually decrease black unemployment compared to white? In other words, is the problem the lack of jobs or institutional racism which discriminates against blacks? Or a combination of several factors (the most likely scenario)?