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.

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.

I do not believe that it is the job of the church to tell someone how to vote. That’s too easy, and it is terrible discipleship. The goal of the church is to make people good disciples of Jesus Christ, and election time presents us with an opportunity to help people be better disciples by thinking through difficult choices. This primary presents us with a humdinger of an opportunity to do just that.

Think of how complicated this is for an evangelical ”moral” voter. We have in one corner Mitt Romney. He has a reputation as a bit of a RINO, and he makes himself sound conservative enough to be appealing. Also, Mitt is a Mormon. Evangelicals rightly wonder about the implications of electing a man to office from a religion they consider a cult. But then, on the other side, you have the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich. He is a smart man, and he seems to pass the conservative muster, and he’s a converted Roman Catholic. While that’s not evangelical, it is more acceptable than Mormonism. But this is the guy that left a wife dying of cancer to marry a woman who he would later cheat on for six years and leave for a third wife. What makes a man more untrustworthy, two divorces or one heresy? Do we have to choose between adultery and Mormonism?

It’s at this difficult place that people come to me and ask how I will vote. Whatever their quandary may be, they want to know how the pastor has it worked out so they might vote “correctly.” That’s not fair to me or them. It’s like going to school having barely prepared for a test, and then looking over at my paper when you get flummoxed to copy my answer. Everyone ought to have to agonize over the choices before they cast their vote. That isn’t simply for the sake of the agony, but through the process of personally prioritizing what is important to us as a human being who is a Christian, we become better disciples.

That’s why the church ought not say, “Vote for Candidate X.” I do not believe that there is always a correct choice in the voting booth. Even if we elected a born-again evangelical who could bring goodwill like Billy Graham, he might be a bad President. Jesus is not running this term, so the decision is hard.

So what ought we to expect from our church and its leadership with regard to politics? Let them be versed in the issues, and let them give their opinions with the caveats galore. When I tell someone how I will vote, I tell them why. It is normally due to prioritization  of the issues, and frankly, those will differ between even the closest brothers. And make sure you let them know that there really is no right answer. This is a fallen world, and we are a frail people. Even the President is subject to our follies.

Besides, we’re waiting for a King to appear. These Presidents are just there to maintain order until Christ returns. That is the focus of the church, to declare to others that a King is coming who will rule the world in justice and equity.

-If you made a lot of money and obeyed government tax law, that reflects negatively on your candidacy.

-If a gigantic company paid you money to give them advice about maneuvering in governmental circles, and that company later needed a bailout because they followed the same bad business practices everybody else was following, that reflects negatively on your candidacy.

-If you cheated on your wife–well, two of your wives–that reflects negatively on your candidacy.

-If you get angry about people questioning you for cheating on your past two wives, that reflects positively on your candidacy.

-If you think each problem is new and should be thought about in a somewhat different way each time, that reflects negatively on you.

-If you fired someone, ever, that reflects negatively on your candidacy.

-It is bad to be a successful businessperson.

-It is bad to be a career politician.

-If you were a successful businessperson who then became a successful career politician, that’s bad.

-If you are angry at the media, angry at your fellow candidates, and angry at your party leadership, that reflects so positively on you that you might just be a frontrunner.

I’ve heard it suggested recently that we are essentially made up of two things: our memories, and the predictions that our minds make on the basis of those memories. In many ways this is true of a presidential candidacy, as well. It takes on a character of its own, rooted in its history, its actions, and the collective predictions and expectations of those who vote for or against the candidate. Sometimes, like Obama, the storytelling power of a candidacy is so powerful it can’t help but fail to fully deliver. Other times, as in the case of Romney, even things that were once thought of as positive qualities are turned into negatives.

Too often we allow ourselves to be caught up in gut reactions, jerked here and there by the most recent or loudest argument.  But wisdom would suggest that we carefully consider what a person’s history tells us about them, and that we choose someone for whom doing the right thing in the critical moment is a life pattern rather than unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Preparing for and running in an event like the Tough Mudder can tell you a lot about yourself. In a way, a presidential race is very much the same way. It is long, full of obstacles, and designed to expose weaknesses.

Let’s say, for a moment, that you had the opportunity to design the “obstacle course” candidates must go through to run for President. Obstacles might consist of their stance on certain issues, or their history of successes and failures, or their religious affiliation, or their debating ability, or something as simple as how they come across in conversation. What obstacles would you include?

I think it’s a good exercise to think this through, or even write it down, because these races are full of distractions and meaningless arguments. For instance, the headlines were recently dominated by Newt Gingrich making the following argument: Romney says he’s not a career politician-> He would have been if he had won his races-> Therefore he’s sorta lying-> I’m honest about being a career politician-> Vote for me!

This argument is nonsensical in the extreme. If my big issue is not wanting a career politician (it isn’t), why would I vote for a career politician on the basis of him exposing a wannabe career politician? And yet this is what they are talking about on the news and it is somehow hurting Romney’s numbers.

Be wiser than that. Too often Christians call for more character and better values in leaders, but they get just as caught up in the mud-slinging as anyone else. Put the presidential candidates through your list of obstacles, challenges, and guidelines. That way, your vote will be a sincere act of citizenship and wisdom, rather than a guess that emerges from a thousand silly arguments.

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.

Since discussions of politics are going to happen, and because they can help us, we ought to be wise about how we enter into these discussions with our church family. We ought to set some simple ground rules for ourselves before we get into a discussion on politics, and if we have the discipline to follow a few self-imposed guidelines, we may find that our talks are helpful and thought-provoking on the subject of the candidates and our government in general.

First, we must realize that no one is going to agree with us completely. They may like the same candidate we do, but they may have different reasons for doing so. Keep that in mind.

Secondly, we must be willing to listen and not speak. Why does your friend support Ron Paul or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum? Why don’t they like your candidate? Are their insights helpful? We may learn some things if we will allow folks a moment to explain themselves.

Thirdly, we must realize that one’s salvation does not hang on one’s politics. It is possible to be libertarian or a democrat and be a Christian. You can be independent and be a Christian. You can even be a republican and be a Christian. Don’t let those labels confuse you too terribly.

Fourth, we need to come to grips with the fact that not everyone prioritizes issues the same way. Some people are one issue voters regarding abortion. Some care deeply about welfare, government reform in finance, and some prioritize bringing our wars to an end. So while someone may agree with you on certain issues, they may not place them in the same place on their personal hierarchy, and therefore they may vote differently.

With all this disagreement, one might come to the conclusion that politics ought to be left out of the church. To the contrary, I believe that this is precisely why we ought to be talking about politics with our church friends. Finding friends, true friends, who disagree with you is a boon. It will help you understand the issues better, and it will help you understand yourself better. Ultimately, it will help you understand your friends better as well.

If we could spend some time understanding what people are passionate about and how they think about the issues, it will go a long way towards helping us share our contrary views in a meaningful and respectful way. If we get enough practice at this sort of thing at church in a healthy way, we may be able to communicate our views better outside the church as well, and that might lead us to actually having opportunities to share about the gospel and how it effects our views.

A Spirit of Nihilism rules over our civic discourse in America. It says that all political action is an exercise of Power, and Power is always abusive. This Spirit allows us to justify lying and manipulation when it comes from our own political party, since lies are simply a part of the political game. It justifies generalizations and uncharitable speech, since the “other side” does it all the time. Unfortunately, many Christians have adopted this nihilism, leading to the perpetuation of lies, hatred, and abuse.

One example of Christian political nihilism is our willingness to uncritically accept political narratives that fit our presuppositions: If all sides are biased, then we have no obligation to test our sources to discover the “truth,” because the “truth” doesn’t exist.

Take Robert Spencer and his site, Jihad Watch. Spencer is one of the leaders of the “Creeping Shari’ah” movement that decries the secret Islamic invasion in America and archives all the atrocities of Islam. Jihad Watch is highly regarded among many Christians I know, even fairly respected and influential Christians. But, a quick check on the facts of some of Spencer’s articles shows that he is willing to manipulate and lie (or is, at least, grossly irresponsible with his claims) to promote his agenda.

On Christmas, an estranged father visited his family in Dallas, Texas, dressed as Santa Claus. He killed his family before committing suicide. The media reported the murder-suicide, but according to Spencer, they censored the most important part of the story:

“Islamic honor killing in Texas: ‘Santa’ who murdered family on Christmas morning was Muslim who didn’t like his daughter dating a non-Muslim”

This claim was picked up by AtlasShrugs, TheBlaze, International Business Times (which questions Spencer’s claim), The Pearcey Report (Christian), and American Vision (Christian).

A quick perusal of the comments on Spencer’s post shows that it promoted a hateful and violent view of Muslims and the belief that the “lame stream media” has been hiding the dark truth about the evils of Islam:

“I blame the lame stream media and our ignorant politicians for America just letting herself be invaded by these SAVAGES. I can’t believe I’m living to see this happen. WHEN WILL WE CLOSE THE BORDERS TO MUSLIM IMMIGRATION???????”

“These Muslims cannot be called human beings!!”

His post reached a lot of people and had a very real and dangerous effect on how some of them viewed Muslims, but if you do a little research you can see fairly quickly that the “honor killing” narrative has little-to-no basis in reality.

In fact, this murder-suicide fits perfectly with the standard murder-suicide scenario: divorced, unemployed, father with serious financial troubles kills his family before shooting himself. Additionally, CBS reported that the husband was jealous of his wife’s success and the police have stated that there is no evidence that this was an honor killing.

Spencer goes well beyond speculation by calling this an “Islamic honor killing” and accusing the media of a PC coverup. The article is deceptive (or at least grossly irresponsible) and dangerous.

I chose this article because I stumbled upon it yesterday, but I have seen the same kind of deception in other posts from Spencer. My point is that he is a very influential figure in some Christian circles yet he quite blatantly lies. Some would excuse his articles as “exaggerations” and point out that the real threat is Islam, not the brave voices who speak out against it.

My admonition for the Church is to deny the political nihilism of our culture by being a discerning reader, hungry for the Truth, even when it challenges our preconceptions. Let’s not make excuses for lies or irresponsible speculation or promote deception.

Update 01/04/12

Just to be clear, I acknowledge the fact that this could turn out to be an honor killing, but the only evidence that it might have been is the statement from the daughter’s friend that the father wouldn’t let his daughter date outside her race and religion. Given the fact that the police have already stated that there is no evidence that this was an honor killing, and given the scant evidence otherwise, it is irresponsible to begin speculating that it was an honor killing, and it was deceptive of Spencer to title his article “Islamic honor killing” as if it were an established fact. That is Spencer’s deception, which I have asked him to rectify.

Update 2

In the interest of charity, I have modified my language slightly. Instead of insisting that Spencer is a liar, I now include the possibility that he is not lying but merely irresponsibly jumping to conclusions. This does not alter my argument in any meaningful way.

After all, this was a man responsible for more death, destruction, starvation, and wasted lives than perhaps any other on earth. His maniacal cult of personality was crazy enough to amuse us, but we too often forget that it put a goofy mask over the face of a demon. Unnumbered masses lived lives of utter destitution so that he could spend his days worshipping himself.

God is the judge. But there is no need to be tentative about God’s feelings on this. Kim Jong Il delved more deeply into everything God hates than most of humanity will ever have the opportunity to do, and he seemed to enjoy himself all the while. God hates sin, and God fulfills promises. We can be sure that His justice will be satisfied.

I am saddened by sin and by suffering. But I do not attempt to be saddened by the death of Kim Jong Il. Instead, I simply hope that his life proclaims the empty and disgusting places that sin can take us and pray that people will turn away from it to pursue salvation from the only true Great Leader.

If we accept, as I do, that practicing homosexuality is sin, then surely we do not want our country actively promoting sin around the world, right?

Let’s look at some of the language of Obama’s memorandum and Clinton’s speech:

Obama: “I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world. . . . Whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation” (CP).

Clinton: “In many ways, they are an invisible minority. . . . They are arrested, beaten, terrorized — even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or join in the abuse. Too often, they are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm” (CP).

Here’s how some Christians and Conservatives described the memorandum and speech:

Rick Perry: “Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights. This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. . . . Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money” (ABC).

Matt Barber at Liberty Counsel Action: “[It is] frankly offensive [that President Obama] feels compelled to export American culture’s decline in morality, and export that immorality to other nations that are trying to adhere to traditional principles relative to human sexuality” (OneNewsNow).

The Family Research Counsel: “It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution” (FRC).

Notice that none of these sources admits that the Obama administration focused on violence; instead, they spun the initiative as the promotion of homosexuality. They also complained that Obama is not concerned enough about “real” Human Rights abuses, like religious intolerance. But, according to their logic, protecting religious rights would be imposing U.S. beliefs on sovereign foreign nations.

As Christians, we are called to love and care for our neighbor, which clearly means that we should support efforts to stop violence and discrimination against homosexuals. However, we also must acknowledge that one person’s discrimination is another’s promotion. It seems to me that this new policy could lead to U.S. support for sin. But the language the Obama administration used to describe the purpose of the policy does not suggest so; it seems to be focused on stopping injustice, which we should support.

Although I think we ought to ask for more specific details on how this $3 million will be used and what defines “discrimination,” the overwhelming response to this policy by Christians has been deceptive and presumptuous. If we can spend $3 million to protect sinners from beatings, executions, and other abuses, Praise God, let’s do it.

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of hearing James Davison Hunter speak on his book, To Change the World, (read our review here). One of the most insightful comments that he made was that the American Church sees itself as a victim, as the persecuted minority, when, in fact, Christianity is one of the most influential forces in our country.

We like to tell ourselves stories about how the government tries to silence us, how the media mocks us, how public schools lie about us, how Muslims want to kill us, and how liberals want to outlaw us. But, in reality, we have incredible influence and absurd freedoms (“we” can picket a solider’s funeral with signs that call his death God’s judgment for America’s Fags).

Take for example two recent incidents of “persecution” (my word) experienced by Ray Comfort and the people behind the 180 Movie.

First, in November, Ray Comfort sent out a press release (and a tweet) which claimed that three billboard companies had refused to advertise the 180 Movie, yet “These are the same companies that advertise atheists’ mockery of God and the Bible, promote strip clubs and porn conventions.”

At least one person I know who shared this story online suggested that the companies were attempting to stifle Comfort’s “free speech.” But, actually this is far from a violation of free speech. These companies exercised their rights to not support someone else’s speech.

Second, Ray Comfort blogged about a short video Richard Dawkins posted, “mocking the spelling ability” of Comfort. The entire exchange is petty and tiresome, but what I think is worth noting is how Comfort and many other Christians promoted this exchange (read his tweet) as an example of how Christians are victims of mockery.

In both of these cases, Comfort and his followers actively publicized their victimhood. The “story” in each case was how Christians were “persecuted.” Perhaps they saw this “persecution” as a way to gain more press, but whatever their motive, I do not think it is our calling to emphatically spread stories of our victimhood in order to gain support.

In Luke chapter 23, as Jesus Christ hangs on a cross, bearing the sins of the world, He petitions the Father saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” In the midst of the greatest injustice in the world, the One who has the true right to call Himself a Victim uses some of His precious remaining breath to care for the suffering of the unrighteous.

This is not Comfort’s problem; this is the Church’s problem. We all do it. Instead of focusing on our “suffering” when people make fun of our poor spelling, or when a company doesn’t want to promote our values, our when a business tells their employees to say “Happy Holidays” instead of Merry Christmas, or when our Facebook friends block us for talking about Jesus, or when the President fails to mention God in a Thanksgiving announcement, let’s praise God for our blessings and let’s care for the persecution of others.

Update 11/06/11

We received the following email from Comfort through the social media director at Living Waters:

Someone kindly sent me your December 5^th article.

I want you to know that I agree with you regarding the billboard company having their own rights.

Forgive me if what I said came across as some sort of persecution complex.

Best wishes to you and your family.

Ray Comfort

I’m grateful for the email and hope that this can be an encouragement for all of us (because this victim complex is quite common in the church) to reconsider the way we think of persecution and victimhood.

This repose may appear even longer to the casual observer. Last year’s term produced few headlines. The Court assumed the normal caseload. Yet aside from the early decision involving the free speech of Westboro Baptist, no lightning rods flashed across the political and cultural expanse, leaving the Court’s work dimly viewed by any apart from the most avid judicial observer.

The just-begun term promises to be different. In fact, its recollection could stand among the most substantive, controversial, and important terms in decades. Diverse issues touching upon prominent public discussions await judicial determination. Culturally engaged Christians should seek to understand the issues coming before the Court. They should also strive to understand the Court’s role within the Constitution and how such knowledge aids cultural engagement.

One case already heard by the Court involves questions of protecting employees and religious liberty. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Justices are asked to wade into tough issues regarding the removal of a teacher at a Lutheran school. The case presents difficult questions. Evidence points toward the teacher receiving a raw deal. At the same time, deciding so would entangle the Court in complex determinations of a Church and a Christian school’s theology and practice. The repercussions of such entanglement could threaten protections to religious liberty. The issue is broader and longer-standing than this one case. In the aftermath of a 1990 decision, Smith v. Oregon, the Free Exercise Clause has become a much weaker defense for religious liberty. In fact, many religious liberty cases now win not on Free Exercise grounds but Free Speech contentions. The Court could continue this trend or re-affirm the power of the Free Exercise Clause. The result is far from certain, though re-affirming the Free Exercise Clause would be a welcome development.

Several other cases, while not yet accepted by the Court, could be decided by June. A decision regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration law could come this term. Readers might be surprised by the actual issue under consideration. Many might think the Constitutional question involves human rights or equal protection violations. This belief stems from serious misrepresentations of the law as something akin to Gestapo-like witch hunts, where potential illegal immigrants are hunted down to be deported. In reality, the law requires police to inquire into immigration status while enforcing other laws. The real question is whether states can pass and enforce their own immigration statutes. Arizona argues that it does so out of a necessity created by the national government’s dereliction of its duty to see that immigration laws, among all others, are faithfully executed. The national government responds that immigration’s international and inter-state component demands the uniformity of law that only a national government can provide. This case provides an opportunity to move the immigration debate past the vitriol that too often constitutes its discussion. Perhaps the lens of Federalism could begin to cool tempers enough to seek common ground that compassionately addresses illegal immigrants already here while acknowledging the necessity of controlling who and what enters a sovereign border.

California’s Proposition 8 also may be added to the docket. Should states retain the ability to define marriage in only heterosexual terms? Or does exclusion of homosexual couples constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? The concept of marriage remains in a state of flux, one predating any talk of homosexual unions. At this point, marriage’s basis drifts increasingly toward a reduction to little more than happiness-fulfilling, romantic consent. What opposes the drift is not a thoughtful articulation of natural right or goodness but another form of consent—the consent of a voting majority deciding marriage’s definition. Do not expect any decision by the Court on this issue to think beyond these concepts, thereby missing a great opportunity to enlighten public discourse.

Finally, the controversial health care law has been appealed to the Supreme Court and is likely to be accepted. The Constitutional question will focus on the Commerce Clause, which allows the national government to regulate commerce between the states. Does the Court’s expansive reading of Federal power’s reach extend to mandating the purchase of health insurance? For nearly 60 years, the Court refused to strike down any national government act whose justification rested in the Commerce Clause. It seemed the Clause could grant almost any power. In the 1990s, that situation changed. The Court began to strike down certain laws as violations of the Commerce Clause. Will this trend continue or not? The lower courts split on the issue. Any Supreme Court vote would be close. While I see the law as violating the Commerce Clause, I recognize that the issue is difficult and that its unconstitutional status would demand other solutions, not a mere return to the old status quo.

These cases demand any American citizen’s attention. They touch upon essential issues to the regime that participants in that regime should consider. But they also demand the Christian’s attention for several reasons. They touch upon issues where a Christian viewpoint is greatly needed and often sorely missing in public debate and on the Court. People will look for answers to the questions raised by the Court and will be willing to hear other answers. The Court’s own manner of response can be useful to us as well. The executive and legislative branches give a popular vision of the Constitution and politics. They see governing through the lens of elections, parties, and the kinds of debate that part of the system fosters. The Court’s position within the Constitution shields it to a large extent from public opinion. Justices deliberate in private and serve for life. This position helps Supreme Court decisions to contain a nuance that often goes unheard in 30 second sound-bites of Presidents or congressmen. They can and do reason with the difficulty of the issues raised in mind, speaking in tones not void of passion but still regularly containing collegiality. They will not and should not replace the discourse of popular culture and the elected branches. But their unique angle brings a helpful perspective and tone that can pull the demagogic character of the elected branches in the direction of their own manner of discourse. Their methods can help make our engagement more reasonable and open it to being more loving.

Finally, these cases touch upon the Constitution. Believers are to pray for the governing authorities and submit to them. In the end, it is the people who rule in America. Yet they rule in a particular manner. They do not rule directly, nor do they merely rule through elected representatives. They rule through the Constitution. Thus when we seek to submit ourselves to the governing authorities, submission to the Constitution must be an essential component. This submission must involve an understanding of the document. It must realize that submission in real-world application. The Supreme Court offers this understanding and application as much as a President or Congressman.

As we contemplate Supreme Court cases this term, we can find much worthy to watch. We find the chance for engagement; we see an aid in manner of our discourse; and we find contemplation of our role as earthly citizens, a role that pervades Christian engagement with culture.

What should we do about the rising cost of healthcare?

If you focus your attention on the political rhetoric surrounding this topic, you will usually hear what a candidate is against: public exchanges, insurance companies, mandated coverage, Obamacare, etc. If someone is for something, it is often for the purpose of blame, such as being for tort reform or for price controls on insurance companies.

Some of those debates are helpful. For instance, I personally think finding ways to expand the pool of the insured is a key component of good health reform.  I also think tort reform and bundled payment structures based on quality of care rather than number of services are important pieces of addressing our health cost problem.

But as is so often the case, the core of health reform is not in our regulations or our laws or our market structures. It is in ourselves.

See, the problems in our health care system are significant. The system could be better designed and more efficient.  But the real driver of health costs in our country isn’t an imperfect system, it’s irresponsible living. Our cost-of-healthcare problems could be almost completely solved in just a few years if every citizen committed themselves to a few basic things: eating healthy, making use of preventative care, and exercising regularly.

Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason, though: we keep returning to it like a dog to its vomit. Our national crisis is an amazing display of the simple fact that sinful humans are not good stewards of the bodies God has given them, that they consistently give in to their greed for more even when more is not needed, and that we do not pursue wisdom in all areas of our lives, no matter how much evidence shows us that we need to change.

It’s this last area –the pursuit of wisdom- where you and I need to encourage each other to change. Real wisdom pursues God’s truth and trusts His perfect knowledge. God has placed us in a unique moment in history; a moment when we know more about how to preserve our own health wisely than at any other time. And yet in so many ways we squander it, because we refuse to commit time and energy to learning and to reorganizing key aspects of how we live.

Obamacare has some good ideas, and it also has some bad ones. Republican opponents have some good alternative ideas, and they also have some bad ones. But the fact is that neither side has any real ability to target the real problem; people love pleasing themselves more than they love pursuing wisdom that God has made available to them.

Let me just take a moment to encourage you to pursue this wisdom. Learn the basics about how to be healthy. Get help in understanding your particular health needs. Set clear, measurable, attainable goals for yourself, and get accountability help in pursuing them. God has given you access to wisdom which will make you a better servant in the city of God, and a better citizen in the city of man. Little things like this can have a big impact in the advancement of the gospel.

“Churches are now separate from political structures . . . Religion or its absence is largely a private matter . . . Put in another way, in our ‘secular’ societies, you can engage fully in politics without ever encountering God, that is, coming to a point where the crucial importance of the God of Abraham for this whole enterprise is brought home forcefully and unmistakably. The few moments of vestigial ritual or prayer barely constitute such an encounter today” (1).

Taylor doesn’t bother to offer support for his claim that “religion or its absence is largely a private matter,” which testifies to the fact that most scholars view this as common knowledge. But is it?

When I reflect on American politics, I can’t imagine it without religion. Any presidential candidate who hopes to win office must be a Christian, preferably a Protestant with regular church attendance. The Christian Right is still, despite the Bush setbacks, a powerful political movement, as can be seen in groups like WallBuilders or political voices like Glenn Beck who assert that America is (or ought to be) a Christian nation by design; or candidates like Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain who publicly announce that God told them to get into politics. And even the severe derision and mockery of Christianity voiced by liberals and atheists testifies to the centrality of religion in American politics. So, is Taylor wrong? How can it be true that you can “engage fully in politics without ever encountering God”?

The key is in the last clause of the quote: Most manifestations of Christianity within American politics amounts to little more than Taylor’s “vestigial ritual or prayer” — empty religious gestures meant to appeal to certain patriotic images of a Christian Nation. But what is ironic is that it is precisely these empty symbols that Christians often defend vigorously.

Take two recent examples that I have seen posted on Facebook:

In case you haven’t heard, during his Thanksgiving address, President Obama failed to thank God, which lead to a widespread outcry from Christians and conservatives. Of course, as ABC reports, Obama did thank God in his Thanksgiving proclamation earlier in the week, just not in his address.

Similarly, I saw a friend recently post on Facebook that the White House was going to ban Christmas Trees this year. The exhortation of this post was that we must stop our President from ruining our nation by removing God. Naturally, this story is untrue, there will most certainly be a Christmas tree at the White House, but the sentiment — the general fear that Obama is a closest Atheist or Muslim, bent on destroying the religious foundation of our country one Christmas Tree at a time — was telling.

But, imagine if Obama hadn’t thanked God in an earlier proclamation and had banned Christmas trees and that the word “Christmas” was banned by every retail store in America (another popular Christian fear this time of year), how would that change things? Is our country any more Christian because of our President’s Thanksgiving address or holiday decorations or because of the language retailers use?

Perhaps, but I doubt it. And yet, these are the very issues which Christians are often so emphatic about, these “vestigial ritual[s] and prayer[s].”

My admonition is that the Church ought to be more devoted to creating a culture where God is encountered in politics as in all of life, rather than expending so much energy defending empty symbols.

The failure of the so-called supercommittee is especially discouraging in light of the size of the group: negotiating compromise in a small group is far easier than in a large one.  Yet they couldn’t get it done. And as Politico has so ably reported, this was no shortfall of a heroic effort; it had more to do with egos and dithering and chaos than it did with the size of the task. President Obama was wise to keep his name off this one.

The collapse of the supercommittee does, though, teach us much about conflict in general. At its heart, conflict is rarely about numbers, or challenges, or even ideology. Conflict is about individual egos and the constant pursuit of power. Conflict is about a herd of cats, none of them willing to submit to the others, and none of them responding to the one trying to guide them.

This, in turn, teaches us something about peace. You and I say that we want peace. We want the people in our church to agree on the budget distribution. We want to be in harmony with our spouse about how to raise our children. We want our children to obey, and we want our boss to give us a good review. But standing in the way of all these things is the selfish, grasping, desperately greedy nature of the human heart.

Achieving real peace starts by having peace with God, and peace with God involves submitting our hearts to his will. Right away, that should tell us that peace elsewhere in our lives will require submission as well. It requires giving up favorite line items on the church budget, or giving up that extra hour of video games at home.  It requires holding our tongue when our boss makes a mistake, or it may require allowing someone to receive credit for something you did.

There are moments to take a stand, to protect boundaries that were fairly laid.  And there are moments to fight, when the honor of God’s name or the safety of those in your care is at stake. Seeking peace does not mean becoming a doormat.  But that is rarely our problem. Most of the time, our egos are at stake, and we go to war because we cannot conceive not being in charge.

It is at these moments we must consider whether God’s kingdom is always advanced with a shout, or whether it sometimes comes with a whisper.  Whether it always means public victory, or whether it sometimes involves subtle changes inside ourselves.  Whether reflecting his glory to the world means covering ourselves in the glory of the battlefield, or learning to accept the humble attitude of a servant.

I’m disgusted at the supercommittee, but not surprised. Our world is a chaotic war of sinful desires, and ultimate hopes for real and lasting peace depend solely on our ability to trust that God knows better than us, and to accept His will in our lives. Only then will the real victory shine through.

Let’s talk about the reasons we should not have political debates.  A candidate for political office does not need to do much debating. A candidate has advisors who focus on details, so knowing details in a debate is not relevant.   The debate format tends to promote grandstanding and cheap one-liners over substance. The format also encourages personal attacks and aggression over thoughtful policy discussion. Debates are mind-numbingly boring when they are long, and cotton-candy fluff when they are short. Good candidates have at times been undermined by debates, and terrible candidates have at times capitalized.

All true.

But debates are still important. An election is a long, extended job interview; perhaps the most grueling our country has to offer. It involves the candidate’s personal life, biography, career arc, political stances, consistency, philosophy, and even likeability. Debates are one way in which we attempt to draw out the best picture we can.  We don’t trust political leaders to be honest with us, and we have reason not to; they put their best foot forward, and we want to see a more three dimensional picture.

So as moderators ask mostly boring questions and candidates give inane but low-risk answers, we keep our eyes open for a chink in the armor. We look for hints and clues as to a candidate’s real motivations, their passions, and their soul.  We beg them to put themselves out there because vulnerability is one of the only things that makes a person feel authentic. And all the while, we hope the person we’ve been supporting stands the test.

I hate watching the silly debates they have set up now.  I want to see a round-robin format of one-on-one debates between candidates, where a single area or department is the focus and speaking time is lengthened.  I’ll probably never get it. But it’s a nice idea because it would help me believe the one thing that nobody believes about our politicians; that they have actual substance.

See, with the way our leaders are handled and portrayed, you pretty much cannot tell whether a candidate is smart or dumb, well-informed or puppet-like, reflective or dogmatic.  I speak from personal experience here. I worked both in Michigan’s state government and in Washington DC; I know some politicians who are extremely smart and hard-working, and I know some who are just dumb.  I know some who are senile, and that is not hyperbole.

If someone is asking to be my President, then, as a citizen it is part of my job to keep an eye on these people when they are in uncomfortable situations, even if most of the debate format is foolish. You never know; they might just reveal the fact that they cannot handle pressure. Or that they are not well prepared. Or that an issue is not as close to their heart as they suggested it is. Or that their concern for the weak is a façade.

The debates have one further, more personal value. Debates have a surprising impact on our ethics. We criticize candidates, but then we spend time talking about the issues they flubbed as if we were in the driver’s seat. This forces us to flesh out the way our politics interact with our everyday world. And it is there, in that description of how our ethics play out in pragmatics, that we see ourselves most clearly. My hope and prayer is that who we discover ourselves to be is the kind of person others could vote for, if they only had the opportunity.

One inevitable feature of inside-the-Beltway gossip is White House office politics. We like to know all the details of how the executive branch is carrying out its role of enforcing the law and leading the country. We look for insight everywhere, hoping that anecdotes about one official’s skill at speech writing or a bureaucrat’s tendency to foster relationships with Congress will help us better explain (or criticize) the public actions taken by the White House.

This article is a good case study. Increased responsibilities for one guy (Peter Rouse) who tends to be better at dealing with Congress than another guy (William Daley) leads to a host of inquiries: Why the shift? Is this an acknowledgement that your disciplined executive style is a failure? What are the morale levels of White House staff? Did Congress specifically ask for this change? Can you continue to function if you don’t have a handle on congressional relationships? Should you even be talking to us right now? Can you justify the fact that you don’t use leaks as intentionally as your predecessor?

I have no basis for condemning these sorts of questions. I, too, am fascinated by the relationship between political product and back-room realities. But I am humbled when I realize just how difficult a thing self-justification is.

There are times when self-justification is, well, justified. After all, when someone makes unfair accusations, especially against a person in leadership, those allegations often must be answered with clarity and truth.

There are also times when self-justification proves that a person was correct, but it doesn’t remove the stain of learning that they were less than they could have been, as seems to be the case with Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky.

And then there are times when self-justification is a sign that someone is hiding something. Spouses everywhere are constantly grilling each other for information or accusing each other of wrongdoing, and self-justification is a defense mechanism to stave off accusations or to try and turn the tables, forcing the other person to admit wrong.

The simple fact is that human beings are egotistical, self-righteous creatures, and we will fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting sin. We are ashamed of our sin, but we use prideful tactics to cut short any suggestion by anyone else that we ought to be ashamed. We try to be dictators of our own life storylines.

Lives changed by the grace of Jesus, freely given, ought to be better at confessing sin. Self-justification should be used to honor Christ and reveal the truth rather than protect us from shame or guilt. If a roomful of White House reporters began demanding that you justify the things you are doing in your life, would your answers proclaim the gospel? Or would they proclaim your desire to be seen as faultless?

It is hardly a secret that conservatives do not approve of President Obama’s agenda. It is also no secret that most evangelicals are conservatives. Neither of these facts are problematic. What is problematic is how many in the church talk about the President of the United States.

I’m not thinking specifically of the “show me the birth certificate” controversy, or any other particular thing about the President. I am thinking in general of how evangelicals talk about President Obama. I will not write what I have heard him called, the names usually revolve around some variation of his last name that is insulting. I have heard him accused of being a closet Muslim, a closet Marxist, and I have heard Christians say that he is deliberately wrecking the economy in order to implement his radical leftist agenda. Such rumor-mongering and fear-mongering has no place in the church, and it is downright embarrassing that evangelicals participate in this kind of slander.

I’m all for evangelicals being bluntly against certain policies of the President and the Democratic party. But in our protest, we must always show honor to our elected officials. Paul writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Romans 13:1, 7). Barack Obama was chosen by the people of the United States in a fair election, but more importantly, he was appointed to that position by God. So when you talk about the President, be certain that you talk about him respectfully as one who has authority over you.

Here’s a good test you can use to see how your heart is toward our President. Do you pray for him? Do you pray that God will fill him with wisdom and insight? If you believe that he is not converted, are you concerned for his soul? Or when you talk about the President, is it mostly to disrespect him and to scoff at his policies? If your speech is normally disrespectful, you ought to repent from it. It is sinful, and you are bringing shame on the church.

By all means, vote your conscience. I encourage you to write your President and tell him, respectfully, about things that you disagree with in his policies. (I have written him before, and the response from his office has always been prompt and polite, even if I did not receive the answer I wanted to hear.) I wonder if the folks who are disrespectful have even bothered to write the President? I’d be willing to wager that most have been content with grousing over his policies with another disgruntled conservative. (That person probably hasn’t written the President either.) I pray that evangelicals will show the deference to the President that the office deserves, and I pray that whatever we say to others about the President, it will be evident to our hearers that we respect the man, that we care for him as a person, even though we may have deep differences with regard to our political beliefs.

Here in the modern world we are in the thick of the Republican primaries, and despite 2,000 years having passed, we still are not happy about taxes and government. Why are folks Occupying Wall Street and other cities in the USA? The protesters have many complaints, but it seems that the core of their frustration cannot be summed up any better than how James Carville summed it up in President Clinton’s ’92 campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid.” One of the major factors in an economy is the tax system, as the Republican contenders well know. Herman Cain, one of the current front-runners, has gained traction with the idea of eliminating the current tax code and re-writing it with a sort of flat tax. His is the 9-9-9 Plan: 9% for corporations, 9% for individual income, and a 9% federal sales tax.

I’d like to explore why his plan has gotten the attention that it has gotten. Particularly interesting to me is how many people are willing to support it despite the fact that almost no research has been done to see whether or not this plan is viable. People ought to be asking questions like, “How much revenue will this plan generate?” and “How will we implement a 9% federal sales tax on a national level?” and “What is an ‘empowerment zone’ and how do we decide where those should be located?” My point is this: If people are already jumping on this bandwagon, it is because Cain’s plan is currently striking an emotional chord with voters. It cannot be that they are voting on the facts of the plan because the necessary numbers are not being presented by anyone. (If anyone finds those numbers, I will be glad to amend this post to give those stats.)

What is it about the plan that is resonating with Republican voters? My opinion is that it comes from a misguided idea of “fairness.” Many Republicans make a big deal of saying that the current tax code is unfair because the wealthy bear a larger burden than the lower income folks. They point to the fact that almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all. Further, the Republican mantra is that if you tax the wealthy, then you essentially shoot yourself in the foot. That is, if you tax the “job creators,” then they will have less money to invest in companies that create jobs. Therefore, placing an extra burden on the wealthy has the effect of stifling the economy.

If there is anything that I would like my conservative friends to consider, it is this idea that it is somehow “unfair” to tax the wealthy more than the poor. Jesus himself said, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Luke 12:48). Is Jesus directly speaking to a responsibility to pay taxes in this passage? No, but I believe it applies for a couple of reasons. First, it is a general wisdom principle that I think can be applied to anything in life. This parable is about a governor who gives out money and demands an account. Notice that Jesus says, “whom they entrusted much” and “they will demand the more.” Who is the “they” if not the governing authorities? This principle indicates that as one grows more wealthy, so grows the burden of responsibility.

Second, I would like to take a very brief look at the economics of the Old Testament. I am not going to argue to implement the tax code of the Old Testament, as if such a thing might be found. Rather, I am going to pick out a few evident principles from the Old Testament. First, we should note that the Old Testament, especially the Prophets, have a consistent theme of advocating for the poor. In Exodus 22:25, Israel is forbidden from charging interest on loans to poor people. In Deuteronomy 15, the debts of the poor were to be released every seventh year. If the lender refused to do this, then God would hold the lender guilty of sin. God warns Israel that if they “oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty” (Proverbs 22:16), and God continually stressed throughout the book of Proverbs that generosity to the poor will lead to increased wealth, not loss (Proverbs 14:21, 31; 19:17; 28:27). I cannot find a single reference in the Bible supporting the idea that a country needs to take care to guard the rights of the wealthy, though there is warning against partiality in judgment (Exodus 23:3; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17). It is also worth considering that God sometimes commanded an offering for atonement that could not be altered, regardless of financial well-being (Exodus 30:15). That particular offering was a half-day wage for a laborer. However, God also allowed poor people to “pay” less in certain circumstances with regard to their offerings (Leviticus 12:8; 14:21-32). Was it fair of God to charge the poor less than He charged the wealthy?

If Christian conservatives would arm themselves with these two principles—1) The one who is given much has a greater responsibility, and 2) If we are going to play favorites, it is going to be toward the poor because they are more vulnerable—then we might be able to compromise on the tax code stalemate.

Is the flat tax ethical? I believe that the individual income tax certainly is. Nine percent is nine percent. That means the poor pay less and the wealthy pay more, but it is a function of percent of income. What about 9% federal sales tax? Here, we have to be very cautious. A flat sales tax means that those of lower income pay a higher percentage of taxes. The higher the sales tax, the larger the percentage that is gobbled up for the poor. This isn’t to say that a federal sales tax is automatically unjust: It simply means that we, as a country, need to be very careful not to place a larger burden on the poor. One remedy might be to limit sales tax on necessities: food, clothing, and shelter. Regardless of the solution, politicians ought to make it clear that their plan has taken special consideration of lower wage earners and that they are protecting their interests in their proposals.

A progressive tax system is also a good system, but as with any system, it can get out of balance. Is it currently placing a disproportionate burden on the middle class? Perhaps. Is the current system generating the necessary revenue? Not right now. Something needs to be done, but every politician and every citizen must keep this principle in mind: Nobody likes to pay taxes. Because of this, no solution will make everyone happy, but at least we can begin to talk about whether or not it is equitable.