Racism: What I Have Seen

Share

Over the past few days, our nation's attention has once again been turned to the topic of race. This time, it was because of violence that began when a group of white nationalists gathered in Charlottesville, VA for a rally. Counter-protests soon formed, and over the weekend 3 people lost their lives, including one woman who was hit by a car that drove through one of the counter-protests.

White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA (Aug 2017)

For many white Americans, this all may seem baffling. Some white Americans are still amazed that such hate still exists. Meanwhile, others still find a way to shift the focus and blame onto groups like "Black Lives Matter." Still others point to the decision made in Charlottesville to remove a Confederate statue a few months ago as the inciting incident.

But, events like Charlottesville are merely the tip of the iceberg. It's not as if racism hasn't been pulsing throughout our country this whole time. The reason so many whites have a difficult time dealing with situations like this, or only speaking up against racism when it reaches this level of obviousness is that we don't usually have to think about race because of white privilege. When you benefit from white privilege, it's also harder to see that same privilege. It becomes your culture and your worldview, and as such is difficult to notice until you have an encounter with other cultures and stories.

So, what I hope to do in this post is speak to my friends of European descent. I think one reason white people struggle to handle topics of race well is that we are not trained to see racism. And when we are smacked in the face with it, or when others ask us to give up some of our privilege to pursue an equal society, we tend to get uncomfortable or even defensive and hostile. So, in this post, I want to share a few of the ways in which I have seen racism rear its ugly head so my white friends can begin to get just a sliver of a taste of how racism remains present with us in every community.


So, here are a few of my stories. As a disclosure, most of my personal observations relate to racism as it pertains to the black community since those are the interactions my journey has taken me to. However, if you just ask around a bit, you can easily find others who can better speak about stories relating to Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or other cultures.

I also offer up that these are only what I have seen as a white male. Because of my own whiteness and status, I have personally experienced far less than my black and brown brothers and sisters, and even things that have happened in my presence I am less likely to notice because I am a white male. However, perhaps that underscores the point even more. If I have seen this much in a few short years as a white male, how much more is actually going on that others go through every day?! Anyways, here is what I have seen:

• Just recently, a local black church in our area was broken into and vandalized, including with graffiti of a swastika and the words "Trump" and "Satan." 
• I lived in small Texas town for about 6 1/2 years and served as a youth pastor for 5 years while there. Thankfully, our youth ministry was pretty diverse with near equal numbers of white, black, and Hispanic students.  Within my first two months there, we had 2 of our black students who were walking home after church on a Wednesday night and had a person from a neighboring church shout "niggers" at them.
• I've heard white members of a past church catch themselves using the N-word to refer to some of our black students.
• When we had a white student visit one Sunday, we had one lady tell my wife and I that she was happy to see that student and that we "need more white kids."
• I have gotten complaints from some church members that some of our (black) students would wear a backpack to church service, but never heard any complaints when white students would do the same.

There's also more subtle things I noticed:

• While many white members of past churches I've been to felt free to express their political opinions, including disparaging remarks about Obama, I can't say our black students (many of whom supported Obama) ever felt the same freedom to make political comments, likely because they felt in the minority and feared reprisal based on other comments they heard condemning their points of view.
• In Texas, "Juneteenth" is a holiday celebrating when slaves in Texas received word that they were free. While there are numerous events, parades, and celebrations for this holiday, and despite the fact that nearly all the black churches in town would get involved, I never heard any suggestions from our white churches should do something for Juneteenth. It either didn't matter to them or simply wasn't on their radar.
• When events like the Charlottesville protests or the Charleston church shooting occurred, many white churches do not even acknowledge such events during their worship, despite a willingness to bring up other non race-related tragedies in worship services. (Thankfully, my current church incorporated a time of mourning and prayer in today's service for the events in Charlottesville.) 

Then there's the history of towns I've lived in.

• Like most southern towns, the schools of a town I recently lived in were segregated in the past. The black school and the white school only merged in 1968, within my parents' lifetime.
• After desegregation in the late 60's and economic downturns in the following decades, my last town experienced the phenomenon of "white flight" as many (richer) white citizens chose to leave town in search of better (and whiter) pastures. This further hurt the city's economy and the many families of color who remained.
• As I would drive through the town in which I served as youth pastor, I quickly noticed a huge difference in the architecture of the churches in town. The largest, tallest, and nicest churches were historically white. Whereas most of the black churches in town were much smaller, less ornate, and looked more run down. Now of course, the measure of a church is not in its building, but in its people, but this noticeable difference speaks to the historic inequality that has existed in the incomes and opportunities between the white and black citizens of our town.
• Although segregation officially ended in the 60's, towns I have lied in are still segregated by geography. In my last city of residence, what is known as "the south side" is almost exclusively black (with a fair number of Hispanic families now as well). Incidentally, this also happens to be the poorest part of town with abysmal infrastructure. Roads are hardly paved, many lots are overgrown, and houses are older and smaller. Meanwhile, the students in my youth ministry referred to neighborhoods where I lived as "the white part of town." This did not necessarily mean that there were only white people in our neighborhoods (for instance, we had 3 black families on my street), but it was because it's where you found the white people. And in the past, these areas would have been exclusively white as African Americans would have been prohibited (by cost and by law) from buying or even renting these homes. Not surprisingly, these were the parts of town with nicer houses and better roads. I have seen this same phenomenon in countless cities I visit in central Texas as a part of my current job. Often, the phrase "wrong side of the tracks" has a very literal meaning, even in small towns of less than 10,000 people--and the side you are on is often partially determined by race.
• And an unofficial segregation still exists in the schools in that same county in which I used to live. Even though whites make up about 40% of the city's population, the city school district is probably 90-95% black and Hispanic students. So, where do all the white kids go? Well, they go to surrounding school districts that are supposedly "better" academically, even though test results don't always bear this out.
• But, the reputation of this school district as an academically poor school is also tied to its reputation as a "black" school. For instance, when one of my white friends who was a counselor at our school district went to watch her son (also white) play a basketball game at a neighboring school, the people doing admission automatically directed her to sit with the opposing team's section because they couldn't imagine a white person sitting on our side. There was an implicit assumption that our school (and basketball team) would be black and that a white player would not be playing on our team.

But before you just assume that this one town is some horribly racist town, realize that such instances of racism and privilege are common all over the place:

• One of the most eye opening experiences on race I've had came a number of years ago when I was in seminary. I was going on a school retreat (that doubled as a preaching class). During this retreat, one of my classmates, who is black, told us a story about an experience he had the morning he left to drive out to the conference site. We were reading several novels and books for the class, and my classmate still had to pick up one last book. So, he got up early the morning the retreat began and drove to a local bookstore. He arrived a few minutes before they opened, so he sat in his car and waited (since it was a cold January morning). Within a few minutes, he had a police officer come up and knock on his window. The officer began to interrogate him about why he was waiting around and what he was doing. Even though my classmate was also a youth pastor like me and had a legitimate reason for being there, he had an experience that I would likely not have, all because he was a black man wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Apparently a black man sitting outside a bookstore is planning on robbing the place because surely he's not there to actually buy books (sarcasm).
• As shocking as this is, it gets even worse. As we talked about this experience, another black student chimed in and asked, "Did the officer 'apologize' by saying that they had had a report of another black man in the area who matched your description?" My classmate who had been questioned by the officer replied by saying that that's exactly what the officer said. At this point, a third student (also a black male) nodded and affirmed that he's had the same experience (multiple times). Again, I have never had this experience, but all 3 of my classmates had (again, multiple times). And, it's not that these three were troublemakers or anything. All of them were pastors and had families and held good jobs before going to seminary. That evening, each of these three proceeded to share several of their stories of being pulled over or stopped by the police despite not doing anything wrong. For example, one was stopped and questioned intently by an officer when he was driving a van for a country music radio station he worked for (perhaps the officer thought the van was stolen since surely a black man couldn't work at a country music station--again sarcasm).
• This past fall, one of my interns at work (who was also a college student) told me a story about she witnessed a group of white males had shouted a bunch of racial slurs and insults at a female Muslim student on the college campus following the election of Donald Trump. This is in addition to an incident in which a black student was called a N***** on Baylor's campus.
• When I was searching for an apartment a few months ago, I did so with the knowledge that the options for minorities when it comes to buying and renting homes has historically been limited. There have been so many structural ways in which minorities (blacks in particular) have been prohibited from buying homes or renting homes in particular neighborhoods (read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein for more on this). And since the past impacts the present, this means that the sins of the past continue to impact the housing options and geography of today.
• When I was in school, we learned about the "big moments" as it related to race--slavery, the Civil War, Martin Luther King Jr., Brown v Board of Education--but there were so many aspects of our racial history that were never even touched. For instance, we learned about the GI Bill, but not about how most of the benefits of GI Bill disproportionately helped white veterans and left black veterans out to dry. We did not learn about the many ways in which our housing markets and neighborhoods were intentionally segregated. We did not learn how the 13th Amendment (supposedly banning slavery) left a big loophole allowing slavery as a punishment for a crime and that southerners in the post-Civil War era made up ludicrous crimes in order to arrest African Americans and force them to do work they had just been freed from. For that matter, we did not learn that racism was just as prominent in businesses and society in the north as in the south. We did not learn about the contributions of black employees at NASA in getting to the moon (as depicted in the film Hidden Figures). And worst of all, we were taught to view racism as an historical issue, one that largely ended during the Civil Rights movement. These are matters in which I am only now beginning to educate myself about. But, I am also actively seeking out this information because I've personally seen how racism is still alive and well. This means that most white Americans are still blissfully unaware of these historical (and modern) realities.

So, there are a few of my stories. The list could be much longer if I included the countless Facebook and social media posts and comments I've seen that have been racially insensitive. It could be much longer if I included the many in-person comments I've heard (including within the church) that demonstrate a complete lack of awareness and knowledge on the part of whites of how much racism has marred our country's past. And again, it would be much, much longer if I were not a white male and was actually the recipient of racism and bias.

I don't post these stories to badmouth anyone or to say that individuals guilty of racist comments or actions are always bad (some are very kind people who simply don't realize what they are doing). I post these stories to simply point out that racism and bias and white privilege do in fact exist today and that we cannot choose to inaction. And it's not just in random white supremacist rallies that happen to pop up. It's everywhere. It's in the north and in the south. It's in big cities and in small towns. It's in the world, and it's in the Church. And it's not merely a "few bad apples." Racism built our society. It laid the bedrock on which we now stand, and as such it continues to affect the present. Bias continues to be built into the social systems that benefit those of us who are white. We cannot ignore this anymore.

If you have your own personal stories you have experienced, I encourage you to share them. It's time for those of us who are white to stop trying to be "colorblind" and to realize that our society is not truly equal yet.  "Colorblindness" might be a great ideal to strive for, but as long as racism and inequality continue to exist, those of us who are white cannot afford to ignore race because doing so simply gives us permission to continue benefiting from a system that is rigged against our neighbor.

Share

The Johnson Amendment and a Diverse Church Life

Share

Yesterday at a National Day of Prayer ceremony, President Trump signed an executive order directing the government to "honor and enforce" protections for religious liberty. He also said this order would make it easier for churches and pastors to engage in politics so their free speech would not be "bullied" or "punished." These comments were in line with others Trump has made in the past about discarding the Johnson Amendment and telling the IRS to use "maximum discretion" before penalizing churches that get involved in political campaigns.

Trump signing his "religious freedom" executive order on May 4, 2017. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Admittedly, the actual text of the executive order does not actually change the application of the Johnson Amendment, but nonetheless, the general trajectory of this administration does seem to be to minimize or do away with it. And it's not too much of a stretch to think that Congress may act on this issue as well between the urging of Trump and the voices of some swooning conservative religious leaders. As such, Christians need to think intentionally about what such moves might actually mean for their congregations.

First, Christians need to recognize that the Johnson Amendment really does not pose a serious threat to their churches. The IRS has only investigated a few church violations of the Johnson Amendments in its history. There have been even fewer negative results as only 1 church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. One main reason for this is because the Johnson Amendment does NOT prohibit political speech from the pulpit or for pastors and ordinary Christians as Trump has often characterized it as doing. Rather, the Johnson Amendment simply prohibits any registered, tax-exempt non-profit (which many churches are) from endorsing a political candidate or participating in political campaigns of candidates (activities like donating church money to a political campaign). However, pastors and Christians are more than free to discuss political issues and positions. You can take positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, war, taxes, and other political issues from the pulpit all day long. You just can't say "this candidate is horrible" or "I endorse this candidate" or give congregants' tithe money to a campaign.

It's also important for Christians to note that the few investigations that have occurred have been opened against both conservative and liberal churches. So, when you hear Republicans like Trump depict the amendment as an attack on conservative religious values, please remember that this is simply not true. In fact, the original intent of the law was to target supposed communist funds flowing from non-profits into the campaign of Lyndon B Johnson's campaign rival.

The Johnson Amendment was proposed by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson

In short, churches have little to fear from this amendment. It's unlikely an actual violation will even get investigated (especially if you don't attend a megachurch with a famous pastor), and even if your church or pastor got investigated, it's even less likely that anything will come of it. But if it did, Christians would do well to remember that this would really only impact their tax-exempt status, not their ability to gather, worship, teach, preach, evangelize, or anything else.

All that aside, Christians need to think about this from another angle, namely the role of politics from the pulpit. After all, that's really what this debate is about.

Personally, even if Trump succeeds in repealing the Johnson Amendment, I strongly believe churches should still abide by its restrictions. Here's why:

When we allow pastors to start going beyond teaching general Christian principles or worldviews and let them begin advocating for specific candidates, parties, and policies, we run the risk of doing incredible damage to the health of that congregation. Let me give you an example.

A few months ago, I visited a church where the pastor decried "liberalism" as evil and as a sin in the middle of his sermon. This immediately turned me off for several reasons. First, his usage of "liberalism" was really nothing more than a scare word as the word "liberalism" is incredibly vague. What do you mean by "liberalism"? Are we talking theological liberalism, political liberalism, economic liberalism? Each of those are very different concepts and don't always go hand in hand. The use of that phrase was not substantive but simply a way to energize the rest of the congregation, who by-and-large held to conservative theological and political views, which leads to my second concern.

My second concern with the pastor's denouncement of "liberalism" is that it only served to further the uniformity and lack of diversity within his congregation. I don't personally consider myself a "liberal" or "progressive," but I tend to be a moderate who does happen to share a number of perspectives with liberals on some issues. As I listened to that sermon, I immediately felt excluded because the sermon's assumption (at least what seemed to be communicated) was that any liberal ideas (including political ones) were sinful. As such, I was to be viewed as an outsider to faith.

Now, if I felt that way, imagine how any number of my sincere, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, Christian friends who are much more liberal than myself would have felt sitting through that sermon. That pastor might as well have said, "Your faith is wrong and invalid. You don't really love Jesus or believe the Bible. You're not welcome here unless you repent."

Take that another step further. If we start having pastors condemn or praise specific candidates or politicians (haha, I said "start," when in reality I've sat through too many such sermons already), how is that good pastoral care or good church practice when a healthy church will hopefully have members who sit on both sides of the political aisle and who will vote for different candidates. Those members with different opinions will feel uncomfortable or maybe even be driven away from the congregation.

Even worse, what if a church donated tithed money to a political campaign. If there are members of the congregation who plan on voting for an opposing candidate, do you think they want the money they gave to the church to be used for a candidate they don't support?

At this point, I can hear some Christians say, "Well, if they want to believe differently they should just find a more liberal/conservative church to attend." But this is not how it ought to be! As we look at the book of Revelation, we see a picture of the people of God united together from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. The Kingdom of God is diverse. A few years ago, I heard a saying that aptly describes what the Church should look like: "Unity without uniformity; diversity without division."

Thankfully, many Christians agree with me that pastors should avoid becoming too political. According to Kimberly Winston of the Religious News Service, "A 2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement 'it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service,' and a 2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates." Nonetheless, according to research done by the Barna Group presented in the book UnChristian 10 years ago, one of the top perceptions of churches by those outside the church was that churches are "too political." Given the intensification and polarization of the political arena recently, I suspect that perception has not changed much in the past 10 years. It may be even worse now.

But this goes so much beyond the Johnson Amendment and politics. A few days ago, I blogged about how our lack of a corporate theology in the act of baptism reinforces homogeneous churches and potentially feeds racism in the midst of the Church. We so desperately need more diversity in our congregations!

Sadly, much of the way we teach and preach in churches is both the cause and symptom of this lack of diversity. Pastors and teachers within a church make polarizing, one-sided statements because there is no differing opinions within the congregation to put a check on them or to help those leaders think about different perspectives. At the same time, when such statements are made from positions of leadership, it also drives away any diversity that might happen to come through the door for a visit. It's an endless cycle of confirming uniformity, and this creates an echo-chamber of group-think.

So, if you are a pastor, teacher, or church leader (or even just a congregation member), please think abut your public speech within the church. How would your comments be interpreted or accepted by a Christian of a different political viewpoint, or a different race, or a different social class or country? Too much of what gets confidently declared as "truth" is actually more influenced by the micro-cultures we create within our congregation and community than it is by the Bible or God. So, whatever happens to the Johnson Amendment, let's be careful in our words and find way to increase cross-cultural dialogue and diversity within our congregations.

Share

A Christian Politic- Part 2

Share

Yesterday I wrote about the theological foundations of my political views. Today I want to speak more on why I see a need to bring my faith to bear on my politics in such a dense manner. As I briefly mentioned yesterday, a huge mistake I see my fellow Christians making is not bringing their faith to bear on "political issues." Or more precisely, not doing so in any consistent manner.

One of the most glaring examples of this inconsistency is the usage of the term "pro-life." The term has been used almost exclusively to refer to the abortion debate. Most evangelical Christians describe themselves (and rightly so) as "pro-life" because they seek to defend the innocent lives of unborn children who are killed everyday by abortions. I have no problem with this as I too believe life begins at conception.

However, the problem arises when those same Christians advocate policies that are decidedly "anti-life." The most obvious example is the frequent support of some Christians for the death penalty. Is it really possible to claim to be "pro-life" when you are simultaneously "pro-death"? This is further complicated when we consider that in most cases the death penalty does not save any innocent lives compared to life in prison. Research has shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent for violence, and the offender generally does not pose any more serious threat to society being locked up for life than being executed.

Another example of this inconsistency of applying "biblical principles" is the fact that some issues constantly get biblical treatment (abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom), whereas other political issues can be discussed at length by Christians without any reference to Scripture of faith (gun rights/control, immigration, war and diplomacy, poverty, economics, etc.) To that point, some Christians will say the difference between the two sets of political issues is that the Bible addresses the former but not the latter. How can we have a discussion informed by faith on topics on which the Bible is silent?

However, this is somewhat misleading. Most of the modern political issues we discuss in light of our faith are really not present in the Bible either. For example, modern democracies with freedom of religion did not exist in biblical times, so strictly speaking, the Bible is silent on religious liberty in the modern sense of the term. Likewise, the Bible does not specifically address abortion. Rather, we look at verses the suggest the dignity of life in the womb and apply those to our modern debate. Even gay marriage is really not in the Bible as the modern concept of a committed, loving relationship based on "same-sex attraction" is a far cry from what the Bible has in mind when it references "homosexuality" (see here for more on that). The truth is we constantly import our modern issues onto the ancient text in ways the original writers never envisioned. This is not a bad thing so long as we are mindful of the original context of the verses we use, but let's not naively (or deceptively) claim that we bring up the Bible for some political issues and not others because those are the only issues the Bible addresses.

A prime example of this is economics. Many Christians will refer to Marx or Keynes or Smith, or refer to ideological concepts like fiscal conservatism, trickle-down economics, etc., but won't broach the topic of Scripture. Ironically, unlike the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, the Bible actually has tons to say on the topics of economics and poverty. Jim Wallis has famously remarked on how a friend in seminary went through the entire Bible and cut out every single verse about the poor. The resulting Bible was a shredded mess because so much (at least 2,000 verses) had been excised.

It seems to me the real problem is the compartmentalization of our lives. We divide our lives into sectors. There is the work part of my life, the family part of my life, the leisure part of my life, the political part of my life, and then we also have this other fenced-in area--the religious/faith part of my life. Sometimes these sectors may overlap and bump against each other, but we as modern Americans do a good job of keeping each realm separate in our minds.

For instance, a few years ago I posted the following photo on my Facebook page to see how Christians would react:

In my post, I did not advocate for or against gun control, but simply made an observation that Christians rarely bring their faith to bear in this heated debate over firearms in America. Undoubtedly, seeing a picture of Jesus holding a handgun (with a child no less) makes many Christians feel uncomfortable. Now, had the figure been some rustic American man, few would have any issues with the picture. But for some reason, we can't even imagine Jesus in the same frame as a gun.

I suspect the reason this picture is so difficult to swallow is because we as American Christians have separated the gun rights/gun control issue from the sphere of faith. We reason that gun control is not a "religious" issue. Jesus never talked about guns, and neither does the Bible, so Scripture never even crosses our mind. Instead, we rely on arguments about the second amendment, mass shootings, the NRA, self-defense, and the like. Making guns a "religious" debate never even makes it as a blip on our radar.

However, this is artificial compartmentalization at work. I would submit to you that the gun issue is a religious issue because religion touches every part of life for a Christian. Jesus is not the Lord over some small cross-section of life called "religion" or "church." He is Lord over every part of life, including our politics and "secular" debates. That's the point of Jesus' incarnation. Jesus entered into human life, experienced all of human life, and sought to redeem all of human life, not just the "religious" parts. Our faith should be the lens through which we view all of life.

When it comes to guns (and many issues like it), it is a tragedy that so many Christians have never asked questions like "What would Jesus do?"--Would Jesus own a gun? Would he use a gun in self-defense? Would he beat guns into plowshares? Would he serve in the military? Would he hunt? Obviously we cannot answer these questions definitively, and our answers will likely be shaped by our own cultural preconceptions, but we must at least ask the questions. After all, Jesus would have an answer to these questions if He were walking on earth today. Therefore, we too as "little Christs" must attempt to ask and answer these questions in the most Christ-like manner we can.The Bible may not tell us directly if Jesus would own a gun, but we can examine the story of Scripture with an eye on Christian tradition and Christian community to help us to arrive at a reasonable answer.

Here is my point: Christians need to stop being so schizophrenic with our application of our faith to political issues. Even when the Bible does not directly speak to a topic, we can still be informed by its story. We can still elicit values from Christian tradition and the Christian story to assist us in making decisions. I will cover the practical sides of this more in-depth in Part 3.

At this point, I hear some objecting that such an approach would allow Christianity to be easily co-opted by a political ideology. "Mixing faith and politics is not a good idea," they say. I will address this concern specifically in tomorrow's post, but here I'll just mention that I think the concern is overstated.

Although faith being co-opted by political ideology is certainly a risk of my approach, I believe that risk is actually greater when we only apply our faith to politics in a haphazard manner.  Indeed, we already have a problem when evangelical Christians can be considered a reliable support base for one political party. When we only apply our faith to our pet issues, that means some other ideology will fill the gap to guide our decisions on all other topics. We align ourselves with the political party that seems to agree with us on the "religious issues" (abortion, same-sex marriage, religious freedom), but then blindly agree (or are forced to agree by the "lesser of two evils" argument) with that party's platform on all other issues whether the policy proposals are Christ-like or not. The result of dividing life into sacred/secular or religious/non-religious is to doom ourselves to do and say things of which Jesus would never approve.

Furthermore, the reality is you always run the risk of getting your faith hijacked by political ideology any time you engage in the political system. The only way to avoid this is to remove yourself from the system altogether. This is the Anabaptist approach, but I suspect most American Christians feel that not engaging politics at all is irresponsible and a waste of an opportunity God has given us to shape our world through the form of democracy.

However, if we took the view that every action carries religious significance, and that Jesus is Lord over every political issue, then we suddenly find ourselves in a place where we are uneasy with both the Left and the Right. We find ourselves agreeing with one party on one issue, but then prophetically critiquing the same party on a different issue. If we ground our politics in our citizenship in God's Kingdom and approach every issue guided by heaven's politics, then we would actually have a counter-cultural Christian response to the politics of our country.

So as you listen to debates in the coming weeks and decide what candidate and policies to vote for or against, here is my request: Ask yourself how your faith impacts each decision. Use some holy imagination and put Jesus in your shoes. How do you think He would vote? Even if the issue at hand seems far removed from the concerns of a first-century, Jewish man, just remember this--Jesus was a real human who tread real earth in a real culture filled with its own real political complexities. That is the whole point of Jesus' incarnation. God is not some cosmic idea floating transcendent above all our daily concerns. He became a human being and dealt with all the mundane and secular matters we deal with.

Therefore, ask how your faith relates to those seemingly "non-religious" topics. What if our faith does have something to say about economics, immigration, guns, terrorism, climate change, and the like? After all, if Jesus had been born in our country He would have had to decide how to engage our political process as well (or whether to participate at all). There is no issue above or beyond the reach of our faith. All we have to do is ask the right questions.

[In Part 3, I wrap up this series with a post examining the limits of what Scripture can and cannot do (or shouldn't do) when it comes to informing our political decisions.]

10 Thoughts on the Homosexuality Debate

I don't talk very frequently about this topic, particularly online, since raising the issue can quickly descend into emotional irrationality and unhelpful stereotypes (from both sides). However, the past year has seen an unprecedented acceleration of the conversation. I now hear or see news stories daily  regarding homosexuality. Numerous stories in recent months have especially forced the topic into the spotlight. From the first openly gay NFL player, to the current back and forth in Alabama's court system, to the mayor of Houston subpoenaing a pastor's sermons, and yes, ultimately to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriages. With this issue bubbling to the surface, I decided to pen a few of my thoughts here.

That being said, I am just listing a few highlights of where I currently stand. As with any online opinion, it can always be misconstrued and taken out of context. Each of the following points could easily be an entire (lengthy) blog post itself, so please be cautious before you rush to judgment of what is listed here. The best way to sort through such a complex issue is in the flesh, but nevertheless, here it goes:

1) Same-sex marriages will become legal in the U.S. 
 There, I said it. It is no longer a matter of "if" this will happen, but simply "when." Many people (myself included) suspect the Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriages later this year. For Christians, we need to come to terms with this and accept that this is where our culture is. Even if it does not happen this year, it will happen. Just in the past decade I have seen an incredible shift in opinion among the population regarding homosexuality. And this is not my mere opinion, you can check out the facts here as well. Rather than living in denial or nostalgia, Christians need to accept this reality and discover how to live faithfully within it.

2) We need to recognize that 2 marriages are at work in "marriage."
When bans against same-sex marriages are struck down, many will cry that the sky is falling. "Marriage has been redefined and has been polluted." However, we need to recognize that there are 2 aspects to any wedding/marriage. There is the civil/contractual aspect, and the covenant aspect. All a Supreme Court decision will do is redefine the LEGAL/CIVIL definition of marriage. Certainly this will be a symbol of the overall attitudes of our culture, but is does not mean that the covenant of marriage has automatically been redefined as well. I am not married because my wife and I signed a paper in front of an authorized witness, even though this is what the government calls "marriage." I am married because we pledged ourselves to each other in a covenant relationship before a community of Christian believers in the sight of God. I personally am not fond of calling same-sex unions "marriages," but knowing this distinction allows me to accept civil marriages for gays and lesbians while not fearing that my church's definition of covenant marriage has been altered. What is really at stake currently is whether the LGBT community may enjoy the benefits and responsibilities government grants to those who are "married" on paper. And I, for one, am not willing to go on a witch hunt to deny other sinners these civil entitlements because they drink too much, are prideful, or view pornography.

3) The Old Testament doesn't really help us sort through the current debate.
 When you ask Christians what Bible verses condemn homosexual behavior, they will typically point you to the story of Sodom and Gamorrah as well as to Leviticus. The Mosaic law identifies male on male sexual behavior as "an abomination," and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to confirm this condemnation--entire cities destroyed after the men of the city wanted to have sex with Lot's male visitors. However, I don't use these passages anymore. In fact, if all we had were these Old Testament passages, I could easily accept homosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation.
The problem is our modern concept of "sexual orientation" did not exist in the Old Testament world. Rather, the homoerotic behavior described in the Old Testament was of a different nature. Namely, men typically had sex with other men to shame them. In this sense, homosexual behavior in the Old Testament can be better thought of as sexual assault, rather than as a loving, committed relationship as many envision it today.
Sodom and Gomorrah are a perfect example of this. They wanted Lot's visitors not because of their lust, but because of their violence and lack of hospitality. They wanted to shame and defile these visitors, rather than show them kindness and welcome. If this seems an odd interpretation to you, simply read the rest of the references to Sodom or Gomorrah in the Old Testament. The sin of these cities is not identified as "homosexuality," but is named as violence and injustice. Simply check out Isaiah 1:9-17 where the the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that they have "blood on their hands." In contrast, the remedy is not chastity, but is to "learn to do right; seek justice, defend the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."
Likewise, the verses about homosexuality in Old Testament law are surrounded by many other verses that we ignore or chalk up to simple cultural instructions that don't apply to us. It should also give us pause when we see that activities like wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, touching dead bodies, and eating shrimp are called "abominations." So, be careful in calling homosexual acts "abominations" unless you stand ready to do the same to your neighbor at Red Lobster.

4) The New Testament leads me to still say homosexuality is a sin.
Before my more conservative friends start getting spitting mad and formulating a response to my anticipated heresy, let me also say that at this moment I still believe homosexual practice is a sin. While I find the Old Testament less than helpful, I cannot get around the verses in the New Testament that address homosexuality. In particular, Romans 1 is a sticking point for me. Here, Paul connects idolatry to men and women engaging in homoerotic behavior. While I have read the explanations and interpretations from LGBTQ advocates, I have simply not found any of those arguments convincing. Additionally, Paul's words do seem to better address our contemporary debate for two reasons.
First, Paul describes the behavior as giving up their "natural" function for something "unnatural." The Greek word Paul uses here is physis, and as far as I can tell it means something embedded within the created order of the world, not simply a cultural conviction. Second, Paul describes the cause of these homoerotic sexual acts as "lust of the heart" and "degrading passions." This seems to be addressing sexual passion, not sexual violence. Indeed, there were individuals in Greek and Roman culture who seem to have preferred homosexual intercourse and who pursued same-sex relationships for lustful/romantic reasons. Perhaps Paul was addressing the custom of adult men having sexual relationships with young boys for pleasure or to instruct those boys about sex, but this doesn't really explain Paul's mention of female-female sex as well in Romans. To me, it seems like Paul is saying there is something about the very act of homosexual sex that runs contrary to nature and to God's will. If this is the case, we are left with the decision of whether to believe the Bible on this topic or to believe our current cultural convictions.

5) Same-sex attraction is NOT a sin.
 While I still maintain that homosexual practice is sinful, I do not believe that simply having same-sex attraction is sinful. I believe there are people who identify as lesbian or gay that will never be able to become straight. Being attracted to those of the same sex is no more sinful than me being tempted to lust after women. The temptation is not the sin. Even Jesus was tempted (perhaps even with same-sex attraction? Heb. 4:15?). The problem is when we choose to act on those temptations--that is what is sinful. The church needs to admit that it will have gay and lesbian members. In fact, we need these people, just like we need married and single straight people. We just need to be cautious in accepting acting upon those attractions.

6) Genetic predisposition does not mean a lifestyle is acceptable.
 One common argument I've heard in defense of homosexuality is that science shows that certain people are predisposed to have same-sex attraction. To be honest, I have not studied the science of homosexuality as much as I should have, but I also find this line of reasoning lacking. To sum up my thoughts here, I think saying it's okay to be gay because of genetic reasons is essentially genetic fatalism. However, we get into dangerous territory if we say that our genetic makeup should determine our behavior in life.
For example, I've read studies about the "warrior gene," which is a gene that might predispose a person to violence. Now, is it acceptable for an individual to kill another human simply because their genes may predispose them towards that action? Of course not. So why do we rush to genetic fatalism when it comes to homosexuality?
Similarly, the argument that "God made me this way" falls apart. Just because your biology may drive you towards certain behaviors does not mean that "God made you that way." Human biology is corrupted like the rest of human life. We should be careful of using the "God made me this way" argument unless we also want to say that God made people with mental retardation and fatal birth defects those ways as well. But in the end, whatever the consensus on the biology of homosexuality ends up being, it cannot be the deciding factor in the rightness or wrongness of a behavior. That moral choice must come from an outside source that is informed, but not determined, by biology.

7) Use caution when arguing for "right side of history."
 With the impending court decisions and growing cultural acceptance of the LGBT community, I have heard the phrase "be on the right side of history" countless times in the past few months. Those inside and outside of the church have urged for complete acceptance of homosexuality because you want to make sure you're "on the right side of history." After all, you don't want to be looked back on as we look back at those who supported slavery and racism.
However, this is an emotional argument more than anything else because it can cut both ways. This same argument has also been used to justify horrible atrocities (most famously by Hitler who saw his Aryan race as the future humanity). While I do want to make sure I am not defending injustice or oppression, I also recognize that sometimes the masses get it wrong. Societal acceptance of an idea does not make it right. Likewise, history does not always progress in a just direction (simply consider that the 20th and 21st centuries have been the most bloody in human history). As long as we live in a fallen world awaiting Christ's return, both history and society will sometimes go astray. So please, drop the "right side of history" crap and actually have an educated, logical discussion.

8) This is one of most crucial debates for church in this generation.
 With that invitation to have a discussion, I also believe that this will be one of the most important discussions within the church of our generation. The reason I believe this is because we are debating over whether or not a particular act is a sin. Therefore, we are either going to get this one very right or very wrong. Either we will end the church's perpetuation of injustice much like we did with slavery decades ago, or we will tragically declare a sin to be an acceptable part of holy living. Either way, the stakes are high.
As such, it is imperative that we not rush into decisions and that we thoroughly study the matter. We need to examine the whole of Scripture to discern what it says and does not say. We need to keep up with the cutting edge of scientific and social research on the issue. We need to have conversations with those actually struggling with (and living out) same-sex attraction.
One of my biggest fears is that we have become too polarized on this issue and have stopped talking with the other side. Instead, we rely on stereotypes and straw-man arguments. Those who advocate for full-acceptance say that calling homosexuality a sin is an injustice akin to racism and constitutes "hate-speech." Those who hold to traditional beliefs dismiss LGBT arguments as part of a "liberal/homosexual agenda" constructed by those who don't believe the Bible.
But the issue is so much more complex than that. For example, I still hold that homosexuality is a sin, but I also do not see my actions as equating anything near racism. I also have struggled long and hard over my own personal beliefs and actually know people who identify as gay or lesbian. To label me a bigot is to dismiss my own story and journey I have been on. Likewise, my friends who also believe homosexuality is a sin need to make friends with the LGBTQ community and listen to Christians who believe differently than them. Again, the stakes are too high to stop listening.

9) The only acceptable gay lifestyle would be in the covenant of marriage.
 Although at this moment I still believe homosexuality to be a sin, I want to maintain the humility to admit that at some point in the future my views may change. Perhaps as I continue to study Scripture, pray for guidance, engage culture, and listen for God's voice I will come to the decision that there is nothing inherently wrong with male-male or female-female sexual expression. However, if (and that's a big "if") I ever came to that conclusion, my sexual ethic would still look very different from the world's. If I could declare gay or lesbian sexual expression as acceptable, I would also be clear that the only appropriate context for this sexual expression would be in the context of a covenantal relationship/marriage. The same standards that currently apply to heterosexual relationships would also apply to lesbian/gay relationships, namely "chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage." Those in same-sex relationships would be expected to abstain from sex and lust until they are married, and would be expected to remain faithful and flee adultery within marriage.
 Ironically, this is one reason why I'm not quick to jump on the cultural bandwagon regarding homosexuality. As I look at my culture, it quite clearly does not reflect Christ's desire for sexuality. Sexual expression outside the context of marriage is becoming increasingly the norm. Whether heterosexual or lesbian/gay, such sexual activity outside the covenant of marriage is clearly in violation of God's desires. In returning to point number 7, this dishonoring of sexuality in our culture makes me all the more cautious to simply follow societal voices that call me to accept homosexuality as a sinless lifestyle.

10) The Church must love the LGBT community and its shift focus to more pressing sins.
 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Church needs to love and accept the LGBT community. They are still humans and many are Christ-followers. Even when we still confess that homosexuality is a sin, we must do a better job of embracing the person. The church's default position has been to reject both sin and sinner. But these are people the church needs in its ranks.
I admit this is a tough thing to do, but perhaps one thing that will help is if the church becomes a little less sex-obsessed and shifts its focus to more pressing sins. While it is true that "sin is sin," most of us can agree that certain sins are more destructive than others. Honestly, when it comes down to homosexuality or lust and infidelity, the latter two are the more significant in my eyes. As noted in the previous point, it is possible to have a loving, committed gay/lesbian relationship. However, love, trust, and commitment are all abolished in acts of adultery. Likewise, cohabitation presents a much bigger problem to Christians and churches (I think) than does homosexuality. Similarly, divorce rates in the church are just about as bad as in the world. If we really want to insist on talking about sex and marriage, then perhaps we should start with the problems of lust, pornography, adultery, cohabitation, and divorce, matters of which the Bible is abundantly clear, unlike homosexuality which is a little ambiguous at times in the Bible (for reasons named above).
Or perhaps the church could demonstrate to the world that is does care about justice. If the church were more vocal in its opposition to racism, violence, poverty, domestic abuse, and oppression then it would be much harder to label opposition to homosexuality as "hate speech." If we became "pro-life" in all matters, not just on abortion, then perhaps outsiders would be convinced that we really do love all people.

-----

So there it is. Again, there is so much more that could be said under each point, but that's the short of where I currently am in my journey. Maybe some of these thoughts will help you sort through your own struggles (or maybe not). Feel free to post your opinions and comments below. Just make sure to maintain humility and avoid demonizing others. Thanks!

A Church for the Outcasts

I am writing this article on Christmas Day from the family violence shelter where I work . When I’ve told people I would be working the morning of Christmas Day, many have made comments about how unfortunate that is. And while it is true that it would be nice to spend actual Christmas morning with my own family, I also do not have many regrets about working today. As I pass by our clients this morning and wish them a Merry Christmas, I am reminded that it is so easy for our society to neglect those on the margins.

I was recently discussing with one of my colleagues how we don’t get many requests at Family Abuse Center for presentations during December. I joked it was because no one wanted to think about depressing things like domestic violence and abuse during this time of year that is filled with lights, carols, and cookies. But, I believe there is some truth to that comment. And perhaps we should do more reflection on these topics, especially at this time of year.

The truth is not everyone can celebrate the holidays with their families, and some don’t even have families to celebrate with. The mothers and women at our shelter here won’t be spending their Christmas with parents, siblings, or other relatives. Some of them don’t even have any real family to speak of.

And yet, I am observing something beautiful this morning. Although placed in less than ideal circumstances, these women and children are becoming family to each other. They are joking and laughing with each other. Kids are playing with new toys thanks to the generosity of countless community members who donated gifts this year. We even busted out Legos and games for the adult clients to play with.

And I’m reminded that this perhaps is a better reflection of Christmas than all the lights, sights, and smells. Christmas is not about spending time with family, per se. It’s about a King who called us all together as family. It’s not about gifts or shiny trinkets, it’s about a Savior who was born for the lowly, poor, and broken.

As we begin this new year, I pray that the church would remember this truth. As she marches out from Christmas, may her feet find themselves situated in the footsteps of a Lord who remembered the outcasts of this world. May she love the loveless and downtrodden. And may Christians not just do these things when it is convenient for us, but also when it costs us something. May we have the mind of Christ every day of the year. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Do I Fast?

I was recently asked by a friend whether or not I fast. After looking at her oddly since the question seemed to come out of nowhere, I answered that I do sometimes fast. She then asked me what I thought about fasting. My short answer to her was that I don't fast because it is somehow the "holy" thing super-Christians do, or because I am trying to get something from God. I choose to fast when I feel I have no other choice with which to respond to particular moments in life. In other words, I fast when it seems to be the natural response.

My theology of fasting has been greatly shaped by the work of Scot McKnight. I really began to develop a deeper understanding of this ancient Christian practice when reading his book on fasting from The Ancient Practices Series. In McKnight's words, fasting "is the natural, inevitable response of a person to a grievous sacred moment in life [emphasis mine]."

As he explains, biblical fasting begins with an encounter of a "grievous sacred moment." It is this experience that prompts a person to fast. A person responding to such events only receives benefits after they respond to a prior event (and even then blessings are not guaranteed to always happen). McKnight consistently argues that the reaped benefits are not the point of fasting. We do not fast in order to get closer to God, to change our circumstances, or to get our prayers answered (although these things often do happen when we fast). Rather, we fast because we feel led to do so by our circumstances. We fast because it seems like the natural reaction to particular moments in our lives.

So, yes I do fast, but only when I feel like it is natural for me to do so. I fast during those "grievous sacred moments." A loved one dies. A friend is sick. My ministry faces challenges and frustrations. A church is divided by conflict. A country is burdened by bloodshed and war. These are the moments when I fast. I fast because my soul grieves. I fast because my body does not feel the desire to eat. I fast because I need more than bread in those times--I need the words of God.

I feel like fasting has always danced an awkward tango with the evangelical church. I've heard many evangelical leaders praise and demand fasting because "it is the only way to get close to God or to see your prayers answered" (which, as I just stated above, is not the real purpose of fasting). At the same time, I get the feeling that most evangelical Christians don't really know what to do with fasting or don't really know why they should do it. They get the impression that it is a "holy" experience they should do, but they don't know why and tend to avoid it because it seems too ancient or odd.

I think a large reason we evangelicals don't get fasting is because we've divorced the "body" and the "soul." We think the "real" part of us is our soul, which we think will fly off to heaven one day, leaving our body behind. In contrast, fasting is an act very solidly rooted in bodily experience. Why practice fasting when I can't really see how this bodily act will impact my soul, the "true me"?

However, once we realize the error of this thinking then we can better appreciate the practice of fasting. We are more than a soul. We are soul and body. These two cannot be divided or separated. This is the whole point of the promise of the resurrection. One day, God will restore our bodies back to us. Our bodies do matter, and what we do in these bodies matters as well because bodily practices do impact the spirit. They are united.

So, yes I do fast, and it probably wouldn't hurt if you did too. However, don't fast in order to get something. Don't fast to manipulate God into blessing you or answering your prayers. Instead, fast when life demands it. Fast when you encounter those "grievous sacred moments." Fast when you are in pain. Fast when you are surrounded by death and suffering. Fast when your prayers seem to go unanswered and you feel abandoned by God. Doing so brings our body into harmony with what our soul is experiencing. So, the next time pain and tragedy smack you in the face, don't censor your body, but allow it to suffer as well and open yourself to the healing and grace found in Christ.

Scandals in the Family

In the past few days I have seen several posts on Facebook and news stories concerning the scandals and accusations surrounding Seattle pastor, Mark Driscoll. In case you missed it, a fresh round of accusations has come his way and seem to be coming to a head. Some are the same old charges of misogyny, while newer concerns have also been raised about mismanagement of church funds. The most recent revelations have led the Acts 29 network to kick Driscoll and his church, Mars Hill, out of their fellowship, Lifeway publishers to pull Driscoll's books from shelves, and church members and others to protest outside the church demanding for Driscoll's resignation.

Pastor Mark Driscoll

For a number of Christians, this news no doubt excites them. I know numerous Christians who have criticized or made fun of Driscoll because of his theological stances which they viewed to be sexist or misogynistic. I myself would tend to agree and have never been greatly impressed by Driscoll's overall demeanor. So, now that things seem to be falling apart for Driscoll and his church, it would be easy to those who have criticized Driscoll in the past to pat themselves on the back and say, "I told you so. It was just a matter of time."

But now is not the time for gloating or for seeking vindication. Rather, I think now is a time for weeping. It is becoming clearer that the ministry built by and surrounding Driscoll has not always been very ethical. In fact, this is the central reason Acts 29 gave for removing Driscoll and Mars Hill from their membership. But this is not something to celebrate.

The previous two churches I attended have experienced scandals and church splits. I can say that this is not a joyful experience. While some of us may not care for the ministry approach (or sins) of Driscoll, we cannot forget that there are many members of his church who are caught in the crossfire of these controversies. Whether their pastor resigns or simply has his credibility damaged, this congregation will suffer. And, if some of us are right in asserting that he has failed to minister in an ethical or godly way, then we should also grieve that this congregation has not been served well for years.

But even beyond grieving for this particular congregation, incidents like this should cause us to weep for the entire Church. "There is one Body." You and I are connected to Driscoll and to his ministry whether we like it or not. We serve the same Savior King. We were baptized by the same Spirit. We are part of the same Body. And so, when one minister sins, even on the other side of the country, his (or her) sin impacts us all. It damages the credibility of the Church in the eyes of the world. It hurts our brothers and sisters in Christ. And it creates a distraction from the central mission Christ has given the Church.

And so, even though I personally don't care for Driscoll, I must suppress the urge--the temptation--to gloat or celebrate. As part of the Body of Christ I need to grieve. After all, I am called to love Driscoll and his church, despite the shortcomings. So, let us grieve for this situation and seek healing and forgiveness because the love of Christ compels us to do so.

"But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it." 1 Cor. 12:24-26

Faithfulness or Ambition

I'm at an interesting point in my life right now. I finished my master's degree right at a year ago now and have thought a lot recently about future plans. At the same time, many of my friends have also recently finished their degrees and are moving on to new jobs and new cities. And yet, I am still here in Marlin working two jobs, one of them being the part-time youth pastor job I've have for 4 years now.

I would be lying if I said there weren't days when I wonder if it's time to move on and pursue a new job. After all, there are many reasons to start a new phase in my life. I could consolidate into a single (better paying) job. This would also free up time to spend with my family. I could find myself at a bigger church in a bigger town with bigger opportunities. I have a better degree than four years ago which could open up new possibilities. And, we could move closer to family to have free babysitters (aka grandparents).

However, despite all the reasons to leave, we are still here. Why?

Because I want to believe in faithful ministry. Yes, it would be easier to pack things up and seek a new, great opportunity for me and my family, but part of ministry means considering those to whom you are actually ministering. In the case of my church, my family feels a need to stick around a little longer. When I came, the church had seen 4 pastors in the previous decade and as many youth and children's pastors. Needless to say the church has grown accustomed to pastors coming and going every few years.

But I can't help but wonder if this is good. Sometimes I wonder if pastors are truly driven by God's call on their life or if they are driven more by ambition.

I suppose some could accuse me of having a lack of ambition. "Why don't you go pastor your own church? You've got a degree, do something with it! You've got so much talent, why waste it on little old Marlin?"

But I know my own heart, and the truth is I have too much ambition. I lust after those dream jobs. I dream of becoming a famous pastor, writer, teacher, etc. It's too easy for me to salivate after a community that would "actually respond". Yes, there is plenty of ambition in my heart, but I know what I also need is faithfulness.

Too many pastors are adept at the art of "church-jumping." They see an opportunity that is attractive (and just so happens to pay better as well) and find themselves resigning from their current church because "God is calling them" to such and such a church.

Now, I'm not saying that every pastor who leaves a church is like this. I believe there are many genuine calls from God to move. However, I also know it can be very easy to confuse God's voice with our own lusts, whether they be for power, prestige, or money.

Why do I stay in Marlin? Call it an experiment in faithfulness. I want to believe that God is found as much in the weak and little places as in the big and powerful places. I want to believe that amazing things can happen when we stick it out through the tough times and remain faithful. But most of all, I want to be very wary of "following my heart" before following Christ.

I'm sure one day God will call me and my family to someplace else, but when that time comes I want to make sure of a few things. I want to know for sure that it is God's voice and not simply mine, and I want to know for sure that I have done all I can do in my present location and ministry. And perhaps the American church could benefit from faithfulness like this. Maybe we as pastors need to stop bowing to the celebrity cult our churches want and bow down the the Messiah who conquered sin and death with a cross--a tool that stands for weakness, humility, and foolishness.

The Christian lust for power...

I've been struck recently at how much of American Christianity is driven by a love of power, instead of a love of the Gospel. How much of what we claim to defend because of "theology" is in fact simply us striving to gain or retain power? For example, it seems that many of the political issues out there that Christians get involved in have very little to do with the Bible when you get down to it. Why do we so anathematize homosexuals and virtually ignore the sins of domestic abuse, murder, drug use, racism, pornography, and economic abuse within this same country? Why do we prefer certain sins to the near total neglect of horrors and evils like hunger, poverty, and genocide? Sadly, I think it has much more to do with demonstrating our power and influence within society. Sure, things like homosexuality are wrong, but why focus exclusively on these issues? Perhaps it is because everyone in society knows murder and poverty are wrong. However, one way in which Christians are unique is in their sexual ethic. Thus, if one wants to gain political or social influence and recognition (while keeping it away from the secular culture), the easiest way to do so is by pushing hard for the point that is unique to your group. Therefore, evangelicals may have pushed so hard against abortion and homosexuality in part because victories in these arenas are readily perceived as victories of Christians over the "evil culture."

A few days ago, I read an article about Obama's decision not to hold a prayer meeting at the White House this year for the National Day of Prayer. Many Christians have been greatly upset about this. I find this somewhat ironic. Many of these critics are the same people who so fiercely claim that Obama is not a Christian. So, if he's NOT a Christian, then why are holding him to Christian standards? You can't have it both ways. Yet, beyond that issue, why is it so important whether there's a prayer meeting in the White House or not? Surely it's not because we believe our prayers will be less effective (or do we?). In fact, such a public setting may even go against Jesus' sayings on praying in private places like your closet. The real issue is sadly less over prayer and more over control of society. The article I read remarked that over the past 8 years, the Dobsons have gotten to sit in seats next to the President. When Obama decided not to have a prayer meeting, he also decided not to make an appearance with prominent evangelicals. This led evangelicals to perceive (and I think rightly so) that they have lost influence over society, and this is a scary thought. However, if we follow the words of Christ and Paul, we will learn to be content in all situations, even when we're persecuted and stripped of power (Phil. 4). Following Christ will also bring a recognition that political or social power and influence is not where the wisdom and power of God is found.

Or to examine the issue from another angle-why are we as Christians so quick to look for Christian celebrities to hold up and honor? I remember during the Super Bowl hearing many Christians say that they were cheering for the Cardinals because "Kurt Warner is a Christian." That may be, but why not cheer for the opposing team because their second stringer lineman is a Christian. For all we know, Kurt Warner may have been the only Christian on his team while the other team could have had dozens of Christians. The only difference is that Warner was well-known. And perhaps, had the Cardinals won that game, Christians would somehow have felt empowered because a "Christian" just won the Superbowl. We would be able to say, "See, Christians are important," or "Christians are cool and can even win the Superbowl." This "celebrity-seeking" also reminds me of countless women celebrities whom have been hailed as good Christian role models: Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Miley Cyrus, and most recently, Miss California. Yet, ironically, whenever we point out their "Christianess," they always seem to fall into scandal and the world just laughs at our claims.

I think that we so quickly run to these celebrities because they are in positions of power in society. Additionally, since they are "Christians," and we are "Christians," then we are able to somehow share in their honor when they succeed. Sadly, we've chosen to idolize these influential Christians in hopes of gaining prestige and power in our culture instead of seeking out the mature Christians who may be lesser known (or unknown).

If we were to truly take Paul's words in 1 Cor. 1 to heart, we would recognize that God's wisdom is not found in earthly power, honor, or influence. It is found in weakness and in the shame of a cross. If only we as the Church could learn this lesson and learn to trust in God. Until then, the world will continue to rightly observe our folly at grasping for power and laugh.