Thoughts on Integrating Faith, Politics, and Public Policy

There are two things one does not talk about in polite company, religion and politics.  I happen to have a passion for both, and to various degrees, my professional life has moved in both circles.  Integrating these passions well then, is something I care about, and that leads to the question of how that should be done.

My goal here is not to set out a treatise for all people at all times.  Rather, I just want to share some thoughts based on my journey.

On the one hand, I do not think there should be a separation of church and state that extends to one’s own soul.  Nor do I see the state as the primary vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth. How then should a Christian live an integrated life when it comes to religion and politics?  And if I don’t see the state as the primary vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth, why care about it all?  I think the prophet Jeremiah gave a beautiful answer to this question, when he addressed the Jews who had been carried away into exile. He said, “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

The Kingdom of God is the Gospel

I recently read an interesting article, Is the Mega Church the New Liberalism.  It focused on culture, gospel, megachurches and compromise with a focus on the issue of homosexuality.

As I'll summarize here, I don't think compromise on the issues of homosexuality or liberalism is the issue for the contemporary megachurch, rather the over-arching issue is American consumerism and individualism.  That in turn affects sexual identity, politics, and many other personal habits which may or may not be healthy.

My argument is that one reaches that conclusion by taking a close look at the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and frankly, how one defines the word gospel.

In Mark 1:15 Jesus says, “The time has come, The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

In this passage, the "good news" or gospel is directly tied to the Kingdom of God.  In turn, a critical reading of Christ's teachings on the Kingdom of God tends to create revolutionary changes that go beyond personal salvation.  On numerous occasions Jesus avoids giving a singular narrow definition of the Kingdom of God, but instead says, "The Kingdom of God is like..." and then goes on to share a parable which often included radical transformation and sacrifice.  Consequently, the Gospel or "good news" should not be defined narrowly by some selected writings of Paul (for example, what some have called the Roman Road, or Four Spiritual Laws), but in combination with the whole teaching of Christ, which is generally not in contradiction with Paul, but rather gives depth and width to those short summaries.

What gets preached AND what does not - From the pulpit AND in my life.

I wrote the following to a friend this mourning and thought I would share it with the rest of you. (with a few edits)  It is about me, not him, so no worries on confidentiality.  Read this as a letter to a friend.

...But to be fair, I am a bit cynical in some respects. It is something I reflect on fairly often with the Spirit in my quiet times. How does one see the world as it really is... ideally through His eye's, and not become cynical?

I was visiting a church the other day and they were preaching on God's immutability. Malachi 3:6a was referenced. “I the LORD do not change."

Clearly there was nothing wrong with what was being preached. And God's character was being made appropriately relevant to the hear and now. But like usual I briefly scanned the rest of the chapter, and a problem immediately jumped off the page.

The issue I saw was not necessarily one for any given church, or any given sermon, but rather concerns our shared Evangelical culture. The issue that leaped off the page at me was what we preach, thematically speaking, over the course of a year, and what does not get preached over the course of a year.

Malachi 3 is a perfect example of this.
(Go ahead and read it here, it won't take long.)

Things more than likely preached over the course of a year.
Mal 3:5a - sorcerers, adulterers are evil - check
Mal 3:6 - God does not change- Check
Mal 3:8-9 - Tithe - Check
Mal 3:17-18 - God's Compassion - Check

What got skipped?

The latter half of Mal 3:5 - "So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty."

On Church and Public Policy : What is the Churches Role?

So in all honesty, part of my decision to attend law school is born out of my dissatisfaction with the ability of the church to effect real change.  I'm probably a little jaded in this area, but I think statistics concerning behavior of church attenders and non-church attenders would back me up.

That said, in-spite of everything, I believe in the church.   I love the church, and despite my reservations, I know that it can be a change agent in the culture and in public policy.


So what is the churches role?  I do think that in many respects the church has a separate and distinct mission.  But at the same time, the ultimate aims of public policy and church often overlap.  What follows are several ways I think that churches can contribute to the health of their communities by contributing to the dialog on public policy in constructive ways.

My Take on Recent Mega Church Research

Pretty interesting article New Research Offers Portrait of Megachurch Attendees

Here's the highlights

• Nearly two-thirds of megachurch attenders are under 45 years old, as compared to only one-third for all Protestant churches (62% vs. 35%).
• Nearly a third of megachurch attenders are single, unmarried persons. In a typical church, singles account for just 10% of the congregation.
• Megachurch attenders are both more educated and more affluent than attenders at other churches.
• The majority of megachurch attenders are not necessarily new to Christianity but nearly a quarter had not recently been in another church before coming to a megachurch.
• While newcomers almost always attend a megachurch at the invitation of family, friends or co-workers, the real attraction tends to be the church’s reputation, worship style and senior pastor.
• Long-term attendance flows from an appreciation for the church’s music/arts, social and community outreach and adult-oriented programs.
• 45% of megachurch attenders never volunteer at the church, and 40 percent are not engaged in a small group, the mainstay of megachurch programming.

What do you think: news, not news? - good, bad?

Families: The church on a bell curve

The stratification of what we call “family” looks a little like a bell curve. On one end are any number of single people, who often become married, (curve increases) and create families of their own. These families grow, and eventually the goslings leave the nest. We begin to see the curve retract, often concluding quite sadly, with the passing of one lover before the other, returning the household to a state of singleness.

Most churches struggle with issues related to being who God has called them to be, and at Oasis we are no different. Having an ongoing conversation, when the members of the family range in age from one week to 97 years old, can be a bit challenging. For the most part it is an enjoyable struggle, but it is a challenge none-the-less. So I was struck by the juxtaposition of two passages in Matthew chapter 19. The first relates to the single life, and the second, to the life of the child.

v. 12 - Others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

v. 14 - Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Many of us find ourselves in the middle of the family bell curve, (married with children) myself included. The tendency for all of us is to relate best to those we are most like. But what of those on the edges of the bell curve? Scripture teaches, and in our head we know, that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. But to live it out, that is a challenge.

Too often the church responds to this bell curve in much the same way as the rest of the world, not with authentic love, but with programs, throwing money at the “problem”, and further stratification. We place the children over here, those poor singles over there, and the weak and aging somewhere else. This way, we who are the majority can get on with the business of life and church, unencumbered with the distractions of people not like us; people who quite frankly remind us of our own mortality and the fragileness of life at beginning and end.

At Oasis, we are no different. We don’t excel at breaking down these barriers, but we would like to. (You may have some suggestions on how to do this.) To further complicate things, running up against the value of togetherness is a value for communicating appropriately within a given culture. This value includes children, and so in the near future we will be starting up a “children’s church”, something which at first glance would seem to perpetuate the conflicts of interest we have been talking about. And to some degree it does. What we want is to have our cake and eat it too, and I think we can, if we approach this challenge with the right attitude. We want to value our children, and at the same time communicate with them in ways that meet their needs, without simply shoving them off on a volunteer.

Also present on this bell curve are those who are single, whether young or old. And these too, the church constituted by the majority, (those married with children) often struggle to embrace. Our first reaction is often to help them be just like us. We want them to enjoy all the benefits and consequences of marriage; forgetting that both the apostle Paul and Jesus suggest that in fact it may be better not to get married. We in the Evangelical community would do well to consider other traditions, which seem to have done a better job of embracing the life devoted to God.

At Oasis, (and where you’re at as well I’m sure) we would like to create a community where young and old can live, and play, and serve together. The question then is how? I believe we begin by learning to truly believe that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. The next key, as it is in breaking down any barrier, is intentionality. We need to intentionally build relationships with people who are different than us, and create structures which facilitate this. Children are not a nuisance, the elderly are not a problem, and singles do not need to get married. We are humans created in the image of God, and together (not apart) we are the church.

Calling and Convictions

I'm in this on-line church planting class called Missio which approaches things from a "missional" perspective. (yes that over-used word again, I know)

Here are my answers to a recent assignment.

1) What is your best understanding to date of what you sense God is asking you to 'be' and 'do?'

I feel called to create communities that worship Christ, love each other, and make the world a better place through tangible acts of service. I still wonder about the extent to which I should do this vocationally. I'm glad my current calling allows me to "work" part time in a way that is highly integrated. I know this is where I'm supposed to be right now, but will I always be a "pastor"? I don't know.

2) What are your top 3-5 conviction statements (Zer0 page 9 worksheet)?

• The world as we know it is not acceptable!
• We need to calibrate our actions for change. We need to operate in a sustainable emergency mode.

• Knowing Christ is paramount.

• Sustainability is paramount
  

• No one lives in a bubble, our actions are interrelated.

• The autonomy and conscience of individuals must be respected.
• In other words, disagree with out being disagreeable. We need to have convictions, but we need to learn to see things from other peoples perspective as well. In theology and politics, people somehow impute "sin" on people that don't see things their way. Pastors in particular have the potential to do great harm in this respect. I want to create a community where people are free to question the status-quo, including my personal convictions, but in a loving and respectful way. No doubt this is a reaction to dogmatic leaders, a problem I see in the missional community as much as anywhere.
  

• An improved Christian understanding of calling, particularly as it concerns vocation, has the potential to radically change the world for the better.
• From a macro perspective, I see governments and non-profits (including the organized "church") as givens when it comes to eradicating suffering. (that's not entirely true, but bear with me.) Google's motto: "Don't be evil", the philanthropy of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, these are examples of a force that if radically multiplied, could substantially improve the quality of life for millions. Therefore, empowering Christians to take ownership of their vocation, and see it as more than just a way to pay the bills, is something I am very passionate about.

• Sin warps the ability of individuals to completely know "the truth". Therefore we ought to operate with a great deal of humility.

• Critical thinking is paramount.

3) How does your understanding of your calling connect or disconnect from your primary convictions (from question 2 above)?

For the most part it connects. I'm very comfortable with where I'm at right now as it relates to my sense of calling. However sometimes I wonder if I couldn't do more good if I was involved in a for-profit (i.e. sustainable) enterprise that also uniquely contributed to making the world a better place, and then sought to join with others in a faith community, possibly taking on some leadership roles, but without the pros and cons of a salary.

Missional Defination in Art and Scripture

Philippians 2:6-7
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.

Matthew 28:18
Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go...

John 20:21
As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.

Mark 2:16
But when the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with such scum?

1 Corinthians 9:22
I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

A word of explanation
Rich over at Blindbegger, as well as many others I am finding, feel that the word missional is loosing it's meaning. Consequently he has called for a synchroblog event, happening today, to discuss the defination of the word missional.

Since I'm sure other people will do a better job than I at putting pen to paper, what you see above is my contribution to a working defination. Those pictures were not chosen randomly, rather, I believe they each carry great meaning. The word missional means the life of we who are the church centered on three things: Jesus, The Mission of God, and a sense of community; meaning an awareness of the interrelatedness of humanity, and the need to be in relationship.

The first picture obviously depicts Jesus, the center of all things, but just as important is the fact that in this picture Christ is incarnate in and for a particular ethnic community. There is nothing wrong with a blond hair/blue eyed Jesus'... in Scandinavia, or any community that is truly that homogeneous. (though I would question how truly homogeneous communities that think they are, are.) Jesus was God made flesh, for a particular community, the Jews in his historical case. We too must seek to reflect Christ in our particular communities, authentically engaging people where they are at.

People should not have to cross cultural boundaries to come to Christ. Unfortunately on it's worst days, the size and weight of the evangelical community has created its own sub-culture, one allian to those not initiated. It is a subculture wholly un-Christ like in that it serves as a barrier to those on the outside. We don't GO as Christ taught us, we say COME; and when your just like me you can belong... if you take this class and pass the test. (Of course there are good days too. Take a look at who is actually rebuilding New Orleans.)

The second picture is meant to convey a sense of "going", or being on the move. It's an added bonus, that in the picture the world seems to be passing the church by. How true. To avoid this we have to evaluate how we spend out time. How many relationships do we have with people outside the church? And how much of our time goes to those people? Jesus left the comfort of church err... heaven, and went to where people were at, usually the "sick" not those who are "well"... (in church?) (This is an area I certainly struggle in.)

The final picture is meant to convey a sense of community and relationship. To love our neighbor as ourselves demands an awareness of our communities both local and global, and an understanding of how what I do impacts others. The teachings of Jesus demand lived beliefs that impact the communities we are a part of.

In contrast, much of the church lives with a dualism that acts as if A) doesn't impact B). Ironically the church often talks about breaking down this dualism, and in some ways does. But several Biblical concepts, justice and equality in particular, have been given very little attention. Instead, we who are the church have reflected a greater commitment to a kind of capitalism which is unencumbered with the ethics of Christ or a concern for those most in need. Sure we give of our time and money. But then our spending and investing habits, and the actions of our elected representatives (on both sides of the aisle) undo all the good we were tying to do, illustrating the dualism we are talking about.

Having said all of this, I am concerned that we who are authentically using the word missional (i.e. not just tagging it on to a very attractional thing.) none the less struggle to live it out. I certainly do, especially in the area of economic justice. There is a real danger that all we are talking about is degrees of separation on the wrong side of the equation. Do we really want to trumpet Jesus as our guide and example if we struggle as much as we do to live up to his over-the-top example?

Take these pictures for what their worth, and by all means, feel free to critique. For a fuller defination see the links below.

Synchroblog Participants

Alan Hirsch . Alan Knox . Andrew Jones . Barb Peters . Bill Kinnon . Brad Brisco . Brad Grinnen . BradSargent . BrotherMaynard . Bryan Riley . Chad Brooks . Chris Wignall . Cobus Van Wyngaard . Dave DeVries . David Best . DavidFitch . David Wierzbicki . DoSi . Doug Jones . Duncan McFadzean . Erika Haub . Grace . Jamie Arpin-Ricci . Jeff McQuilkin . John Smulo . Jonathan Brink . JR Rozko . Kathy Escobar . Len Hjalmarson . Makeesha Fisher . Malcolm Lanham . Mark Berry . Mark Petersen . Mark Priddy . Michael Crane . Michael Stewart . Nick Loyd . Patrick Oden . Peggy Brown . Phil Wyman . Richard Pool . Rick Meigs . Rob Robinson . Ron Cole . Scott Marshall . Sonja Andrews . Stephen Shields . Steve Hayes . Tim Thompson . Thom Turner

Oasis (3) - Missional?

So this Sunday will be our first preview service for Oasis, our new church plant. Things are kind of crazy right now, but I need a break, so I thought I would share some of the mental gymnastics I am going through with being missional in a semi-rural/semi-suburban context, in Nebraska.

It’s my impression that a certain number of people in this area want the attractional thing. Want church to be a place to go to meet Jesus. Now if missional is absolutely the only way to do things, well then you don’t compromise. The problem I have is that I don’t think everyone woke up January 1st, 2000 and suddenly became postmodern. On the contrary, I get the impression that many un-churched people still think that when life is falling apart, the institutional church is where you go to get God.

I don’t agree with that at all. But because I agree with a missional perspective, I’m willing to work with people and their misconceived ideas about church, in the same way I am willing to be in relationship regardless of any number of other things we might disagree about. Some aspects of attractional can be missional for those in a modern 20th century context. We are going to gather to worship together. What am I going to say when someone's life is falling apart, and they "come to church." "Sorry I can't help you, let me set up a non-appointment with you at the bar so we can do this more incarnationally." Having said tha, what leans me to the missional side is when I see churches going uber attractional, assisting in the sin of a self centered world view, simply giving people what they want, be that the "uncompromised gospel" or anything else.

What were doing in Waverly is a missional thing, wrapped in an attractional shell. Yah were advertising, inviting people to church and what not. But that is where attractional stops. If I had my way, our buzz line would be “It’s not about you.” (Or me.) On Sunday we are simply going to gather together to worship our Lord and Savior, and btw your invited. If some people are attracted to that, fine. But when it comes to lived values. It will be about missional. Keeping it simple, the values of Jesus, going to where people are at, serving our community, in community, doing life together.

Needless to say, this will make none of the true believers on either side happy, but I believe that it corresponds to a key tenant of missional, which is to be true to your zip code, not your friends zip code.

Talking about this on paper, kind of easy compared to the challenge of living it out. That is the part that really scares me, and where I feel the least prepared.

Missional - Overused and Missunderstood?

Rick over at Blind Beggar believes that the word missional is getting overused. So he is calling for a SynchroBlog about the defination of missional on June 23. You can see who else is talking about this here. I'll definitely be participating.

In the mean time, here is my defination in three words: Jesus - Community - Go.

More Questions

A blogger by the name Rhymes with Kerouac posted 50 questions about the Christian sub-culture. Here are some of my favorites, most of which resonate with me as well.

It should be noted that he said this: Please - don't think of these as criticisms. Think of them as conversation starters.

1. If I only had 12 people in my congregation, and one of them ends up turning on me, one of them flat out denies he even knows me, and the rest bail out just when I need them most... would my ministry be a success or a failure?
2. We went from old hymn books to new hymn books to song books to overheads to Power Point. What's next?
3. Wooden pews. What were they thinking?
4. Everybody at church knows what the rules are, everybody knows how to behave, what's expected of them. No-one ever sat you down and said, 'these are the rules...' but you know them anyway. How did you learn the rules? Of course, you can't really understand this question until you get a bunch of folks together in a street church, where no-one knows how to behave in church...
5. Here's a little game to play. Sit in church. Pick a man or woman - someone you sort of know, but don't know real well. A Christian person. A nice Christian person. Ask yourself, "If they fell off the wagon and ended up downtown, living on the street, sleeping in their own urine and vomit... would I go get them?
6. Would any of us go get them?
7. Rich Christians are blessed by God. Absolutely destitute Christians must live on faith for their every need. Which is better?
8. Which is better when you haven't eaten in three days?
9. Why do all our pictures of Jesus look like us?
10. Why is it that none of us can walk to church?
11. Why is there a copyright on bibles?
12. When will we stop praying for revival and start living like the revived?

The Question That Haunts Me

What does the first picture (in a symbolic sense) have to do with the second? What does the church have to do with genocide, abortion, global warming, cancer, AID's, and on and on it goes. It is a question that haunts me. This is why I am something of a cynic. If I go there it breaks me up. So I just don't go there.

What is Missional Church? Ryan Bolger- Video (2)

At the end of the video (see previous post) Ryan asks this question:

"How do we make our way of life and our worship (i.e. church) consistent with both the life of Jesus and with our culture?"

Appropriately a question is the best one line definition of both emerging and missional church. Not that a one line defination is all that useful or appropriate, but none the less...

What is Missional Church? Ryan Bolger- Video

Here is a video in which Allan Roxburgh interviews one of my favorite Fuller profs, Ryan Bolger. They are discussing the definition of missional church vis-a-vis the emerging church, and Ryan's own journey in this direction.

I highly recommend taking the time to watch this. It is very very good. Ryan is an A list pro on the topic and is able to communicate coherently what others, including myself, struggle to articulate.

Churches sponsor home for homeless

Very cool story you should read here. It details four rural churches creating a home for homeless people in Richland Center, a rural town of 5000 here in Wisconsin, right down the road from La Crosse.

Churches working together, the homeless, rural, all very interesting ideas.

Church & State Excerpt Two

If we agree that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that he reigns over the powers of this world, we can agree that it is the Church’s responsibility to bear witness to this fact. One of the primary ways we bear witness is by living according to norms and standards set forth by Jesus Christ. Immediately we recognize that we do not consistently do this, which begs the question, do we have anything to say at all? I believe that we do, so long as we honestly recognize our mistakes, both our sins of omission and commission, and seek to make them right. We cannot hold the State to a higher standard than we are willing to be held to ourselves. Therefore, it is important to be clear about the standard we wish ourselves to be held to, and that which we wish for the State. Given the fact that our standard, the example of Jesus Christ, is in some sense very high, it is understandable if others and we fall short, so long as we do not use this as an excuse to not even try. Let me be clear, failure to exemplify the life of Christ is not acceptable, but it is inevitable. Therefore, we do well to witness to the State with the grace and mercy of Christ, as people who have been forgiven much.

Church & State Excerpt One

“The first level of the Church’s faithfulness and in a sense, a test of the validity of everything else she will say later, will be her own obedience to the standards of discipleship.” (Yoder, The Christian Witness to the State, 16)

This first principle supersedes everything else. Though no person lives a perfect life, the ethics of the Church must be consistent with those things that she witnesses to and about. This overarching principle serves to ground the next three principles offered by Yoder.

1. The witness to the State must be representative of the Church’s clear conviction.

2. The witness of the Church must be consistent with her own behavior.

3. The Church should speak only when she has something to say. (Yoder, 21)

These three principles work hand in hand. On any given topic, unless a Church is exhibiting a certain type of behavior, it has no true conviction, and if it has neither behavior nor conviction, it has nothing to say.

Church & State Intro

I mentioned my Church and State paper the other day. The outline is a couple posts down. Here is the introduction. I’ll post some excerpts in the coming days.

Intro
The Church’s relationship to the State has been, and currently is, a matter of deep contention. Standing apart from, being one with, and living in co-existence with, (to greater and lesser degrees) are three of the major ways Christians have chosen to interact with the State. In contrast, I will offer three ways in which the Church can witness to the State: Directly, Indirectly, and as a separatist alternative. In this paper, we will examine both contemporary and historical ways the Church has chosen to relate to the State. I would like to give us a path to follow, as we consider how we in this country might properly exercise our citizenship in this nation and the Kingdom to come.

The Church is at its best when it serves as a witness to the State, living and being a missional community that reflects the Kingdom of God. An integral part of this mandate is helping our neighbors, our community, and our culture, to reflect the Kingdom of God. Doing this requires both a personal commitment to moral excellence, and a commitment to systemic justice. The latter part in particular requires special attention from Evangelicals, as it has historically been the part of our call most likely to be neglected.

In the contemporary setting, we error when we go too far in one of two directions, relating too closely to the state, baptizing most or all that it does, or standing too far from it, in no way influencing it for the better.

Church & State Paper

I just sent off my 30 page Church and State paper. I enjoyed doing it. It served to help me ground my own understanding how many feel the Church should relate to the State. Below is an out line. In the next few day's I'll put up some excerpts.

An Introduction

• A Short History
• The Basis
• Principles

The Form of the Christian Witness to the State

• A Separate Witness
• An Indirect Witness
• A Direct Witness
• Which Method: Separate, Indirect, or Direct?

Objections

• Faith is Private
• The State is already Christian
• The State is beyond being rescued

Conclusion

• On Paradox

Church & State

I'm looking for a job and taking some summer classes. One is on the intersection of Church and State, the history of democracy, and the like. It's a directed study so there are only a few of us doing it. You can see our class page, and read what were thinking about here. Below are some excerpts of what is being said.

I said:
My main problem with Hastings is that he assumes that democracy is a good thing, maybe it is, but he doesn't seem to address this.

I would also like to get everyone's take on the degree of truth to the idea that the Reformation, and specifically Reformed theology gave rise to democracy. Obviously that's not the narrative of the secular majority, but among Christians?

What do you guys think?

Greg Replied:
I need to do some more reading, but it seems that the free church tradition especially believes that democracy is the direct result not only of the Reformation but the correct reading of the NT after the Reformation set it free from the chains of the Roman Catholic Imperialist Church. However, a casual conversation with a political theorist that studies Western political thought will reveal that they care very little about the role of the Reformation or the churches involved in the democracizing of America.

That said, it is true that the Reformation "liberalized" Europe and allowed people the opportunity to not have to deal with the Roman Church and, thus, they were able to do anthropology separated from theology and thus produce theories regarding the capabilities of humans that would not have been possible under the Catholic Church. However, Protestantism did not always suppor these benevolent views of human nature either. There is just something about the doctrine of total depravity that is hard to reconcile with the enlightenment view that human reason can solve all problems from government to science.