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.”

On Doing Corporate Philanthropy Well, Or not

Some thoughts on corporate marketing and philanthropy.  I am increasingly uncomfortable with us and our corporate/non-profit partnerships that seem to be all about marketing and appear to have little substance behind them. While I blame the companies in part, I think we may be a part of the problem as well.

I was reminded of my discomfort last weekend at the Vikings game, and with the NFL's promotion of breast cancer awareness month that will start tonight. Several times last weekend, the Vikings highlighted their work to stop childhood disease, and support soldiers. The work is good. I have no problem with that. But as they gave it prominent play, and the whole stadium stood and applauded, I felt very uncomfortable. Something seemed off, as if what we were all doing, the Vikings and us the fans, was ultimately all about us.  Is this something we really care about, or is it about simply appearing to care?  Am I wrong? Is this a necessary part of fundraising and making people aware of worthwhile causes, or is there a hidden narcissism going on that starts with us?

To be clear, I get that in some respects it is primarily about marketing.  And for a for-profit entity that may be ok.  For me it is more a question of authenticity.  Is what you are promoting core to who you are or not?  Which matters, because I think many consumers can sniff out a lack of authenticity.  If the philanthropy is infact sincere, and I certainly hope it is, then the communicator needs to take care that that message is effectively communicated.  At the Viking game a few weeks ago, the partnerships didn't seem authentic.  I didn't get the impression that the Vikings core concern was childhood disease.  It seemed like they just wanted me to feel good about what they were doing in the community.  And it seemed like a lot of us were perfectly fine with that.  We stood and applauded, costing us nothing.

This is in contrast to, for example, an outdoor company that sells sporting goods, and also takes practical steps to nurture the environment.  If a CEO or owner clearly has a passion for the outdoors that drives both his business and his philanthropy, that I can get on board with.  If a metal fabrication shop puts their own time and effort into making things to help the handicap, say a kick-ass wheelchair for a wounded vet.  That is exciting.  They are proving their passion with their time, and asking me to get on board as well.  Ok. I like it.

But if it is just about perception.  Save it.

Scripture on Judging Others

There is a tension in scripture on the use of the word "judge."

For example, John 7:24, and many other similar passages say things like, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”
 
While in contrast, Romans 14:4 says, "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand... You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat."

And yet, 1 Corinthians 6:2 says: "Do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"

This all seems like it could be a problem.  Taking a look at the full context of each of those passages helps, and I think the Apostle James offers further assistance. Judging rightly is closely related to teaching, admonishing, and loving others well, and James has this to say about teachers: "Not many of you should become teachers (which inevitably involves making judgements), because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. [Remember] we all stumble in many ways." James 3.

And Paul says this: "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." Philippians 2:1-4

In my judgement, many Christians are like this blogger, who writes at length on why it is ok to judge others, without looking at the tension in scripture, or talking about how to do so well.  (He lists nearly every passage that says judge, but never looks at Romans 14.)

Exercising discernment, care, concern, teaching, or judgement without humility is an effort doomed to fail, and too often, that is exactly what happens. (For me in particular.)  That is one of the reasons non-Christians, and former Christians, and Christians who often don't identify as Christians, and our culture in general disdains judgement so much; they rarely experience it combined with humility and graciousness.

Go in Peace

There is a tension in Christianity between on the one hand, living a holy life that abstains from sin, and on the other, participating in systems that seem necessary but give us pause. Being a part of our communities in ways that call into question the ideals of Christ. One's career is a common area this challenge surfaces.

On that topic, this passage caught my attention today.

In 2 Kings 5 the commander of the army of one of Israel's enemies, Namman, had a problem, leprosy--a disease that would surely kill him, and which alienated him from his community.

And yet, he hears about the power of God, from of all people, a young Israelite girl that had been carried away into slavery, likely by his army. Desperate, he dared to approach the people he abused, and asked for help.

The King of Israel was distraught, certain that his failure to heal Namman's disease would be a pretext for war. But then a lowly prophet stepped in.

Like all of us, Namman, an enemy of God, experienced the grace of God.

And then this is what caught my attention:

"But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

“Go in peace,” Elisha said."

Reflections on the Affordable Care Act

The problems with Obamacare are well documented.  And they are real.  People have a right to be upset with the roll-out of the ACA.  But the fundamental premise that all Americans should have access to healthcare is being addressed, and it reflects a value for life and justice and generosity.

This article in the New York Times details some of the promises and ongoing problems of the ACA.

In some cases, those most vociferous on the problems are those that have done everything they can to derail it.  They are like a neighborhood bully who, having just rammed a stick through the spokes of a little boys bike says, "see I told you you would crash."

And then there are those who say, "we aren't opposed to access, we are just opposed to this approach."  But were were these people for the 20 or 30 years that this problem developed?  Obamacare addresses problems that were well documented and not being addressed.  Those problems could have been addressed in some other way in the years prior to Obama being elected.  If churches and non-profits should be at the forefront of this effort, why weren't they? Or why wasn't their effort adequate?  Why wasn't their enough of them?  Or did they do the best they could and the inadequacy of the effort prior to Obamacare just illustrates the limits of this approach?  (I'm not judging the efforts of those who were involved in non-profit healthcare prior to the ACA, I'm talking about the systemics of it.)

Finally there are criticisms of cost.  Several things are happening here.  First, American's are being asked to pay the real cost of their healthcare. (Or something closer to that number.)  In some cases, people were getting more than they were paying for.  Second, people are getting an insurance contract that is fundementally better than it was for many in the past.  The situation is similar to regulations on automobiles.  In some parts of the world, you can get a new car for substantially less than you can here in the States, but the workmanship, safety and efficiency all suffer.  You take your life in your hands driving these cars.   In the same way, people who use to have low-cost insurance plans, more than likely did not realize the extent of the exclusions and limitations on those plans.  In some cases they were paying for an insurance contract that was not worth the paper it was written on.  Having said this, this is one area I could see agreeing with conservatives.  Maybe American's should be free to buy bad insurance contracts.  I could see offering a super low-cost insurance contract that came with the equivalent of a Surgeon General's warning.  "Warning!  This contract does not comply with the requirements of the ACA and contains significant limitations, including..."

Having said all this, the problems at present are real.  Good intentions are not enough.  President Obama and his deputies need to deliver on the promises they made because those promises reflect a concern for life, and justice, and generosity.

Why a Government Shutdown is Reasonable

A government shutdown is not reasonable from a policy or good governance standpoint.  But it is reasonable if we consider what we know of human behavior during toxic conflict.  

In the context of war, it is “reasonable” for one human to kill another, and for that to happen on a mass scale.  It becomes reasonable when the stakes are high enough, when the good of the group outweighs the good of any given individual that may die.  (Let’s not dissect that premise.  Just stick with me.)  While Congress is not engaged in armed conflict—I don’t want to disrespect those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom—we need to understand the conflict in Washington as being on that spectrum.  Congress should no longer be understood as a group of people who are sent there to govern.  They are sent there to engage in rhetorical and legislative violence for their constituents.  Think otherwise?  Members of the House play to a small base.  “I am going there to fight for you” is a common refrain on the campaign trail, consequently we should not be surprised then when they do just that.

From the singular view of one side or the other, when a person is engaged in conflict, all manner of things that would not otherwise be reasonable, are.  On the hockey rink, if the game turns dirty, we expect that otherwise well-mannered boys will engage in cheap shots and brawling.  “I may not have started it, but I sure as hell will finish it” is a common thought process.  When two people who have shared their most intimate secrets divorce, it gets ugly, and in the context of that divorce, one can expect certain types of vindictive and counter-productive behavior.  Things will be stolen or broken, and the ugliest things said.  Considered from the standpoint of the individual consumed by conflict, these things are reasonable.

If we escalate any given conflict beyond Congress’ current level of toxicity, to armed conflict, undesirable behavior is not just acceptable, it becomes admirable.  Soldiers and generals are respected for what they do.  When you fight for God and country, anything goes.  And so it is in Congress.  The sides are sent there not to represent or seek the collective good, but to fight for their constituents.  Red State vs Blue State, or more accurately, Red County vs Blue County. If we are to believe the rhetoric of those that are very conservative or very liberal, all that is good and true is at stake.  In the context of access to affordable healthcare, it is nothing less than life and death according to both sides.

Understood this way, a government shutdown is a reasonable thing to do.  That is not to say it will be good for the country in the short term, not economically or in several other respects.  But that is always the case during conflict.  Parties choose to cease cooperating, or are forced to from their perspective, and give up present gains to obtain a better future.  A nation that had devolved into armed civil war gives up a great deal, while at the same time, a neighboring country not involved in civil war prospers.  Does that make sense?  It does to the parties at the center of the conflict.  However bad armed civil war, or a government shutdown may be, so long as it is better than the status quo,  it is reasonable.

**************

Notes

Conflict resolution, solving problems like this and helping parties recover from their seemingly reasonable actions is one direction I could see my career going in. Part of the reason for this is that I am prone to escalate things.  I am part of the problem.  I was a basketball player.  I preferred to play clean.  I never fowled out.  But I did use my allotment of fowls strategically, particularly if I felt the other team had crossed a line.  An eye for an eye?  You bet!  Because I have engaged in retorical and limited physical violence, it is clear to me just how destructive it is.  I know the depth of my pride and my inability to turn the other cheek.  I don't like the version of myself that comes out when I am engaged in conflict.  Because I identify with people in conflict, I think I might be able to help them solve it, maybe.

Another thought.  The reason I write a piece like this is that I believe we have to understand any given conflict before we can solve it.  Comments like, "why are they doing that, it is not reasonable," suggest that people misunderstand the nature of Congresses relationship with each other, the White House, and the American people.  It is not a disagreement.  It is a conflict that he degenerated to the point of rhetorical violence.  The only reason it has not descended into physical violence is that we all find it better to go to work each day with people we disagree with than to fight.  That, and the American people are not as radical as their representatives.  But to hear Congress speak, armed conflict would be reasonable.

Thoughts on Syria, foreign policy, and the use of force.

Some have suggested that our options on Syria are nothing, limited missile strikes, or all out war, and that none of these options are good, viable, or principled.  In contrast, I believe there is a fourth option that is both viable and principled: an extended air operation. The President could take a similar approach to the one taken in Libya and Kosovo, based on humanitarian principles. Rather than a limited missile strike, he could use an extended air operation, in conjunction with select rebels and special forces to have a more significant impact. I don't know that this is currently politically viable, but I do think it is what we should have done some time ago. I also appreciate that there are no guarantees on what would follow, so I don’t want to suggest that this would be a surefire effort, except in one respect. I believe it would almost certainly limit civilian deaths, even if additional people died via the bombing. In the long run, less people will die if the violence is ended through military action.

On the correlation between justice and the gospel

I was once asked if a concern for social justice is a distraction from the Gospel.  Far from being a distraction, justice, both in my personal interactions, and in the community (i.e. social justice) is a part of the good news or gospel of the coming reign of Christ.  And like the Kingdom of God, justice is for both the now and the future.

The gospel or good news of Christ is that the Kingdom of God has come.  We are each individually and collectively invited to participate in and submit to the reign of Christ.  We do this by confessing our sins, both those of an individual nature, and those that we participate in collectively.  We must also invite Christ to have the preeminence in our lives.  We ask him to enable us to live according to his values. In turn Christ's values demand that we order our lives and our communities in ways that are just.

(For more on the definition of justice see Tim Keller's article What is Biblical Justice, or this good conversation starter on justice from a friend working to stop sex trafficking.)

While my own identity is a moving target, I grew up as an evangelical, and continue to own many aspects of that identity in the broad sense of the word as defined here.  For evangelicals, there are three key principles that help support the connections between justice, the Kingdom of God, and the Gospel.

On Independence Day

June 7, '76
in Independence Hall.
Richard Henry Lee

made the audacious
call: "Resolved, [we] ought to be,
free and independent States.”

“It is rebellion”
The King of England said
“Take all the ships.”

Ties were severed
one by one, as war began
to brew. Common Sense

is what they called, the
fall from grace, of George and his
belligerent states.

But politics takes
time, and some had thoughts of peace.
Recess Congress called.

While five began to write.
Adams, Sherman, Franklin,
Livingston, each played

a role, but Thomas
dipped the quill, and it is this
that he began to write:

“When in the course of
human events, it becomes
necessary...”

to break the bonds that tie.

Then that immortal
line, “All men are created  equal.”
With Rights, and  Life and Liberty

And the pursuit of happiness.

The Correlation Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

I grew up in a conservative Evangelical home, attending a conservative Evangelical church.  While my tribal allegiance is a moving target, I am a person of faith who values both religious freedom and gay rights, and I think there is a correlation between the two.

Our present notion of religious liberty was not a foregone conclusion when the Founding Fathers met in the State House of Philadelphia in 1787.  For the most part, the tradition of forcing morality on dissenters was common place.  The established churches of Europe forced out the Puritans, and then they forced out people that they disagreed with; people like RogerWilliams who championed religious freedom and fidelity to conscience. It was Williams who insisted on buying land from the Native Americans rather than simply taking it, and who in contrast to the Puritans, embraced religious diversity when he founded Rhode Island.

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."

Reflecting on Trayvon's tragedy and our ongoing need for racial reconciliation

In our national racial dialog, I think we need to distinguish between the systemics of injustice and the facts in any given case.  Yesterday, CNN published some new allegations on the Trayvon tragedy which raised some questions for me. (Note I did not say new facts.  We just don't know what all the facts are.)

In the systemics of prejudice and injustice we have so far to go.  Those that know me, know I am deeply concerned about injustice and prejudice...  individually and collectively.  The reaction to the Trayvon tragedy is completely understandable.  Everyday, children of color go missing, and too often the media doesn't give a damn, something in contrast to when a cheerleaderesq white girl disappears. This time the media did give it some attention, and that is a good thing.

But the fact is, we just don't know exactly what actually happened on the evening of February 26.  And until we do, a rush to judgement doesn't advance our national dialog on race.  Too many black men have been falsely accused for us to forget the consequences of a rush to judgement.

However, what we do know is that typically, the death of a white child is given a significant amount of resources, whereas in this case it appears the police did not give the case the investigative resources it deserved, begging the question, why?

If they did indeed fail to give Trayvon's death the attention it deserved, that is a grave injustice.  And one that ought to be protested vehemently.  Trayvon was not killed because he was wearing a hoodie.

However, acknowledging our collective failure to achieve an equal common good for all.  Acknowledging that we are not doing enough to solve this problem.  Acknowledging that police do not investigate every homicide equally and that racial stereotypes play a role.  None-the-less we have to stop and ask, is that what happened here?  I'm not sure we can know that; yet.

When we do, as the prophet Micah said, may there be justice, mercy, and humility.  And if the facts support the outrage, may there be protests.  May the perpetrators both of the actions and the inactions be brought to justice.  But more importantly, may there be solutions and dialog, honesty and truth telling, forgiveness and efforts toward our ongoing need for racial reconciliation; for reconciliation is not just an event, but an ongoing life-long process.

On Jesus and Political Advocacy

Many of you know my basic approach is to say hey, we need to advocate for the values of Jesus when it comes to public policy. (however imperfectly)  But as I'm reading in a book by Eugine Peterson titled The Jesus Way, it is not enough to believe in the theology or the values of Jesus. We need to behave like Jesus, we need to follow the way of Jesus. We have to do the right thing, the right way. (obviously)  For that reason, Eugine quickly moves beyond personal lifestyle questions, (who doesn't think they ought be like Jesus) and starts asking hard questions about how we do life in community, how we lead church, and how we live in a pluralistic democracy.  What Peterson goes on to illustrate is that there is a tension between standing up for what is right and how that is done.  For example, contrast the following two passages.

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.

How my continuing engagement with Scripture changed my views on public policy

In the 2000 presidential election, I voted in my first presidential election, and as a newly minted member of the U.S. Air Force, was very happy to see President Bush elected.  And in the time before facebook and blogs, I e-mailed news articles to friends, often with my commentary, almost always with a conservative slant.  So when I say that I have shifted to the left, that should be considered relative.  I am pro-life and believe in smaller, smarter government, but after that, I tend to favor if not progressive policies, certainly a lot of progressive values that I see reflected in scripture.

Sex Offenders in the Pew

Just read a great article at Christianity Today about churches and sex offenders, but it is 7 pages long so I have put some of the key excerpts up here. As N.T. Wright says, every society has one unforgivable sin, and as the article pointed out, many would argue that in our culture, that sin is the sexual abuse of children. Fortunately, Jesus accepts all of us as we are, unconditionally. But that is hardly a license for stupidity or worse. If this is an issue (and a reality) that matters to you, I hope you find this useful. For the rest of us, I think these excerpts do a lot to shine some light on an often misunderstood issue. To read the article in its entirety, click here.

Sex Offenders in the Pew

When the prison chaplain asked Craig, a sex offender, if he was willing to accept Christ as his Savior, he answered with a question: "Would Christ accept me?"

Why Christians Should Support a Mosque near Ground Zero

More than once I have heard stories of churches who were denied the opportunity to build a worship center where they deemed fit. Sometimes there was a hidden agendas, sometimes there were legitimate zoning issues. Regardless, they felt that their freedoms, their religious freedom no less, was being restricted.

Christians of Every Stripe Calling for Immigration Reform

You may be surprised to find out that churches of nearly every denomination and tradition are speaking out with one voice on immigration.

Together they are calling on the Federal Government to reform our present immigration laws.

Consistently, they are calling for three things.

• That immigrants be treated fairly, humanly, with dignity and respect.

• That the rule of law be respected, and shaped to meet the above standards.

• That we recognize that we ourselves are immigrants; that as Christians we come from a tradition of immigration, and that we therefor head the words of scripture, welcoming, loving and caring for those in need, including the immigrant, regardless of legal status.
  

Following are the statements on immigration of no less than eleven diverse christian organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals(2), Lutherans(2), Methodists, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and Episcopalians.

What Comes First, In Health Care, and Everything Else

Been talking some with a good friend of mine, David Baxley, about the whole health care debate. He and I see things differently, but what I like about David is that he tries to put his theology first, and then his politics. He tries to understand his God and then allow that relationship to shape his relationships with everything, and everyone else, including his politics.

I wonder, do you and I do the same, or are we first Conservative, or Progressive, a Man or a Women, a _________, whatever label you want to use, and only after that, a Christian, a Jesus follower?

Do we make God in our image or are we allowing him to shape us into his image. Do we read the Bible looking for those progresive verses, those conservative verses, or do we recognise the Bible for what it is, a story meant to help shape us into the image of Christ. Something meant to shape, not be shaped.

My take on potential global warming.

I'm not a scientist. Neither are most of you. So what to do about all the scientific claims on global warming.

Here is what not to do. Don't think that this issue is in any way actually related to any other issue that has become partisan.

I truly don't understand why virtually everyone that thinks abortion is wrong, also thinks global warming is false. Or why so many who think global warming is true, think the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. One should be able to study an issue and come to a conclusion on that particular issue, irrespective of other issues. To me, the fact that this has become so partisan speaks to what I guess is obvious, the deep divide and mistrust that exists in this country. It is this latter point, as much as anything, that I find so troubling. We should be able to listen to people who are experts in their field, without judging them on every other issue, which they may or may not be qualified as an expert on.

So back to global warming. I chimed in on a facebook discussion page hosted by my denomination, the CRC, here.