The Surprising(?) Update on the Chick-fil-a Story

Campus Pride has suspended their campaign against Chick-fil-a. Chick-fil-a has ended its financial contribution to the groups that Campus Pride has identified as hate groups against LGBTQ people. Shane Windemeyer (Executive Director of Campus Pride) and Dan Cathy (President of Chick-fil-a) have a burgeoning friendship defined by honesty and respect. And they both still disagree strongly about gay marriage.

This is how politics (and theological disagreement) should work in public life.

Race, Politics, and American Christianity

Back in 2003, when the US went to war with Iraq, I was working in youth ministry at a primarily white church in the working-class city of Tacoma, WA. I have a vivid memory of sitting in a worship service during that time in which the preacher delivered a sermon in which he declared that John the Baptist was a patriot and, therefore, we should be patriots as well and support the war effort. More specifically, we were told that President G.W. Bush was God’s appointed for a time of trial and, therefore, we should not question but support his decisions.

Back in 2007, when Barack Obama was running for president, I was working in young adult ministry at a primarily black church in inner-city Los Angeles. The Sunday after the election, on which I was blessed to preach the sermon, many people proudly wore shirts bearing the image of President-elect Obama, and prayers were offered calling upon God to protect the soon-to-be president and to give him the wisdom required for such a position. In addition, several references were made to the “miracle” which had just occurred which many in the audience thought they would never see come to fruition – namely, a black man elected as president of the United States.

Leading up to that election I had a long conversation with my mentor from the church in Tacoma in which he professed his admiration of Sarah Palin and disbelief and inability to comprehend how a Christian, let alone the majority of a congregation, could vote for Obama in light of his position on abortion. For him, there was no way he could conceive of a justifiable reason to cast a vote for someone who supports abortion in any way. We talked about the ways that race influences politics and the complicated nature in which theological beliefs are translated into political policies and stances, but for him there was still no way that he could make sense of a “Christian” vote for a Democrat.

On a recent post in which I strongly criticized celebrity pastor Mark Driscoll’s statement on the day of the most recent inauguration, a commentor stated that “there is no hope for…conversation” between himself and those who (like me) maintain that Pres. Obama can be a Christian in light of his politics. A few days later I learned that on the Sunday following the inauguration, a man prayed at that church in Tacoma that God “please show Jesus to Obama.” Like Driscoll, this man apparently believes that Obama can not possibly be a Christian because of his political stances.

Finally, like many people out there, I’ve heard many friends from this church (and others with a similar racial composition) loudly criticize recent attempts at stricter assault weapon regulations using theological language and/or linking this political issue to abortion. Of course, I’ve also heard members of the church in inner-city LA voice their support for such legislation. Importantly, many of the members of the church in Tacoma are hunters and many of the members of the church in LA have had friends and/or family killed or injured by gun violence.

The irony here? The man who was the minister at the church in LA while I was on staff there has been invited to speak at the church in Tacoma on multiple occasions. Indeed, if you were to compare the “official” theological beliefs of both congregations they would be nearly, if not totally, identical. They make the same confessions of faith and participate in the same liturgical practices on Sunday mornings. They would, on most occassions, refer to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, there are many in the church in Tacoma, including those in leadership, who would declare that a Christian should never vote for a person who supports legalized abortion of any kind (or the legalization of gay marriage, for that matter). Indeed, there are probably some who, like the commentor on my previous post, believe that to vote in such a way is to prove that one is not actually a Christian. And, while many at the church in LA believe that Christians sholud not have an abortion when facing an unplanned pregnancy, I never heard anyone there equate it with murder (as is often done by members of the church in Tacoma) and know that the vast majority of the congregation usually votes for Democratic politicians in local and national elections.

What explains these different political stances and actions even though there is much theological agreement between these Christians?

Lived experience.

As much as many want to deny it, race greatly influences the ways that people experience life in America. Of course, it is not only race which leads to these political differences (inner-city LA is quite different from Tacoma and its suburbs in a variety of ways), but race is a strong contributing factor to these differences.

Indeed, the Pew Research Center has demonstrated that race is a consistent factor in how abortion is viewed politically and morally, even among Protestants. White Protestants view it as morally wrong and believe it should be made illegal at significantly greater percentages than black Protestants. Based on the voting patters of white Protestants, especially Evangelicals, and black Protestants, it is safe to assume that these racial disparities continue across a range of political issues.

There are a variety of reasons for these disparities, but one (in the case of abortion) is surely the history of black women not being able to control their bodies throughout slavery and Jim Crow. It should be no surprise, and is totally understandable, that many black women in America don’t trust others (especially white men) to determine in advance what should be done with their bodies. White men have raped, killed, abused, and degraded their bodies for centuries, and many black women have not forgotten it even as most white people have.

In short, race impacts the experience of every American Christian. And these experiences directly influence the politics of many of the Christians in our churches. There is no straightforward way to translate the vast majority of Christian beliefs into political policy and to hold any political position as a sign of theological orthodoxy, as is increasingly becoming the case among many white Evangelicals, is a grave mistake. And, though many would not say it in this way, there are many Christians who write off a significant portion of other Christians who are racially different than them because of their politics. In a world of increasing racial segregation (through the creation of primarily non-white urban ghettoes and primarily white suburbs and rural communities), people are still attending churches that are racially monolithic. This reality creates the environment in which people come to believe that their political beliefs (greatly influenced by racial experiences) are THE Christian political position and begin to use politics as a measure of Christian faithfulness and orthodoxy.

In this way, there are some who attend the church I served in Tacoma who are willing to call those who attend the church I served in LA fellow Christians on Sunday and (unknowingly?) dismiss them as non-Christians every other day of the week because of who they voted for. To overcome this contradiction we must admit the complexities of political life and recognize the way that experience shapes our politics (and, in many ways, our theology). In addition, we must work hard to live in racially and ethnically diverse communities of faith so that we actually know people who confess Jesus as Lord and vote differently than us. Otherwise, our politics can become, in practice, theologically racist because we will become ready to exclude people from the faith who vote differently than us. And, as it will turn out, those who are different from us politically tend to fall as much as, if not more so, along racial lines than denominational or theological ones.

The continuing co-optation of Martin Luther King Jr.

My good friend Jermaine McDonald is currently finishing a dissertation (which I can’t wait to read!) examining the evolution of the public view of MLK in the US. King went from a reviled radical to a fixture in the American civil religion.[1] A strong critic of capitalism and US military action in Vietnam, King is now featured in the ads of transnational corporations and has been formally canonization by the American government through a holiday in his name and a memorial in the national capital.

One way in which this transformation has been possible is because people shape King into their own image. Recently on The Daily Show Larry Wilmore pointed this phenomenon out in a humorous way.

Well, it seems that the US Air Force has joined in this shaping of King in one’s own image. They have declared that, because of the racial and religious diversity of the air force, King “would be proud to see our Global Strike team [part of the US nuclear defense system]…standing side-by-side ensuring the most powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal remain the credible bedrock of our national defense…”

As the folks over at Gizmodo have pointed out, this is a pretty incredible claim considering King once said,

It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine. Martin Luther King Jr., “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” in A Testament of Hope, 276

While it truly is difficult to discern exactly where King would stand on a host of political issues today, it seems clear that the man who was assassinated exactly one year after declaring the Vietnam War wholly unjust and while planning a “Poor People’s Campaign” intended to push the US government toward radical economic reforms – the man who lived and died fighting the interdependent evils of poverty, racism, and militarism – can not be used to justify public policy that promotes or ignores any of these evils. Specifically, the US Air Force is wrong that King would be proud of the continuing proliferation of nuclear weapons decades after his untimely death which was due, in part, to his protestation of these weapons.

Cornel West has recently suggested that the cooptation of King by those in power has reached a tipping point. I am beginning to believe he is right.

1I will always remember the story I once heard from a former seminary professor about why he left Evangelicalism. He was a student at Bob Jones University when King was assassinated. Upon hearing the news while sitting in class one day every single one of his classmates stoop up and cheered. Now, those same people and their children claim King in defense of their conservative politics. There is no clearer evidence that King’s public legacy is one that everyone wants to claim when even Glenn Beck is attempting to use it to his advantage. The man who is convinced Barack Obama is a socialist uses the man who was pursued by the FBI for years as a suspected Communist, and confessed to admiring something like democratic socialism, to argue against Obama’s neoliberal economic policies. Oh, the irony!

Defining American Evangelicalism

Academics love to debate the definitions of the terms that they use. One term that has proven to be quite susceptible to being defined in such a way as to fit an author’s predetermined goal is “American Evangelicalism.” Into the morass of definitions for this religious and political movement I believe a recent post at The Immanent Frame has brought some clarity. In a post titled “Evangelicals who have left the right,” Marcia Pally (author of The New Evangelicals: Expanding the Vision of the Common Good), defines American Evangelicalism in this way:

…American Evangelicalism is an approach to Protestantism across denominations, its central features including: the search for a renewal of faith toward an “inner” personal relationship with Jesus; the mission to bring others to this sort of personal relationship; the cross as a symbol of not only salvation but also of service to others; individual acceptance of Jesus’ gift of redemption; individualist Bible reading by ordinary men and women; and the priesthood of all believers independent of ecclesiastical or state authorities. It was a progressive movement from the colonial era to World War One. Its emphasis on individual conscience made it anti-elitist, anti-authoritarian, economically populist, and socially activist on behalf of the common man. Twice in the twentieth century, evangelicals turned to the right, the second time in the late 1970s, when they became a central pillar in the modern conservative movement.

This, I think, is actually a pretty accurate definition of the movement theologically and historically. The rest of the article provides a good synopsis of a third turn, this time to the left, in American Evangelicalism which is currently taking shape. I recommend reading the whole article.

Christians and Gay Marriage in Washington State

Christians in my home state of Washington have reacted to the legalization of gay marriage in a variety of ways. Gary Tabor, a Superior Court Judge in Thurston County, has decided not to make himself available to perform gay marriages for “philosophical and religious reasons.” (Importantly, the title of the article is misleading because he says he is willing to do what the law requires if called upon to do it.) This is especially interesting to me because he is a member of my ecclesial tradition, the churches of Christ. While Judge Tabor is not quoted in the article for the explicit religious reasons he would prefer not to peform gay marriages, the article quotes Oklahoma Christian University’s website, his alma mater, which says they “strive to treat our bodies with the honor due the temple of the Holy Spirit — honoring God’s plan that sexual relations be a part of a marriage between a man and a woman, dressing modestly, and avoiding any self-destructive practices.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire has reflected on the way her faith informed her advocacy of the bill to legalize gay marriage. KPLU, the local NPR station, reports her reflections in this way:

There’s something else Gregoire will be remembered for. Same-sex marriage. She came into office a supporter of gay rights, but not marriage. “And it’s probably the biggest occasion in which my religion, something that I hold very dear, stood in the way of me doing what I thought was right,” she says.

Gregoire is Catholic. In 2011 she changed her position on marriage. As a lawyer she kept coming back to the concept of separate but equal. But it didn’t sit well with her. It was at Thanksgiving with her husband and daughters that she told her family she would not only come out in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, but she would lead the effort to pass the legislation.

“It resulted in all of us hugging each other and crying,” she says. “I look back on it, it was an emotional moment for me.”

The bill passed and this fall withstood a referendum challenge. Gregoire says she is convinced Washington is on the right of history. But she has paid a personal price.

“I don’t attend Mass at my parish right now,” she says. “I go other places. That’s it.”

Gregoire says she’s convinced the day will come when she returns to her parish. In the meantime, “I’ve done what I thought was right. I’ve done what I think Jesus would say to me. ‘Do the right thing, love thy neighbor, respect your fellow human being.’”

Two different appeals to Christian beliefs – one that God has an eternal plan for sex which is confined to the bed of monogamously married heterosexuals and one to Jesus’s injunction to love one’s neighbor – to justify different stances on a contemporary political issue. One a Protestant and the other a Catholic. One a judge and the other a politician.

This is life in America. Religion, especially Christianity, impacts our understandings of justice, liberty, and equality in big and small ways every single day and is having a direct impact on those who live with these Christians whether they are Christian or not.

The question, then, is not whether “religion” should be in “politics.” Religion and politics are intimately intertwined and interact in a variety of ambiguous ways. We should strive to understand better how religion actually functions in politics rather than debating whether it should or not. Religion clearly does affect politics. The questions we should be asking are “How?” and “How can it do so faithfully serving its own ends and the common good?” We might be surprised at the answers we come up with.

Libertarianism is the New Communism

According to Jana Bennett, in her recent post “Five Things Catholics Should Learn from this Election Season” over at Catholic Moral Theology,

Libertarianism looms as the new Communism of the twenty-first century. It is the new great ideological opponent of Christianity, alongside the closely related cousin of moral relativism. I see trends in both the major parties that suggest a wholesale focus on individual autonomy and freedom of choice from both the government and society in general. These libertarian impulses take on different foci (abortion, economic policy, etc). But no matter where the focus begins, the architecture of the argument itself makes it very, very easy to capitulate to all kinds of evils – even coming from “the other side”. Individual choice and conscience are important – but taken to extreme, a focus on individual choice means that I can always dismiss my neighbors’ concerns because “they made their own choices and have to deal with the consequences”.

Of course, I agree with her about its incompatibility with the Christian faith.

And so does this Reformed theologian.

And so should you. Libertarian philosophy is incompatible with Christian theological convictions and is no base for public policy or a good society.

Four Styles of American Politics

We are tempted, because of the rhetoric of talking heads on cable news and our two-party system, to think that there are only two major political positions in the United States: Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, red vs. blue, capitalist vs. socialist, etc. In reality, there are four primary ways that Americans approach politics. (Of course, there are more like 300 million approaches, but for the sake of this post four categories will cover the majority of those positions.) These are in my terms: Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian. Importantly, these four styles of politics are fluid and very few people actually fit into only one category across political issues. Rather, most people have a mixed vision of the political good for the United States, and I believe gaining clarity on these categories and their fluidity can help make our public discourse more moral and less polarized.

The history of American political life is, in many ways, defined by the negotiation of the tension that inevitably arises between protecting liberty and establishing equality. It seems impossible to ensure total liberty without guaranteeing inequality, political or economic. In a like manner, it seems impossible to ensure equality across social spheres without violating the liberty of people solely committed to their self-interest. Generally speaking, this tension has been negotiated in the United States by ensuring equality in the explicitly political sphere, by granting every citizen an equal number of votes (though, only after long and sometimes bloody battles for anyone other than white, property-owning males), and liberty in the economic sphere, by creating a relatively free market economy unencumbered by regulations and without the worry of competing with state-owned businesses.

The American emphasis historically has tilted back-and-forth between a focus on liberty or equality, but mainstream politics has been a tenuous balancing of the two, with ever-increasing nods towards equality in social and political life and an ever-increasing nods toward liberty in economic life. This trend toward equality in social and political life has been necessary because the US began with a very unequal distribution of political rights (see the political status of African slaves, American Indians, and women in the early years of the republic for just a few blatant examples). The trend towards liberty in economic life has especially been the case post-1960s after trends toward equality during the height of the labor movement in the early twentieth century.

Reflections on Election Day Communion

Today is election day. Millions of Americans are going to the polls and will be glued to their TVs/radios/computers this evening watching the results of this year’s presidential election roll in. These Americans will have cast their votes in a variety of ways, each vote hoping to achieve some different goal: Romney as president, Obama as president, or a third-party or non-vote as a prophetic cry against what is perceived to be two lesser-than-ideal major party candidates. And many of these voters, from across the spectrum, will be Christians.

Perhaps nothing divides Christians today like politics (I don’t necessarily believe that, but the case could be made). And many Christians look across the political aisle at their co-religionists in disbelief and incredulity. Indeed, they sometimes gaze at each other with something approaching hatred. This interpretation of Christian division is the inspiration for what is being called Election Day Communion.

This is how the Election Day Communion website describes its purpose:

On November 6, 2012, Election Day,
we will exercise our right to choose.
Some of us will choose to vote for Barack Obama.
Some of us will choose to vote for Mitt Romney.
Some of us will choose to vote for another candidate.
Some of us will choose not to vote.

During the day of November 6, 2012, we will make different choices for different reasons, hoping for different results.

But that evening while our nation turns its attention to the outcome of the presidential election, let’s again choose differently. But this time, let’s do it together.

Let’s meet at the same table,
with the same host,
to remember the same things.
We’ll remember that real power in this world — the power to save, to transform, to change — ultimately rests not in political parties or presidents or protests but in the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus.

We’ll remember that, through the Holy Spirit, this power dwells within otherwise ordinary people who as one body continue the mission of Jesus: preaching good news to the poor, freeing the captives, giving sight to the blind, releasing the oppressed, and proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:16-21).

We’ll remember that freedom — true freedom — is given by God and is indeed not free. It comes with a cost and it looks like a cross.

We’ll remember our sin and our need to repent.

We’ll remember that the only Christian nation in this world is the Church, a holy nation that crosses all human-made boundaries and borders.

We’ll remember that our passions are best placed within the passion of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2).

We’ll remember that we do not conform to the patterns of this world, but we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2).

We’ll remember that God’s strength is made perfect in weakness.

And we’ll re-member the body of Christ as the body of Christ, confessing the ways in which partisan politics has separated us from one another and from God.

On Tuesday evening, November 6,
make a choice to remember.
Let’s meet at the Lord’s Table.
Let’s remember together.

Inasmuch as this movement (of hundreds of churches across the nation) seeks to move toward Christian unity, I am in support of the intentions of those who participate. However, I’ve had a funny feeling about the idea since the first time I heard about it. Allow me to explain why I think you ought not participate in what ostensibly seems like a good idea.

We are Each Other’s Keepers: The Political Theology of Barack Obama

There has been much speculation about the political theology of President Barack Obama. Some of this speculation emerged out of his words and actions, and some has been invented out of ignorance or lies (such as the belief that he is a rabid postcolonial Islamist). For example, he famously named Christian social ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr as his favorite political philosopher, and was baptized by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a pastor deeply influenced by Black Liberation Theology. The former admission inspired numerous editorials (overwhelmingly positive) about “Obama the realist” and the latter revelation spurred much denunciation from conservatives. Obama’s subsequent denunciation of the most controversial of Rev. Wright’s sermons birthed even more speculation about what Obama’s actual political theological beliefs are.

However, very little attention has been paid to the actual theological arguments Pres. Obama has used in speeches and interviews. A survey of his public statements regarding the motivation for his policy pursuits quickly reveals an abiding commitment humans should be their “brother’s keepers,” a phrase that comes from the biblical book of Genesis. Indeed, the phrase “brother’s keeper” has become a go-to phrase for Pres. Obama when defending his approach to policy-making from health care reform to international affairs.

For example, during this year’s National Prayer Breakfast Pres. Obama said the following,

When I talk about giving every American a fair shot at opportunity, it’s because I believe that when a young person can afford a college education, or someone who’s been unemployed suddenly has a chance to retrain for a job and regain that sense of dignity and pride, and contributing to the community as well as supporting their families — that helps us all prosper.

It means maybe that research lab on the cusp of a lifesaving discovery, or the company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little bit better, and we’ll all do better as a consequence. It makes economic sense. But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together. I’m not an island. I’m not alone in my success. I succeed because others succeed with me.

And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these –- for the poor; for those at the margins of our society…
Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers. And they are values that have always made this country great — when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year. And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey. (emphasis mine)

This excerpt is a clear example why Pres. Obama’s political theology is so important: it is a direct challenge to the Libertarian political theology of the Tea Party and the most right-wing faction of the Republican Party. Against an Ayn Rand-influenced individualism that denies the moral responsibilities of human interdependence Pres. Obama insists that we are bound to one another and that this fact carries moral and political responsibilities.

The Message of the Prophets in a Time of Elections

Yesterday I was honored to preach at Federal Way Church of Christ in Federal Way, WA. Preaching on the Sunday before a presidential election is a touchy thing and I delivered a sermon with that in mind. Below is a redacted version of that sermon. Enjoy

Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry “Peace” when they have something to eat, but declare war against those who put nothing into their mouths. Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision, and darkness to you, without revelation. The sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them; the seers shall be disgraced, and the diviners put to shame; they shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer from God. But as for me, I am filled with power, with the spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. Hear this, you rulers of the house of Jacob and chiefs of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong! Its rulers give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for a price, its prophets give oracles for money; yet they lean upon the LORD and say, “Surely the LORD is with us! No harm shall come upon us.” Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height.

In days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised up above the hills. Peoples shall stream to it, and many nations shall come and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many peoples, and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken. Micah 3:5 – 4:4

We humans are narcissistic creatures, you know. We have a tendency to think that our time is the worst time in history. That no one has faced a danger as serious as the dangers of our generation—indeed, that our generation may be the last generation. That today must be the beginning of the end. That history rests in our hands. That the urgency of today justifies …

… our daily passing by of the Lazarus’s that we come across …

… pointing out the “specks in the eyes” of the needy neighbor to soothe our guilty conscience for not meeting their need …

… the venom we spew about our neighbors who are different from us because their actions reveal the planks in our own eyes …

… the demonization of our political enemies to justify our hatred …

And the urgency of today makes us feel justified for listening to the prophets of today who are, in the words of Micah, blind and living in darkness. One quickly thinks of the “prophets” at Westboro Baptist Church who picket at the funerals of American soldiers killed in combat holding signs claiming their deaths are the punishment of God for America’s liberal ways. Or one thinks of Pat Robertson, or others, who are quick to name the tragedies of Haiti, New Orleans, or 9/11 as the judgment of God upon evil people. These are not prophets of God but are the prophets of today who cannot see clearly because they are blinded by the urgency of today.

Yet throughout history there have been prophets who had eyes to see clearly and ears to hear clearly and the wisdom to speak clearly God’s words of truth. They do not give in to the temptation of “today”; to the temptation to interpret all of history to be about me and about “us” and about now rather than about all of creation and about eternity. No, the prophets do not ignore today. They are not, as some might say, “so heavenly focused that they are of no earthly good.” No. The prophets have always been about earthly good. They “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” And in doing so they see today more clearly than those who cannot see past “today”.