The Left Pew

Have You No Sense of Decency Sir?

2010-03-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” (Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy during Senate hearings where McCarthy accused Army officials of harboring communists, June, 1954)

Biblically, believers are commanded to not seek their own interests but rather to pursue the interests of others (cf. Phil 2. 4). Also, in the face of oppression, we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mt.5:44). Yet, we are also called to defend those who are the victims of injustice (Ps. 83:3). The martyred German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called for the church to defend those who were the victims of injustice, whether they were members of the church or not. Biblically, it seems, that the reason one can pursue the interests of others without fear of oppression is that one should be assured that Christ and his followers are also looking out him.

Which brings we to a recent spate of attacks by FOX News commentator Glenn Beck on the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a ministry committed to Christian peace and justice by combining faith and progressive politics to strive for social justice. Last week Beck told his audience that if their pastors teach about social justice that they should leave their church and report the pastor to church authorities. His reason is that that “social justice is a perversion of the Gospel” and “a rallying cry on both the communist front and fascist front.” Beck has also called Wallis a “communist” and his attacks have also fueled WorldNetDaily, a conservative news website, to claiming that Wallis is a “longtime socialist,” “founder of the far-left magazine, Sojourners” (which he is) and former leader of the Michigan Students for a Democratic Society (which he was not).

In defense of Wallis, he is certainly in the progressive tradition. Progressives generally seek political, economic, social and moral reforms which seek to address systemic injustices in society. Wallis’ latest book, Rediscovering Values, is an examination of the abuses of Wall Street and the current economic crisis that focuses on the greed and avarice of the banking and financial industries and calls for moral-based forms of regulation. Wallis does not claim to be a leftist, Democrat, or socialist, but prefers to describe himself as part of the “moral middle,” a group that does not align itself politically to any party but considers the biblical imperatives for particular issues. It is a perspective captured in the title of a previous bestseller, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it. Wallis is pro-life (a conservative issue), but also notes that being pro-life needs to extend to issues of health insurance, good schools and environment (more liberal issues). Of note is that, historically, progressives came from both parties, with notable Republicans (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette) and Democrats (e.g. Woodrow Wilson) among its champions.

What Beck has sought to do is control the definitions of terms like “social justice,” and “communist.” Beck and WorldNewsNet (in calling Wallis “far-left”) does not define the terms, but rather uses emotional language to paint Wallis as someone odious to their audiences. Relationally, any moderate Republican, people like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush, would all be “leftist” in comparison. Wallis, to his credit, has vowed not to personally attack Beck and has offered to discuss his ideas of social justice. Beck has responded to Wallis’ offer by stating…

“So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond — my time, well, kind of like God’s time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I’m not sure. But I’m going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that’s great. I love it. But just know — the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over…”

Now I can point out that Beck’s own Church of Latter-day Saints sees social justice as essential to Mormonism. I can also note that Beck’s attacks are based on his idea of the separation of church and state, all the while he supports conservative revisionist-historian David Barton to use church influence on the state if it serves conservative ends (apparently progressive people of faith are not allowed to bring their faith into the pubic square). As the Center for American Progress notes, “Beck does not distinguish the difference between imposing one’s religious views on others and acts of civic or public engagement based on faith.” This is not an isolated tactic. On March 11th, at a forum at Cedarville University where conservative Marvin Olasky (editor or World Magazine and author or Compassionate Conservativism) met Wallis in a forum on biblical responses to poverty, Olasky continually tried to tie Wallis to socialism (he used “equality” defined as equal redistribution of wealth) and read a passage from a fictious “Sojourner’s Bible” where he interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan in socialist terms and attributed this to Wallis and his organization. Wallis, to his credit, not only refuted Olasky’s claims but did so in a way that was much more gracious than how Olasky (and more recently Beck) have been treating him.

Here is my point—where are the brethren standing up to Beck for his slanderous attacks on Wallis and his perversion of a concept that is central to the Scriptures themselves? To his credit Albert Mohler, conservative President of Southern Baptist Seminary, has challenged Beck’s attack on social justice. However, who will stand up to Beck on behalf of Wallis? Beck’s ruthless attacks, both now and in the future, can only continue if he is provided cover by conservative religious leaders that will tolerate (i.e., passively endorse) these attacks. Where is Rick Warren, James Dobson, or other prominent conservative religious leaders? I have a very difficult time believing that Beck would continue his attacks against Wallis if conservative people of faith would simply say that they disagree with Wallis’s theology but the personal attacks are both uncalled for and violate the spirit of grace that we, as Christians, are called to exhibit. Failure to do so provides Beck the tacit assent he needs to continue his campaign of slander.

To close let me cite the confession of another German pastor, Martin Niemoller, in a speech he gave in 1946 on his failure to address the oppression of the Nazis.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Bipartisan Bifurcation

2010-02-18T05:36:00.000-08:00

Two weeks after Republican Scott Brown was elected to the US Senate, President Obama, speaking to the Democratic Congressional leadership announced that “the election of Scott Brown gives the Republicans a 41-59 majority in the Senate.” The statement was obviously directed at his party to act like a majority and govern in a way that they had not managed to do in the 13 months since gaining control of both houses of Congress.

Earlier this week moderate Democratic Senator Evan Byah of Indiana announced that he would not seek re-election this fall, noting that he no longer enjoyed serving and stating that the virulent partisan atmosphere in the Senate was like daily “going to war.” Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, responded by noting Byah was just running scared and feared losing this November like many other Democrats of late (a statement that seems to confirm Byah’s basic point).

Yesterday, the Washington Post column by Ezra Klein noted that several private economic and market watch groups had concluded that the Obama stimulus package has, indeed, been successful. David Moody of the New York Times wrote, "Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative." Of course you would never know this listening to conservative media outlets who consistently run some story of a small town mayor who spent some infinitesimal amount of stimulus money for some ridiculous project or that a sign was put up along the road announcing that a project was paid for by stimulus money.

Next week the President will host a meeting of Congressional leaders from both parties to work on a compromise to the stalled health care bill. This meeting will occur in the shadow of recently released corporate earnings reports by the five leading health insurance companies announcing record profits for the last fiscal year, a 56% increase over fiscal 2008. These earnings coming at a time when many of these same companies raising premiums on their policyholders. Ironically, the health care bill that was passed through the Senate in December 2009 is not fundamentally different than one proposed by the Republicans during the Clinton administration. The only difference seems to be that now the Democrats are in the majority and any reform would be seen as a victory for the Democrats.

It is no surprise that bipartisanship in government, it seems at every level, is virtually impossible. The frustration that most Americans feel about this situation is expressed in some of the latest job approval rating of Congress. According to a recent CBS / New York Times poll 75% of Americans disapprove of the job performance of Congress; Gallup places the number at 78%. The gridlock in Washington and that often characterizes state and even local government has become poisoned by the self-interested ambitions of individual politicians and political parties. Two observations would seem to highlight.

First, when the Democrats had a 60 vote majority in the Senate it seemed that anything they wanted to do was virtually guaranteed unless any single member sought personal political gain over the intentions of the group. This is exactly what happened as majority leader Harry Reid had to court every vote from moderate Republicans and rogue Democrats to try and get a bill passed. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) held out his health care vote to procure a 45 million dollar deal for his state. Joe Lieberman has lately made a career out of holding out his vote on nearly every important issue, a tactic that get him constant press coverage and spots on virtually all of the cable channels and Sunday morning political commentary shows.

Second is that government is no longer about governing, which use to mean promoting the general welfare, but about politics which is a game more concerned with winning and losing. In such a climate one cannot be bipartisan for in doing so the majority party would tend to receive the majority of credit. In essence, it is politically better for a minority party to stall legislation than to work with the majority. Failure to pass legislation will be perceived as weakness by the electorate and have favorable consequences for the minority in the next election cycle. This certainly seems to be the strategy of the Republicans who recently have become the “just say no” party in hopes of significant gains in the November mid-term elections.

The problem, of course, is that there are significant issues regarding the public good that have to be addressed and must be addressed now. Health care cost, by all projections, are predicted to continue to rise, a problem which will hamper the economy. The national unemployment rate is approximately 8% not counting those who have given up looking for work. The federal deficit continues to rise and cannot be controlled, let alone paid down, simply by reducing spending. As the population ages, the demands of Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursements will even further strain an already bloated federal deficit. This will require hard choices regarding where to find revenue from both sides of the aisle (and does either party, but especially Republicans, have a vested interest in raising taxes?).

The early 20th c. journalist and essayist H.L. Mencken summed up the current situation for us when he wrote, “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.” Has our seeming insatiable appetite for spectacle lead to politics being more fascinating than good governance? Has our own desire to promote self-interest lead us to continue to tolerate, even venerate, politicians who only promote theirs? Has the fear and insecurity that current economic conditions or the threats created by a “war on terror” that can never end made us so self-focused that we fail to consider each other—and has this fear and insecurity been manipulated by others to promote their own selfish gains?

The preamble to the Constitution begins “We the people.” In the Gettysburg Address Abraham Lincoln noted that we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Government exists to promote the general welfare and the common good. Lincoln, in his first inaugural addressed, said to all Americans that “we must not be enemies” and to appealed to the “better angels of our nature.” Unless “we the people” begin to think in terms of the common good, not simply our own self-interest, will be never get representatives that will be compelled to act in the same way. We cannot simply “throw the bums out” (as many Tea Party members advocate), for the problems noted above will just change sides of the aisle. Historically, real changes to government in our country are bottom-up; grass roots movements that reflect the character, not simply the anger or fear, of the people. As the words of the proverb state, “where there is no vision [beyond ourselves] the people perish.”

Big (Baby) Blue

2010-02-02T18:36:00.000-08:00

On January 21st the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reverse a 63-year-old ban preventing corporations from using their profits to either support or oppose political candidates. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, voting along ideological lines, the conservative justices noted that the decision declares “unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.” While the decision still prevents corporations or other public entities from giving funds directly to candidates, it now allows such entities to give unlimited funds to promote or oppose any candidate or position in the best interest of the corporation. In all fairness this decision MAY also allows labor unions and other non-profit entities the same access (I explain MAY below) but I will stick with corporations because a) they have a lot more money, b) they have been granted special status, and c) I am pro-labor. The conservative opinion of the Court noted that limiting the contributions of corporations represented a “ban on free speech inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution.” In effect, by protecting corporations right to freedom of speech the Court declared corporations as persons and therefore guaranteed rights under the Constitution.

While the Court voted away 63 years of precedent (which seriously questions some justices pretentions of judicial restraint), the tactic of bestowing personhood to corporations has a long history among pro-business conservatives. In 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad the Court settled a case as to who had the right to determine and assess taxes on the railroad (Southern Pacific Railroad won the case). Of interest in this decision, however, was a head note included in the opinion by a Court reporter, a former railroad president J.C. Bancroft Davis which stated: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” With a stroke of the pen Davis wrote corporate personhood into the opinion of the Court in this decision.

Oddly, the Court had ruled no such status for corporations. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, in a handwritten note which can be found in the National Archives, states that nowhere in the decision does the Court grant personhood to corporations. After the decision, however, corporate lawyers quoted the head note when arguing before the Court and conservative justices (many ideologically prone to side with corporations) eventually did write the corporation as person idea into precedent. Prior to 1886 the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “rights” only to individuals, other artificial entities chartered by the state (e.g., corporations, unions, churches, etc.) only had privileges, not rights—privileges that could be revoked if the entity violated its charter. The Davis note and subsequent opinions by the Court moved corporations to the status of having rights while other entities (e.g. labor unions, non-profits, and churches) only have privilege status. Thus, a corporation can now endorse any candidate or position it desires under First Amendment protection. A church (or pastor) that did the same might find itself losing its tax-exempt status.

Personally, this decision by the Court was not unexpected, at least by me. When justices Roberts and Alito joined the Court, swinging the balance of the ideological right, many social conservatives saw the opportunity to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which constitutionally protects a woman’s right to an abortion. Religious conservatives have claimed, rightly, that the decision violates the Image of God in the unborn child. For this reason religious conservatives have been adamant about stacking the court to provide the votes necessary to overturn Roe. The Citizen’s United decision represents a classic case of being careful what you wish for. Ideologically the same justices religious conservatives are trusting to restore rights to the unborn are equally (or even more prone) to extend personhood to corporations which are vastly more powerful, not subject to same criminal punishments as individuals, have no soul (and therefore are not moral entities) and, with the revoking of laws which previously required corporations to be re-charter, can also live into perpetuity.

The sad reality of this corporate personhood, insofar as it protects political freedom of speech, is that corporations are not subject to the same constraints as you or I. If I yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre I am subject to punishment and fine (I may falsely induce a panic which even under the First Amendment I do not the right to do). Political ads, however, are not subject to the same truth in advertising laws as those of products. If an advertisement makes false claims about a product that company can be sued for false advertising. If a false claim is made about a candidate only the candidate can seek recourse by suing for libel. Unless there is a serious defamation of character the candidate is often unwilling to do so since it generally produces a negative backlash against the candidate. The result, I fear, is that we will not see the type of outrageous “Swift boat” types of campaign ads which will only make political campaigns more negative and poison an already cynical electorate.

I take the idea of Image of God quite seriously. It is why I am pro-life and why I find this decision by the Court to be abominable. Yet, I have yet to hear anyone among the leading religious conservatives condemn the Court on this decision. Brethren, if we don’t stand for principle, even if it means confronting those to whom we are allied, we are nothing more than any other special interest group. If that is who we are we should not be surprised when that is the way we are treated—regardless of who is in power.

Let the Finger Pointing Begin

2010-01-20T15:38:00.000-08:00

OK—I am a little blue spot in the candy apple red sea conservative environment which is my place of employment. When people on campus who know my political leanings tell me that they hope that “God will have mercy on my soul,” I find the doctrine of eternal security comforting, assuring them that He has, and move on. My ideological leanings (political not doctrinal) however often force me to become an apologist for all things in blue in the area of politics. Its dirty work at times but hey, it was religious people who often were responsible for persecuting prophets.

That said, the news of Scott Brown upset victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate has had many people coming to me asking questions like “what happened to the Democrats?”or “is this election of historic significance?” Most come, it seems, not simply as neutral seekers of information. There is a bit of “we gotcha” gleam in their eyes which seems to reflect the obviously giddy affect and comments of the anchors of FOX and Friends. The second question is easy to answer—we will wait and see. The nature of historic significance will depend on the results of the election on policy. Brown is not the first Republican to be a senator from Massachusetts even if there has not been one since 1972 (by contrast, Obama’s election which was historic as the first African-American President). The first question, however, is more difficult to answer—what did happen to the Democrats in an election that should have been (and up until a few weeks ago looked like) an easy victory for the party.

Obviously Brown’s victory will cause a great deal of soul-searching, and dare I say finger pointing, among Democrats. It should—only 12% of Massachusetts voters are registered Republicans while almost 38% percent are Democrats. This means that slightly more than 50% of voters in the state see themselves as independents and most of those tend to lean left. This should have been an easy election for the Democrats to win. Already it has been noted that Democratic challenger, State Attorney General Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign that will probably become textbook of what NOT to do if you are a candidate. While I think there is some merit to that criticism, it is certainly not enough to explain the appeal that Brown had to win over a large number of independents and some cross over Democrats in an election where voter turnout was heavy.

Let me offer some of my reasons why Brown won. The biggest reason, in my humble opinion, is the performance of Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. The voters of Massachusetts were the first to react to the brokering that Reid has done to try and win support for a health care bill in the Senate. The most blatant and most publicized instance is the extortion deal cut by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to get 100% federal funding of Medicare for his state. Nelson’s whoring of his vote in tight negotiations in the Senate found a willing “trick” in Reid. Please note, the amount of money here is relatively small and the provision would not have taken effect until 2016, plenty of time for Congress to repeal any promises made to Nelson, but the political fallout is immeasurable. Just a few weeks ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter of health care reform, asked California’s congressional delegation to stop supporting reform unless they could get a “sweetheart deal” like Nebraska’s. Nelson’s ploy, and Reid acquiesce is, of course, political unsustainable—and the sausage making tactics of the majority leader has created a bill that is easy to allow its opponents to divide and conquer. Please note that 80% of Massachusetts voters support the state’s universal health care coverage program. I believe that many voters were not voting against health care reform as much as the way the process has gone forward, particularly in the Senate.

I also don’t discount that for most people unemployment and job creation is THE issue. Nationally unemployment is around 10% while it remains at about 8% in Massachusetts. People are, understandable, nervous and angry at the state of the economy and inpatient at the rate of recovery. The whys of failure and prognosis for the future make great debate but it is the current situation that fuels voters and so there is a “throw the bums out” mentality that manifested itself in the Brown election. As FOX noted, the results show that “any Democrat can lose anywhere to any Republican.” I will grant this but GOP members in Congress should also take note that they may well be one of the “bums” that voters may want to throw out in November. In recent years the GOP’s reputation as being innovative and having progressive ideas that benefit average Americans has been shaky at best. While spewing the standard litany of tax cuts and riding the anger of social conservatives many independent voters continue to see the Republicans as the party that will simply “just say no.”

To return to the question of the historic nature of the Brown election I will say that the election will be historic if it moves both parties toward the middle ideologically and spurs a sense of compromise and seeking to promote the common good of all Americans. If it doesn't, if Brown's election simply gives the Republicans the ability fo filbuster and block legislation in the Senate it is not historic (unless you want to claim that maintianing the staus quo constitutes a historic move). Given the state of politics in Washington, where the financial backing of wealthy interests is critical to gaining or holding office, the prospects of historic are slim. Yet, as the two parties continue to become more ideologically polarized it is the growing number of moderate independent voters who will make or break candidate electoral fortunes—in blue Massachusetts or the reddest districts in the South. In the end, votes will triumph over dollars and representatives will work more actively for their whole constituency and simply special interests donors if they want to continue to serve in office. Well, that is the hope we maintain in a representative democracy.

Dithering is Conservative

2009-11-17T12:35:00.000-08:00

President Obama has come under criticism from a number of his political opponents for failing to act quickly on a strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Recently former Vice-President Dick Cheney criticized the Obama administration deliberation as “dithering” on deploying more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Cheney urged President Obama to “do what it takes to win.” While accepting an award from a conservative national security group, the Center for Security Policy Cheney noted, "Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."

While it is easy to criticize that Cheney’s desire is for the President to finish one of two wars he and former President Bush started and were unable to end on their watch, the fact that he felt embolden to give these remarks before an audience at the Center for Security Policy indicates Cheney felt he was speaking to like-minded brethren; his militaristic, bellicose stance being indicative of the standard “party line”—peace through strength—that would be favorably received as he preached to the conservative “choir.”

This more militaristic response by conservative has become a staple of Republican foreign policy since the Reagan administration. It seems that every four years Republican presidential hopefuls engage in playing the old TV game show To Tell the Truth where each candidate tries to convince voters that they best embody the spirit of Ronald Reagan. During a FOX News presidential debate in November 2007 Rudy Guiliani noted that “Ronald Reagan won the Cold war without firing a shot, but it was because he pointed a thousand missiles at Soviet cities.”
The problem for conservative like Cheney is that if Reagan were President they might have to urge him to not dither on Afghanistan.

The Reagan “myth” of a gunslinger staring down his enemies until they blinked, so forcefully proclaimed by many right-wing pundits, does not match the Reagan whose actions rarely corresponded to the proclivities claimed by his admirers. In fact, in his day, Reagan was often criticized by hawkish conservatives for not acting more forcefully. Near the end of his tenure in office, and during heightened tension in Latin American, Reagan refused to send US troops to Nicaragua and constantly battled with military and congressional hawks over this issue noting, ”Those sonuvbitches won’t be happy until we have 25,000 troops in Managua , and I am not going to do that.”

In June of 1985 TWA Flight 847 was hijacked by Hezbollah terrorists, an act that also lead to the death of an American serviceman onboard the flight. Urged by many of his aides, most notably the hawkish Pat Buchanan, Reagan refused to use force to respond to terrorism. Reagan told biographer Lou Cannon that “killing civilians in a strike against terrorist would be an act of terrorism itself.” Two days after the hijacking Reagan had to overrule a military response to an attack on Marines in El Salvador. Cannon notes that “Reagan asked [National Security Advisor Robert] McFarlane whether an attack could be carried out without killing civilians.” Avoiding “collateral damage” (a term coined during the first Gulf War and first Bush administration for civilian deaths) was a major part of the Reagan decision process and a far car from the “shock and awe” tactics of G.W. Bush, Cheney and other conservatives who claim the Reagan legacy.

On October 23, 1983 229 servicemen, including 220 Marines, were killed by a suicide bomber in Beirut. While the official U.S. response was that the U.S. would not be “cowed by terrorists,” in February of 2004 U.S. service personnel in Lebanon were “redeployed” to ships offshore. Such a response by the President today would most certainly be labeled as an example of “cutting and running” by conservative critics.

Why We Must Condemn Torture (including Waterboarding)

2009-05-01T06:15:00.001-07:00

A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life indicates that the more often people go to church the more likely they are to support the use of torture (or the coy euphemism “enhanced interrogation tactic”) against suspected terrorists.

Of people that attended church at least once a week 54% said that torture was “justified” or “sometimes” justified, as compared to 42% who seldom or never attend services. White evangelical Protestants were the most likely to support torture, with 60% justifying its use. This compares to 49% of the general population. By contrast 30% of mainline Protestants (those that evangelicals usually label as “liberal”) said torture was never justified (as compared to 25% of the general population). Only 12% of evangelicals saw torture as never justified.

Since President Obama released the CIA memo revealing the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques a few weeks ago, the issue has stirred a great deal of controversy, prompting the Pew Forum survey. President Obama, in a recent press conference, failed to use the term “crime” (which would certainly have lead to criminal proceedings) but has left the door open to further investigation. In September 2005 nine Army reservists were convicted of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The only officer convicted, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, had his courts-martial conviction thrown out by the Army in January 2008. The content of the CIA memo seems to indicate that the actions of the nine at Abu Ghraib (portrayed by the army as rogue soldiers acting outside the chain of command) as well as by those at Guantanamo Bay and other sites were part of a systematic approach to intelligence gathering that was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Bush White House.

President Bush, as early as 2005 and repeatedly thereafter, claimed that the US does not torture. Secretary of State Rice condoned the practice of waterboarding and Vice President Cheney, in an interview with ABC News in December 2008, defended practice and admitted to “helping to get the process cleared .” When asked if the practice of waterboarding was appropriate, Cheney replied, “I do.” The CIA memo indicates that the members of the Bush Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney generals Ashcroft and Gonzales were instructed to write guidelines clearing certain techniques and therefore rendering them legal. One such memo, written by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee in 2002, advised the C.I.A. that "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation." The release of that memo has stirred calls for the impeachment of Bybee, now a Federal Justice on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Former Attorney General Gonzales, in November 2004, called the Geneva Convention, the international code that protects servicemen (including our own) from torture and abuse “quaint” and “obsolete.” The statement prompted criticism from human rights groups and families of American GIs noting that if the US is can disregard the practices of the Geneva Convention what prevents other nations or combatants from disregarding them with our service personnel. The CIA memo certainly calls into question the extent to which former President Bush knew about and even authorized the practices of torture during his administration.

Waterboarding seems to be a central issue here so let’s deal with that. Waterboarding IS torture (I will deal with this issue in a moment), but two considerations seem important in light of the Pew results. First, the use of waterboarding is being defended by many (including Cheney) because it has been effective. This has been the justification most likely to be seen on FOX News (where more evangelicals get their news then other station—OK maybe not but it seems like it). The Pew question on whether torture is “justified” begs the question—on what grounds? The Cheney answer, the FOX answer, and apparently the evangelical answer, is that it has prevented further attacks. The validity of that statement is highly questionable but assuming it is—does this condone the practice by Biblicists? The logic of its defenders essentially comes down to Machiavellian principle of the “end justifies the means.” It is political pragmatism that notes that the chief end of government officials is to keep its citizens safe and thus any means that accomplishes this end is permissible and deemed beneficial (maybe even moral) if it produces such results.

This defense suffers from two flaws. First, would we allow other nations to use that tactic against US citizens. For example, if Iran were to engage in the torture of Roxana Saberi, the American journalist being held in suspicion of espionage, upon what basis could the US (including evangelical Americans) wage protests? The pragmatic methodology being defended by many evangelicals is a defense of the erosion of moral absolutes that we typically decry when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay rights / marriage. We appear to as moral absolutists on certain issues (esp. when they don’t effect us directly), but on issues of safety and security (with its more direct effect) we become pragmatists. The late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer noted that it would be the desire for “personal peace and affluence” that would lead to the rejection of moral absolutes in the West. I am sure he didn’t suspect the defenders of biblical truth to be the ones that would help grease the skids of rejecting biblical absolutes.

Also, the pragmatic argument is not biblical in that it rejects the sovereignty of God over results. The Bible clearly teaches that the disciples of Christ are to be faithful to the process of doing righteousness, but that we are not held accountable for the results of the actions. Believers are not judged on results since results are come under the sovereign auspices of God. What disciples are called to do is be faithful to the process. By reducing the justification of torture to results Christians are clearly violating faithfulness to the idea of the image of God in others and the commandment to love our enemies. To defend the torture of others one must first objectify or dehumanize the one being tortured—a result that is always a part of the sin nature.

Now, is waterboarding torture? Despite Sean Hannity claiming he would undergo the procedure (and Keith Obermann chiding him to do so) the process IS torture. The technique has a long history (at least to the Spanish Inquisition). In 1947, following WW II, an international tribunal labeled the technique a war crime and hanged several people convicted of using the technique (including those that used waterboarding on American soldiers). The United States found sufficient moral outrage at the technique to support the death penalty for those who used it against our service personnel, but found such statues “quaint” and “obsolete” when we desire to use them. For evangelicals, which claim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” the support of such techniques and unquestioning support of those who authorized them, constitutes a violation of the very principles claimed to be the moral basis of the nation.

It should be noted that the clearest characteristics of the sin nature is the desire to be God and define right and wrong for ourselves (Gen. 3:5). Brethren, the only justification for the support of torture is to nurture this fundamental characteristic of the sin nature through the use of biblical or patriotic sounding rhetoric which, in the end, supports the desires of our sinful hearts. In the end our moral motivations becomes the same as the worldly motivations that we say we reject. We cannot expect the world to respect an argument for moral absolute and the image of God in the unborn if we continue to deny moral absolutes clearly stated in the Bible when it comes to the treatment of enemies. As Biblicists we must condemn the technique and investigate its practice.

God is Not Dead…. And Neither is Christianity (One Can’t Say the Same for Christendom)

2009-04-17T03:53:00.000-07:00

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (aka Joyous Wisdom)

Poor Nietzsche—after publishing this line in 1882 it immediately became one of his most quoted and least understood statements. Nietzsche was not decrying the physical death of God but the demise of external and absolute forms of morality. In many ways the things that Nietzsche lamented are the things that many evangelical social critics are quick to point out—we live in an age where there are no absolutes, and one which many these same critics label as the emergence of a post-modern culture.

I am not sure how postmodern Nietzsche’s quote is (or even how postmodern the culture is) but a 1966 cover of Time magazine asked “Is God Dead?” Less than twenty years later the U.S. witnessed the emergence of what become known as the “Moral Majority,” and in the first decade of this millennium the “Religious Right” was said to be a major force in American politics. Apparently the answer to Time magazine’s question was a resound “NO.”

I was in a bookstore last week and there on the magazine rack I saw a recent Newsweek cover, “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” Apparently for author Jon Meacham the inability of the Religious Right to usher enough of the faithful to the polls last November and prevent a sweeping victory by the Democrats suggests that Christianity in general, and evangelicalism in particular, is on the cultural decline in the US. This perception was not helped recently when President Obama, speaking in Turkey said, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Jim Wallis, quoted in the Newsweek article, noted that there is still a vital role that religion will continue to play in public discourse, it just may not be the role or constitute the same message that Religious Right has presented since the 1980s.

Wallis, like many evangelicals, believes that the Religious Right was a “mistake” (his term, not mine)—a movement that sought to implement a “Christian” agenda (defined in very narrow terms) by tying it almost inextricably to the right wing of the Republican party. After the 2008 election many fiscal Republicans began lamenting their relationship to the Religious Right noting that the rigidity of the moral agenda was out of step with the mainstream and prevented fiscal conservatives from promoting the fundamental tenets on which the Republican Party traditionally stood.

Personally, I believe that the linking of a narrow moral agenda with a particular political party was both a theological and political short-sighted. Theologically, by limiting the religious debate to almost exclusively to abortion, abstinence, and homosexuality (seems like sex is a big issue for evangelicals) the church failed to look at social issues in which Christ and Scripture speak in much greater extent—poverty, injustice, environmental stewardship. The result, politically, was that many evangelicals ignored these issues (which traditionally have been more concerns for Democrats), while voting (in an almost Pavlovian fashion) for any Republican that claimed to be “pro-life,” or “pro-family.” The result was that the church helped to promote the exacerbation of many of the social sins to which Christ and the prophets condemn. In the eyes of many unbelievers the church began to be viewed as pro-war, anti-gay, anti-living wage and health-care, unenlightened and anti-scientific in general.

Which brings me back to Newsweek and Meacham, is there a decline and fall of Christian America? Assuming that the United States ever was a “Christian” nation (a notion I take exception with) the distinction needs to be made between “Christendom” (the linking of the church to the social, political, and economic mechanisms of power) and Christianity as a creed that stands in contrast and can speak truth to power. The apostle John notes this relationship in his first epistle when he writes, “Do not love the world not the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15).

Does this mean that Christianity does not have a place in public discourse—absolutely not. That place, however, may best expressed by theologian Walter Bruggermann, in his book The Prophetic Imagination, when he writes,

“The tasks of a prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around is.”

A prophetic ministry is counter-cultural and possesses the ability to speak truth to power. The prophets were not welcome by the political, religious, and economic elites of their day because they condemned the status quo of which they had a vested stake. Jesus was not welcomed by the religious leaders of His time, noting that they enjoyed social and political status by aligning themselves to the existing order (who else could get an audience with a provincial governor and expedite a capital trial and execution in less than a week?). If Meacham is highlighting the decline of Christendom then so be it—it may be the best thing for the church—for it will mean that social issues can no longer be expected to win simply because they are “Christian.” The church under Christendom often seemed more interested in maintaining access to power than access to people. In the end this emphasis has tended to cost the loss of access to both. If America is truly becoming “post-Christian” (a term that seems more cogent than post-modern) then the church's influence in public discourse will once again have to demonstrate the relevance of the gospel by winning debates on the basis of how Christianity seeks to work for the common good of all people.

The (Myth) of the Liberal Media

2008-10-21T02:30:00.000-07:00

Most mornings I will workout in the fitness center of the university where I teach. I find it a great way to start my day. The equipment is top-of-the-line and I enjoy socializing with my fellow “workout warriors.” The only down-side (if I can all it that) is that the news station of choice at the gym is FOX News. So each morning I not only spend my time with my workout buddies but also share intimate moments with my FOX & Friends.

Lately, my (not so much) FOX friends, have been having a difficult time. With Obama ahead in most presidential polls they have been trying, in their interminable “fair and balanced” style, to explain how such a situation could happen when (obviously) most of nation would be hurt by having a Democrat (any Democrat) in the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or even existing on the planet. This morning they belittled Colin Powell for his endorsement of Obama (he was never a real conservative anyway), have cried “sour grapes” over Obama spending more than McCain (apparently this wasn’t an issue when Bush out-spent Kerry in 2004), and complained about voter fraud (no mention of 2000 or 2004 and, since voter fraud is a felony, they fail to mention that no criminal charges have yet been filed). FOX has been painfully silent on the abandonment of conservative intellectuals from McCain (another possible topic). The biggest explanation, however, for this troubling turn of presidential politics (for FOX) has been the influence of the mainstream or “liberal media” and its impact on voter perceptions.

The idea of (as well as the phrase) the liberal media, as former GOP media specialist David Brock points out in The Republican Noise Machine, was created by Vice-President Spiro Agnew, as a “straw man” to the “silent majority.” The mainstream media was consistently critical of then President Nixon’s Vietnam War policies and Agnew used the idea of the liberal media (and the elitists that worked there) to note that they should be more responsible to the general public whom they were to serve. While some media critics noted that a slight anti-war bias may have existed, opinion polls at the time of Agnew’s criticism showed that most people viewed their news (both television and print) as essentially objective.

The idea of a liberal media has been used by conservative media outlets (most notably talk radio and FOX News) as a way of marketing themselves as voice of the majority and as a way of discrediting anything that might be said by the “liberal elite” (as if getting a good education from a great school violates the American Dream and renders you unfit for public service). Of note, however, is that the term “liberal media” has been reduced to a rhetorical term—one that generates negative emotional responses but which has been separated from thought. In essence, what conservative media has successfully done is, by defining the opposition before they can define themselves, “hijack” language and separated it from rational discourse.

The term “liberal” can have many meanings. Now, to be fair, the mainstream media can, in fact, be liberal to a particular position. For example, if the mainstream media promotes a position that is pro-choice it will be perceived as liberal by social conservatives that are pro-life. If this is what my friends, who complain about the liberal media, mean by the term then I concede the point—the mainstream media is (in this regard) liberal. This, however, represents attaching content to the term. Rarely is this the way the term is used in conservative media. In most cases the term liberal is left undefined in order to allow conservatives to elicit a negative emotional response to criticisms leveled against conservatives by the mainstream.

What is the substance of much criticism by the mainstream media (when it actually is substantive)? They are varied but generally they have to do with calling into question the unmitigated extent of corporate power and wealth elites on all aspects of public life and the resulting damage of commercialization on individual, social, and environmental health. To this extent conservative media helps to perpetuate an ideological position that bolsters the interests of the corporate elites by presenting their interests as those that are in the best interests of the “silent majority” of Americans.

The problem is that, aside from a few socially conservative positions (like abortion), the liberal media may not be that liberal at all. A recent examination of the all presidential media coverage by the database giant Lexus Nexus concluded that 26% of all news was slanted in favor of Obama and 22% was slanted in favor of McCain. OK, granted a bias but not nearly to the extent that you would conclude by listening to the righteous indignation of my Fox Friends. Lexus Nexus concluded that 52% of news coverage regarding the presidential election was essentially objective.

Now, I will grant the point that most reporters in the mainstream media are registered Democrats, but the majority of editors, and most publishers, are not. First, corporate media (of which all of the mainstream media is a part) benefits from a corporatized view of the world. To call that view excessively into question would be to work against its best interests which is, after all, to sell news. Second, especially in the case of television, revenue is generated by corporate sponsorship. If the public was truly as conservative as FOX and others contend, they could not exist because a) they would not have viewership and b) they would not be able to sell advertising time. Granted, news viewership is down (as is newspaper readership) but not necessarily because the mainstream is selling an ideological position that no one is buying. Rather, it seems that the corporatization of media has placed a premium on entertainment and helped create a general apathy about politics so that, as media research tends to show, the younger an audience the less interested they tend to be in more serious journalism.

So, is the mainstream media liberal? I would contend not. It is, at best, moderate. Some outlets may run moderate-left (e.g., CBS) while some moderate-right (e.g., ABC—any network that gives John Stossel regular air time to hawk his extreme corporate views cannot be called liberal). If you want to really want to experience liberal media read The Nation or Mother Jones magazines (if you are a staunch conservative don’t start with The Progressive unless you have a Cadillac health insurance policy), listen to Air America or the Pacifica radio networks or tune into the Randi Rhodes Show.

Rhetorical language, like any other form of symbolism, is wrapped up in power, and power (first and foremost) seeks to preserve its own position of privilege. The use of the term “liberal media,” when used by conservatives, devoid of content, is a rhetorical term designed to generate more heat than light. In the end such rhetorical devices are like the carnival shell game, except in this game one must not only ask where is the pea but also why is the illusionist trying so hard to hide it? In the carnival game if you find the pea the illusionist loses; in the conservative media shell game if you begin to discover what the conservative media is hiding they also run the risk of losing—and for them the stakes are much too high.

Hebrews and Romans

2008-09-08T15:57:00.000-07:00

“The Lord God has told us what is right and what he demands: “See that justice is done, let mercy be your first concern, and humbly obey your God” Micah 6:8 (CEV)

In the days leading up the election there will be much talk about candidates appealing to “values voters.” These voters have often been portrayed as members of the evangelical right who generally vote in ways they believe consistent with the teachings of the Bible. Values voters are said to have helped launch the “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s and have become an essential part of the Republican base, to whom the recent selection of Sarah Palin to the Republican Presidential ticket is designed to appeal.

There is, however, another group, generally not identified as values voters, whose political affiliation has generally reflected their understanding of the God of the Bible. Jewish-Americans have historically tended to voted Democratic despite the Republican Party’s almost unquestioning support for Israel. This allegiance to the principles of the Democratic Party reflect an ethical understanding deeply embedded in Judaism and the teachings of the Old Testament. It is a perspective that any comprehensive approach to voting biblically must take into consideration.

Hebrew society was build upon two ethical principles that were to be kept in balance. The first is the concept of justice (mishpat) which brings about equitable and harmonious relationships between people. This justice was pursued through fair distribution of resources so that we read that God “executes justice for the orphans and the widows. He cares for foreigners and gives them food and clothing” (Deut 10:18). Second is the principle of loving kindness or compassion know as hesed. These two ethical principles are interwoven in the Hebrew Bible and reflect God’s expectation that His people are not only to care for those who are disadvantaged by society, but to do so in spirit that demonstrated their value and worth. When combined and practiced, justice and compassion work to bring about wholeness, unity, and balance to the society (known in Hebrew as peace or shalom).

These principles were so important to the ethical teachings of God that He saw fit to enslave the Hebrews in Egypt for 400 years. It was this bondage to which God consistently referred as part of Israel’s collective ethical consciousness, “you should also care for [those oppressed] because you were foreigners in Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). The bondage worked to cement onto the ethical consciousness of the Jews that they should not be oppressors since they themselves had once been oppressed. As theologian Richard Foster notes, “economically and socially, the vision of shalom means a caring and consideration for all peoples. The greed of the rich is tempered by the needs of the poor. Under the reign of God’s shalom the poor are no longer oppressed, because ravaging greed no longer rules.”

The theme of “America first” which was consistently echoed throughout the Republican convention last week is also reflective of the ethical principles of a society in antiquity—that of ancient Rome. The collective ethic of Roman society was built on the principles of law and of duty. Law was obedience to authority for authority reflected the common good and was demonstrated through the practice of self-control and discipline. Duty was exercised through self-sacrifice, where the good of the individual is secondary to order and the benefit of the group. It is the ethic theme of the great Roman epic the Aeneid, whose main character must even sacrifice his love of a woman to found the city of Rome. Duty, loyalty and sacrifice for nation were the attitudes and behaviors most valued in Rome.

These Roman values are not necessarily in opposition to the righteousness of God but there is one critical consideration. When Israel sought to return to the monarchy of Egypt, to be like the nations around them, they were warned by the prophet Samuel that a king would rule the land for his benefit and those of his elite (1 Samuel 8:11-18). Jewish justice and compassion is not opposed to duty and sacrifice, in many ways it demands it. However, it also understands that the definition of what is good, what is right, and what is just cannot rest with those in power, whose tendency is to define these terms in ways which benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. To allow justice to be defined by those who do not experience injustice is to violate both justice and compassion, threaten shalom and results in the judgment of God. The Jewish-American tradition of values voting in alignment with the Democratic Party reflects an overall understanding that, while opposed on some issues, the peace and prosperity of the have’s cannot be secured at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. A just society, in Old Testament terms, is defined by how it treats the least of those among them. It is an ethic that is restated by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, "Love others as much as you love yourself." All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.”

Evangelical Conservatives and Progressives

2008-08-04T18:45:00.000-07:00

“Woe to those who enact evil statues, and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights.” Isaiah 10:1-2a

“And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?” Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Congress Calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting (April 1863)

When Lincoln asked Congress to declare a national day of prayer and fasting, he recognized that the on-going bloodshed of the Civil War was part of the retributive justice of God to the U.S. for preserving the institution of slavery. As Lincoln noted, “Every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another drawn by the sword.” Lincoln was not so naïve as to believe that the slave owner would seek to act individually from conscience enmasse as a means of ending the institution of slavery. As note in his famous “A House Divided” speech Lincoln (quoting Christ) noted that the nation could not endure half slave and half free. Either the laws of the land must permit slavery as an institution or it must be abolished.

One issue that separates evangelical conservatives from evangelical progressives (a term I use in the historic sense of the word) is the issue of sin and society. As evangelicals almost all agree that the reason for trouble and discord in the world is sin. Drawing on the historical reality of the Genesis 3 account of the entry of sin into the world, the creation God proclaimed as good (Gen 1:31) was corrupted by the entry of sin into the world. Consequently, the more sin in the world the more corruption of the good ensues. In terms of societies, the more a society tolerates sin and allows sin to flourish the more perverse and morally weak the society will become. The result of this the proliferation of sin, as the Bible reports in many cases throughout the Old Testament, is the judgment and destruction of the society. Inversely, if you want a society to flourish (or at least avoid the judgment of God) there must be repentance of sin and turning to God (as was the case of Nineveh in the book of Jonah). The less sin in a society means the less corruption of the good. On this almost all evangelicals agree.

Where evangelical conservative and progressives disagree is on the nature of repentance. Conservatives, who tend to emphasize free moral choice and personal accountability, see sin and repentance as an individual issue. If individuals sin it increases the amount of total sin in the world and, therefore, the society gets more perverse—increasing the likelihood of divine judgment. The solution, therefore, is to get individuals to sin less. If people stop sinning the sum total of sin in the world is reduced and the society ameliorated.
This leads conservatives to engage in legislative morality—in most cases to provide significant disincentives to individuals so that they will not sin. For example, strong sentencing laws for crimes will cause people to think twice about a crime and therefore (it is hoped) decrease propensity to do the crime. For many in the society this approach to morality is seen as harsh and lacking in compassion. George W. Bush sought the Presidency in 2000 he proclaimed himself a “compassionate conservative” in order to dispel this widely held view of conservatives. Evangelical conservatives (generally) tend to view such harsh measures as, in fact, compassionate. If strong medicine helps the individual to avoid sin and helps the nation avoid the judgment of God, the medicine becomes justified.

Generally, evangelical progressives note that freewill and personal accountability are important but not sufficient to explain social sin and its consequences. Like Lincoln, it is naïve and insufficient to simply expect people individually to stop sinning because the legality of some sin allows it to continue in a way that erodes at the moral health of the nation. To progressives, sinful people create sinful institutions and laws which embed sin in their very practices. Thus, one can experience the negative consequences of sin, can suffer adversely from its social, physical, psychological or spiritual effects and never have actually performed the sin. Thus, as the prophet Isaiah records, God declares the robbing of social justice to the poor and needy not the result of their own sin but from the institutions and laws of the powerful developed to protect their positions of power and privilege.

The result of this institutionalized sin is twofold. First, as sin becomes normal (i.e., legal) to the point where a person can engage in sin without seeing it as sin. In many cases, slavery being an example, the church may actually defend the sinful institution and use Scripture to defend it. In practice this can produce institutions and policies in economics, education, health care, environmental stewardship, military spending, etc. which may be treated as value neutral by conservatives (despite the claims of their worldview theology) but which, in fact, are spiritually and morally imbued. For progressives the amount spend on the military, how resources are allocated, who receives health care (and how much) are questions that demonstrate the spiritual heart and soul of a nation.

Second, people can be effected by sin without engaging in the practice of the sin themselves. For example, blacks in apartheid South Africa were subject to social, economic, political, and educational injustices (to name a few) solely because they were black. Whites, on the other hand, were awarded benefits in all of these areas (and many others) simply upon the basis of being white. Neither group had to actively engage in the sin of racism to experience these effects. Simply, they experienced benefit or injustice by the social institutions of a society that were designed to protect power and privilege at the expense of another group.

As a result, for evangelical progressives, not only must individual sin be dealt with but there must also be active consideration and addressing of sin embedded into the institutions and practices of the society. For progressive evangelicals all aspects of society, from personal conduct to social policy are moral issues. The family budget and the federal budget all show the spiritual priorities of those who establish that budget—and the departure of either from the priorities of God is of moral concern and in need of being addressed. For the nation, just as it is with the individual, “where your treasure is, there will your heart also be” (Mt. 6:21).

A Biblical View from the Left?

2008-07-07T15:46:00.000-07:00

In March of 2008 I attended a dinner for faculty members of Cedarville University. The featured speaker that evening was Dr. Mark Caleb Smith, Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville. In the Q & A time that followed a colleague, noting polls indicating that younger evangelicals are not as likely to be solidly Republican, asked Smith if he thought that this represented a growing trend among evangelical college students. Smith’s reply, and admittedly I am paraphrasing, was no because college students do not represent a consistent voting group.

While I cannot know for sure, the question of my colleague may well have been based in, what God’s Politics author and Sojourner’s magazine editor-in-chief Jim Wallis notes is a growing interest among younger evangelicals to political issues beyond abortion and same-sex marriage. Noting that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat, Wallis believes that younger evangelicals are increasingly attempting to apply the tenets of their faith to issues such as poverty, environmental concerns, and social justice issues such as fair trade, wages, and health care (to name just a few). As younger evangelicals begin to consider these issues as biblical concerns they are comparing the stances of the two major parties in the U.S. and increasing numbers are attracted to the positions of the Democrats.

While it may be true that college students, evangelical ones included, may not vote as faithfully as those who have graduated, I respectfully disagree with Smith and believe that the affinity of younger evangelicals to more progressive responses to social issues DOES represent a growing trend. It is a trend which older evangelicals, long-time supporters of the GOP (aka “God’s Own Party” at least in their minds), may find difficult to accept. What may be even more difficult for life-long evangelical Republicans is that they may well have violated that age-old adage, “be careful what you wish for. . . . you may get.”

I began in Christian education in the early 1980s. As a high school and middle school teacher, youth group worker, and higher educator, the emphasis of evangelical education has been on biblical integration and the application of the truth of Scripture to every aspect of life. This emphasis has been well founded. Throughout the 20th century the evangelical academy had seceded many disciplines to non-biblical thinking, areas which represented legitimate expressions of Christian concern. The result was that the thinking of many believers was dualistic, where biblical principles directed thinking in some aspects of life while in other areas the thinking (and behavior) of believers was not much different than non-believers. Noting that “all truth is God’s truth,” evangelical scholars and educators were challenged by leaders of the Church to prepare future leaders to think biblically, to develop in students a biblical worldview that would encompass and direct their thinking in every aspect of life.

Evangelicals schools, colleges, and universities responded by making biblical integration and worldview training their number one priority. During this time the Reagan revolution and conservative social agenda throughout the late 20th and early 21st century of most evangelicals tended to be centered on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. Republicans generally supported banning (or limiting) abortions and maintaining that same-sex unions should be illegal. These positions were warmly received by most evangelical voters while the generally pro-choice and more tolerant views of the Democrats were considered anathema. For some evangelicals, to vote Democrat was such a direct contradiction to the Bible that one could not be considered both a Christian and a Democrat. Yet, despite the conservative political climate of most white evangelical churches, a slow but noticeable change seems to have occurred. In proclaiming that all truth is God’s truth and that the principles of the Bible apply to all areas of human concern, a growing number of bright students noticed that all areas must mean ALL areas. That to limit the extent of evangelical participation in politics to such single-issue concerns as abortion or same-sex marriage violated the very principles that they had been taught to think from.

Does a federal budget that spends over a third of its dollars on the military and more than the next fifteen nations of the world combined represent a biblical budget? Does using only market-based models to determine human worth in terms of wages and benefits violate the image of God and the intrinsic value of human work? Do stewardship concerns and the biblical mandate to “cultivate and to keep” (Gen. 2:15) require government regulation of a consumer–based market economy? If biblical principles extend to every aspect of life than, increasingly, many evangelicals have begun to see these issues as important. As many evangelicals have looked for legitimate political expression on these issues many have found that the more progressive stances of the Democratic Party (and, at times, the Green Party) represent more biblical responses to these issues than the GOP.

This does not mean, in my opinion, that younger evangelicals will suddenly represent a monolithic voting block for the left similar to the right-wing tendencies of their parents and teachers. The Reagan Revolution that began 30 years ago has been characterized by a religious faith in the power of markets as a perfect mechanism (for some God’s created mechanism) for the just distribution of goods and services. The conservative, free-market trinity of privatization, deregulation, and union-busting has, for many, been combined with the divine Trinity to such an extent that to question the former is to deny the latter. For many the ideological monopoly of Chicago-school capitalism with evangelical Christianity makes voting Republican the only game in town. Yet, for a growing number of young people, the ensuing results of neo-liberal capitalism—growing unemployment, environmental exploitation, growing discrepancies between rich and poor, increasingly limited access to social and educational resources, etc.—have called the union of Milton Friedman and Jesus Christ into question.

The Left Pew is a blog dedicated to continuing a growing dialogue to the question—can the biblical worldview be extended to social issues in ways that question the cultural accommodations that many Christians have made to the mandates of Scripture? These cultural accommodations represent compromises by the very people that most seek to preserve the integrity of the Bible and its principles—the church. While I will not suggest that progressivism is the ONLY biblical answer to growing number of social issues coming to the attention of the church, I will suggest that the conservative monopoly on evangelical thinking has limited the dialogue, polarized many believers and prevented the church from considering alternative responses which are more biblically consistent and would serve to extend the influence and ministry of the church to a watching world.