Even though Barack Obama has received overwhelming acclamation and support, many people are still wondering, “who is this man?”  And one of the key issues being asked about is Barack’s faith.  Stephen Mansfield in his newly released book, The Faith of Barack Obama, attempts to address that question.  Mansfield has written an honest and balanced account of Barack’s faith addressing the many questions and concerns people have about Barack’s life and faith.

Knowing a candidate’s faith is essential.  According to Mansfield, the book is written in the belief “that if a man’s faith is sincere, it is the most important thing about him, and that it is impossible to understand who he is and how he will lead without first understanding the religious vision that informs his life.”

Barack’s story of faith isn’t typical of the American experience. For instance, if Barack ascends to the presidency he will be the first American president to do so having not been raised in a Christian home.  Instead, he spent his early years under the influence of an atheist mother, a step-father’s folk Islam, praying at the feet of a Catholic Jesus, and influenced with a humanist’s understanding of the world that sees religion merely as a man-made thing.

In Barack’s adult life, his spiritual journey toward Christianity also defies pattern and refuses to fit in a clean theological box, although his coming to faith typifies the pattern and process that many Americans have journeyed. He came to faith not so much to join a religious tradition, but rather to find belonging among a people. In Barack’s memoir, Audacity of Hope, he describes his religious conversion as such: “it came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear.  But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s spirit beckoning me.  I submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

Barack’s beliefs are tailored to and reflect the diverse religious experience of America.  For Barack, “Christianity is but one religious tree rooted in the common ethical soil of all human experience.”

Within the book, Mansfield effectively addresses the lingering questions of Barack’s brush with Islam and whether or not he is a secret Muslim.  Mansfield’s answer is a unequivocal NO.  Also Mansfield dissects and seeks to understand the religious soil of Trinity United Church of Christ and Jeremiah Wright, the environment where Barack’s faith first took root.  Mansfield discovered from first hand experience that Trinity’s a mixture of both good and bad.  According to Mansfield, his experience transcended more than just the couple of Jeremiah Wright bombastic video clips on YouTube that have come to define the religious culture at Trinity.

Barack not only forged and developed his faith during his adult years, but he also allowed his faith to intersect with his political life.  What became distinct of Barack Obama was that he unapologetically brought his faith into the public square and within Democratic politics.  Mansfield writes about Obama’s speech to Jim Wallis’s progressive Sojourners organization, “With the speech’s tone of moderation, its welcome of faith into the public square, and yet its insistence that people of faith conduct themselves in public debate according to democratic values, it became what Obama had intended: a call to reform, a redefinition of religion’s role in American political life. Soon, his words were debated on cable news programs, heard by tens of thousands on YouTube, and argued fiercely on Web sites from every political perspective.”

Mansfield’s book takes a fair and balanced tone to the discussion of Barack’s faith.  Mansfield is honest with some of the lingering questions and concerns that still swirl around Barack, especially concerning Barack’s view of abortion and his voting record on partial birth abortion.

As you take the time examine both candidates this election year, I would encourage you to pick of a copy of The Faith of Barack Obama, and take the time to get to know a facet of a man that you may have not have already known.

• Review of Book on Obama’s Faith Puts Author in Hot Water
• Barack Obama sets the record straight
• Obama Hires New Religious Affairs Adviser

Feel free to reply to us, link to our feed and follow the convention along with us. The goal here is to think Christianly about the DNC together. Let’s see how this little experiment turns out.

• Tweet Tweet!
• An Open Call
• Hi, this is Stalin. Can you pray at my convention?

We all have something to say about the upcoming presidential election and all of the issues surrounding it. The problem is, we don’t all know what we’re talking about. In this episode of Christ and Pop Culture (which features possible the most awkward opening to the podcast yet!), Ben and I talk about the best way for Christians to engage in political discussion. The debates will only heat up in the future, so this one’s important!

Also, we count down out Top Five Craziest Things Heard in a Political Conversation, and debut brand new music from Soberminded.

Subscribe to us in iTunes by clicking here. While you’re at it, give us some good feedback! We’ll love you forever!

We love feedback. If you’d like to respond you can comment on the website, send an email to christandpopculture@gmail.com or best yet you can leave a voice-mail at 206-888-2471. We would love to respond to feedback on the show, so do it now!

• Podcast #25: Speaking of Narnia…
• Podcast #26: I Am [Not Using That Stupid] Iron Man [Cliche]
• Podcast #25: Should Christians Cast Down their (American) Idols?

This is akin to the captain of a cruise handing out polls to passengers entering his ship. “We all know this cruise is going to Hawaii. How do YOU think we should get there?” it might read. The silliness of the metaphor is perhaps overly reductionist, but I believe it accurately portrays a problem in the cultural mindset. After all, we think singing and dancing talent can be determined by votes- even if later successes and failures do not bear that out!

We as people seem to think our personal beliefs are general, “guideposts,” for truth, even on objective realities about which we have no certain knowledge or expertise. In other words, we do not necessarily say, “I believe it, so it must be true.” Instead, our mantra might be, “If I follow my personal opinions, my life will be valuable.” The implication here is not that people always assume the world is whatever they believe it to be. Instead, they believe following their own preferences, though sometimes imperfect, will ultimately be good.

Many mega-churches try to latch on to this trend. Willow Creek and its disciples issue polls, find out what people want, and try to fulfill those preferences in the church. They seek to be the best from among several life choices, so that they are merely the logical outcome for individuals whose goal in life (though often unarticulated) is to pursue their desires. George Barna’s book REVOLUTION is, once again, the logical extension of this mindset in a changing culture.

The obvious problem is that people and their desires change. Is church doctrine and purpose really so flexible that it can submit to the desires of the masses? What happens when the masses desire a church without denouncement of immorality? Without understanding of sin? Without proclamation of the gospel?

Real Christianity demands submission. It demands acceptance of a truth outside ourselves, a truth unmoved by personal preferences or opinion polls. It demands that the pathway of life be heavenward, rather than some meandering journey directed only by the guideposts of preference. It demands acceptance of our inability to determine objective truth without being told by God.

How should this understanding of culture impact our lives as believers living in a opinion-obsessed culture? Here are a few ideas.

1. In our personal lives, we as Christians should progressively submit ourselves to truth.

We should NOT pick and choose the Christian doctrines or emphases we most prefer and enjoy. Yes, the Catholic church is far more developed than evangelicals in areas of art, aesthetics, philosophy, and culture. And yes, mega-churches have much more exciting Easter programs. But that does not make their theology acceptable! We should live in submission to the wholeness of God’s Word, constantly reforming ourselves to better reflect His desires, which ARE objective truth.

2. In our church life, we as Christians should craft church culture to conform to the guidance of Scripture, and to communicate the truth of Scripture to congregants in a proportional way.

By this I mean that while doing what the Bible says is of central importance, it also important for a church not to emphasize something more or less than Scripture does- liberation theology and Hyles-Anderson fundamentalism are two quick examples that come to mind. Instead, church culture should both submit to God’s Word corporately and assist Christians in reforming themselves to submit to God individually.

3. In our evangelism, we must present the gospel as an alternate worldview, and not merely highlight its benefits and rewards.

True submission is an entirely different paradigm from pursuit of personal desire, and we must make clear the separation when we share the gospel. It’s great that Christianity gives you hope and purpose, but if that’s all it is then there are many alternatives. Real Christianity is acceptance of a larger truth, not merely choosing a personal pathway to fulfillment.

Glorification of individual preference is an old concept, but our current culture raises it to heights not experienced since the glory days of Rome. As Christians, we must constantly recognize its powerful influence on the decision-making processes of the individual, and carefully and clearly call them to an entirely different and, ultimately, entirely better life.

• Should We “Vote with Our Dollars”? Part 2
• What Do We Truly Like About American Idol?
• A Theology of Twitter

What’s most important, though, is that Christians remember to glorify God in all of life, including this area of politics. Today I thought I’d take a moment to share a few areas in which we can do so.

We should glorify God in our political stance
Christians differ on various political issues, but we need to be clear about one thing: voting for primarily selfish reasons is sinful. Sure, to an extent we may wish to vote based on our pocketbook, but whether or not a candidate will benefit me is far from the sort of thing that should be foremost in our mind when we vote. Instead, we ought to ask questions like, “What is best for the defenseless?” and “What will enable the church to have the freedom to further the gospel?”

We should glorify God in our political strategy
I’m not making any specific claims here. All I’m saying is that Christians need to think hard about whether or not it’s alright to vote for the lesser of two evils. Is your strategy to stay home in protest? Think long and hard about that decision. Don’t take it lightly. Voting for the independent wild-card candidate? Great. You’d better have some really good reasons. Also consider the political strategies of those we support. Don’t let them get away with deception and slander. Let them know what you think about their policies and if possible use your vote as motivation for them to stop.

We should glorify God in our political conversation
We can learn much from our fellow Christians when it comes to issues of politics. Let’s face it. This is all very complicated. The more one thinks about it, the more one is tempted to simply throw their hands up and quit. But don’t. Work through it with others. Be honest. Tell them who you like, why, and what your reservations are. Most importantly, don’t get upset at others if they differ in their views. Show grace and love to those you disagree with. They might even be right. Acknowledge the possibility of your own fallibility.

We should glorify God with our political hopes
This presidential race is serious, but it’s not that serious. Presidential candidates can be good, but they can’t be our savior. They can’t solve the sin problem. They can’t end wars. At the end of it all, we’re still suffering from the same problems. We need to acknowledge that not only is the president incapable of solving all of our problems, but that we already have a guarantee from our heavenly Father, who has promised to save us from the death that is to come. Wars, poverty, pestilence, and injustice will only last so long, and then He will come for His church.

Commit in the midst of this political season most of all to pray for the Lord’s return. Whether it’s a Republican or Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, in the end Christians must pray the same prayer they’ve been praying for 2000 years: “Come quickly, Lord Jesus!”

• Podcast #23: Speaking of Politics
• Chuck Norris can kill you with his eyebrows. Vote Huckabee!
• Should We “Vote with Our Dollars”? Part 1

“While we are not experienced or trained in any way to hold office, or knowledgeable enough to tell you who to vote for, we are recognizable and popular, so vote for us or the candidate we support.”

Or, perhaps more simply:

“You enjoyed my role in (fill in the blank with a popular film), so vote for this candidate.”

I do not think we can minimize how telling it is that so many actors hold office or directly influence who does. Even more disturbing is how readily we take it for granted that celebrities play a central role in most elections. The reduction of everything in our culture to entertainment has dramatically affected the political process. In the current political race, one specific example of the blurring of entertainment and politics has particularly bothered me. Chuck Norris has been campaigning for Huckabee, endorsing him and appearing in commercials. Why would a washed up, typecasted “star” of marshal arts b-movies influence the way anyone votes?

In 2005, a website called Chuck Norris Facts sprung up around the idea of compiling ridiculous and hilarious “facts” about Chuck Norris. The site quickly became an internet fad, culminating with the actor appearing on television to read his own top ten favorite “facts.” The fad, which is now all but dead, was the last time Norris entered into the public’s awareness in any significant way; that is, until he began campaigning for Huckabee. With this background in mind, we can assume that the logic of Norris promoting Huckabee probably goes as follows:

“You enjoyed his internet fad, now vote for the candidate he supports.”

What does this tell us about the way Huckabee views the politically process and us as voters? Does he believe he will win votes from people who want a funny president? Does he believe that it is a good idea to equate his political beliefs with absurd “facts” about Norris? Does he believe that the decision to vote for a candidate should be based on the politician’s sense of humor or celebrity endorsements?

I’m not trying to assert that politics must always be serious. The issue is not whether or not we can laugh while discussing politics or endorsing a candidate. The issue is that we have developed a culture of humor and satire (as I’ve previously discussed) that stifles, trivializes, and reduces rational political discourse into entertainment. Laughing is a good thing, but we must always keep in mind what is at risk and why it is important. In November we will be voting for the person who will have the power to affect people and events all over the world, from war-torn Iraq to Darfur to our own economic “crisis.” Deciding who to vote for is not easy, especially this year. In order to vote wisely we need time, knowledge, and the resources to sort through the various candidates and their stances. We need our presidential candidates to be presenting themselves and their issues in a way that encourages us to think critically and discerningly, even if this means that we aren’t entertained.

• “Chuck Norris Approved”
• Four Exhortations for this Political Season
• Why Vote When You Can Laugh? The Daily Show and Complacency

A new form of “disciplinary” action has been approved for Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana that involves quick probation time for first-time offenders. “Shock Probation,” as it is called, is an attempt to scare people straight by way of the court system. A New York Times piece summarizes it as follows:

“For many a first offender, the worst part of prison comes in those shocking first days behind bars. Stunned by the strip search on entering, the frightening, unfamiliar vastness of the prison and the long incarceration stretching ahead, the new inmate is overwhelmed. On the theory that the first taste of prison may have at least as much curative effect as the full dose, a few states, including Indiana and Ohio, have quietly been practicing what they call ’shock probation.’”

After serving only 30 or 60 days of their sentence an inmate can be released with the hope that they are thoroughly reformed. The results have been as “shocking” as anything else, proving to be rather effective in both Ohio and Kentucky. What shocks me, however, has nothing to do with the results of the project but its lack of interest in justice. This probationary method only further reveals the shift in our culture - which happened a long time ago it seems - from justice to reform. We are no longer a culture interested in justice, in making people pay their dues and debts. But we are now a society interested in second chances, and third chances even. On the surface this sounds like a good thing, but I’d like to argue that it is not.

When a society shifts away from the necessity for justice to an interest in second chances we do not get less crime, but more. When a man knows that selling heroine can get him 30 days in prison and then a possible release date he’s a little less hesitant than he was when he thought the sentence was more severe. Fighting and debates over the death penalty, and now this brand of probation reveal a nation that is soft of crime and big on cheap reform. I am not just shocked by this lack of justice, I am appalled by it. And I should be, for the Bible holds that it is the government’s job to uphold justice (see Romans 13).

Where is the justice in this case? It walks out the prison gates along with the criminal. And as the two leave one smiles, and the other dies.

• Podcast #9: Football - America’s Gladitorial Spectal?
• Podcast #13: The Little Show of Horrors
• Podcast #11: Does the Emporer of the “The Kingdom” Have No Clothes?

Of all the negative affects modern media has had upon the political process and elections, perhaps the most disturbing and dangerous in my opinion is the way satire has become our dominant form of political discourse. Satire has long been a significant part of a society’s expression of political opinion. Political cartoons are about as old as cartoons themselves. I am not saying that satire itself is bad for politics; but what happens when the dominate way people engage, learn about, and take a stand on political issues is through satire?

In Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, he makes the claim that the medium of television is naturally suited for entertainment, and therefore everything you put on television will eventually resort to entertainment as a chief end. When it seeks to educate, TV entertains by teaching us only what is “interesting”–and usually with a catchy tune; when it seeks to present facts or news, TV entertains by dramatizing and glamorizing; and when it seeks to discuss political issues, TV entertains with satire.

Consider the fact that two of the most important (influential at least) shows on television which deal with politics, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, are both satires. If you doubt the influence of Stewart and Colbert, just contemplate the fact that Colbert’s
I Am America (And So Can You!) is on the top of the New York Time’s best sellers list right now, with less than a year until the presidential election. What book are people turning to for political guidance? The one written by comedian and TV celebrity, Stephen Colbert. In addition to these shows, we have Michael Moore’s films, satirical shirts, bumper stickers, slogans, etc… Lets, face it politics are boring and laughing is fun.

Alright, so satire is funny and popular, but you might ask, what about the “real” news? CNN and MSNBC? Or what about when people have conversations with family and friends? Surely satire is contained to Comedy Central, YouTube and bumper stickers!

Certainly there are times when viewers watch shows which are genuinely informative, and people do have meaningful political conversations still; however, I can’t help but wonder how often these “serious” political engagements are free from a satirical attitude. I would imagine that even when most people watch “real” news shows, on CNN or MSNBC, they create their own running satirical commentary (out loud or in their head), filling in the humor that the shows fail to provide. And when they talk to friends or family about politics, I would wager that the issues and arguments they express are often carry the language and tone of the Daily Show.

If satire has always been a part of the political process, what’s the big deal if it has become the main way we engage politics? The danger I believe is not in the satire itself, but in the way that it makes us feel as if we are being politically active when we laugh. When we laugh at political satire it is as if we are voting or protesting. A commentator (the comedian, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert…) points out an issue satirically and by laughing we agree with them and enter into a chorus of laughter across the country.

Laughter is powerful. When we laugh we speak out into the world; it is an action. We are doing something. Reading a book or watching a strictly serious news program is typically a silent affair. But satire allows us to literally voice an opinion. In addition, laughter has the tremendous effect of trivializing serious issues and powerful figures. Laugh at a tyrant and he seems to lose all his power for a moment. We feel as if we are doing something about a problem by mocking it, or more specifically, laughing as someone else mocks it, when we are only being entertained. The danger then is that people will stop at laughter (and I personal know many who have done just this). They might have a strong political belief, but the cathartic effect of satire expunges them from any desire to change anything about the world.

Politics is distressing and boring; people need a way to both express their frustration about the way the nation is run and also have a good time doing it. And since we’re all incredibly busy, it would be nice if this political expression wasn’t too time consuming or costly. With satire we can feel as if we are taking a political stand with a minimum investment of time or energy, all while being entertained. Perhaps the best way to bring a nation to its knees is convince its citizens that they are being politically responsible when they’re merely laughing on the couch.

I’m not advocating a ban on the Daily Show or satire in general, but it is my sincere hope and prayer that we would be discerning about how we engage politics. If we think our government is being unjust we have many ways to seek change and I believe we are obligated to act (read some Old Testament books of prophesy for God’s opinion of unjust governments); however, we must remember that all the effective methods of change are costly and are usually not particularly entertaining. In the end I would rather have a nation full of people who support a political system I am opposed to than a nation of people whose political action begins and ends with laughing as Jon Stewart points out the latest foibles and follies of politicians.

• Chuck Norris can kill you with his eyebrows. Vote Huckabee!
• Four Exhortations for this Political Season
• Russert as Gentleman

Government’s basic job is to create a lawful and orderly society. However, laws and societal structures are imperfect, so people and their government are continually trying to figure out ways to solve the problems and imperfections. I want to describe for you the basic ways that is done, and then challenge you to think carefully about your contribution to that process.

To solve a societal problem, there are only two basic approaches. One is the top-down approach, and the other is the bottom-up approach. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses.

The bottom-up approach has to do with citizens trying to heal an area whose policies have failed, pragmatically or morally. So, an environmental group is a bottom-up approach to fixing environmental problems. Church-run addiction recovery organizations are a bottom-up approach to healing addictions in a better way than the government does.

Meanwhile, the top-down approaches to the same problems are environmental policies, addiction recovery programs, and the like.

Note here the interaction between the two groups. They need each other, but they fulfill different roles. The role of the top-down group is to set orderly policy. However, they are often somewhat deficient because they are beholden to a wider constituency. They are subject to state and federal laws, and must protect the rights of a wide array of groups with each of their policies.

Meanwhile, the bottom-up group is passionately committed to one point of view, and is always trying to sway public policy in its’ direction. The top-down group needs the bottom-up group, because it does research and advocacy and healing action that the government does not have the time or focus to do. Often, the best public policy comes from healthy interaction between the two groups, when each understands the other’s role and place in the process.

My soapbox is this; I think Christians have a problem with taking their passionate personal politics –things that can only be fixed in a bottom-up sort of way- and assuming that their vote can only go to a candidate who agrees with their bottom-up politics. This is a false construction, because a government official is elected to do a top-down job, not to advocate for a bottom-up group.

So, when a politician asks for votes, Christians often ask the following questions: Is he a Christian? Where does he stand on abortion? Where does he stand on illegal immigration? Where does he stand on homosexual marriage? Where does he stand on the war? Where does he stand on use of the Confederate flag? Where does he stand on gun control? And so it goes.

I do not think those are the healthiest questions. I think the standards we should have for our top-down officials are these: Is this candidate likely to make societal order healthier? Do they have experience and a good track record in that area? Can my bottom-up advocacy interests interact well with this candidate? Will the candidate make good policy decisions? Do they understand good governmental policy?

Now, here is where I get controversial.

From a top-down perspective, to me, the abortion battle is over. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and no government official can push it back in. We will not end abortion without a massively scaled reformation in the moral structure of the United States.

As a result, I do not think it is wise for Christians to be single-issue voters. We should not make abortion a litmus test for our vote.

Hear me out on this. I am not suggesting that we stop supporting pro-life causes, or staffing Crisis Pregnancy Centers, or advocating required ultrasound machines in abortion clinics. Those are all valuable bottom-up approaches, and I think we should increase those things.

However, I do think we should stop saying we will not support a candidate (or an entire political party!) on the basis of their perspective on a small number of moral issues, rather than on their effectiveness as an administrator. Instead, we should use the election period to be discerning about which candidate will most effectively administer an orderly society with good policy choices.

The powerful thing about this understanding is that it gives a healthy forum for policy debate. If an administrator is committed, first and foremost, to good policy, then they will hear both sides of an issue. When he does, the two sides know that they have to focus on why their perspective is healthiest from a societal perspective, rather than arguing about whose moral worldview is better.

So on abortion, as I mentioned, I do not think that voting into office dozens of yes-men who are pro-life is a good approach, because pretty soon they screw up various other policy areas, the public gets sick of them, and they get kicked out. And the abortion problem remains.

Instead, we need officials who realize that abortion is not a legal problem you can solve through changes in the law. It is a moral problem that can only be solved by bottom-up groups proclaiming a different moral perspective.

However, if those groups can show that abortion creates serious detriments to societal health (a case that can easily be made), then a government official can create an environment for those groups to work in. He can see the importance of requiring free use of ultrasound machines in abortion clinics (which statistically does far more to reduce abortion than electing a pro-life president ever has!). He can support the legitimate mission of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. He is, in essence, working in tandem with the bottom-up groups- he works for a healthy society, and they work for their individual issues. And he can do all those things without being a committed pro-life candidate.

Christians need to stop pretending that a foolish administrator who agrees with their moral system is the best thing for society. Instead, they should use their votes to support someone who will make the legal order stronger and wiser, so that there is a safer environment in which to address societal ills.

The great Augustine of Hippo once wrote to a judge named Macedonius regarding some criminals. Augustine’s goal was to advocate against a penalty of death, even though he acknowledged that Macedonius had the right to give the death penalty. He said this:

“Your strictness is, therefore, beneficial. Its exercise assists even our peace. But our intercession is beneficial as well. Its exercise modified even your strictness. You should not object to being petitioned by the good, because the good do not object to your being feared by the bad.”

Augustine understood the separate roles of the judges (government officials) and the intercessors (interest groups). The one has a role of enabling a lawful and orderly society; the other has a role of advocating and healing. For Christians to have true value in whatever free society we inhabit (oppressive societies are another discussion), it is imperative that they seek wise administration and openness to advocacy from government officials, rather than dogmatic commitment to specific moral perspectives.

• Sermon on the Hill
• The moral crisis of American sports
• Welcome to Politics

I’m not holding this against Mike too much. Christians sometimes say great things just short of the perfect thing, and I think that’s what happened here. But I think this is the sort of thing we can learn from. What do you think? Anything else Huckabee should have said? Like the gospel?

• Mike Huckabee On Marriage And Submission Of Wives
• Who Do Evangelical Leaders Support for the Presidency?
• Sea-World’s Sentimental Secret