Article VI Blog

I spent a good deal of yesterday chastising myself for thinking about the politics of the Boston Marathon bombing.  The human tragedy is is immense.  I prayed and I prayed.  Not only for the victims and their loved ones, but for myself that I could resist the temptation.

I was not really tempted to “make political hay” of this, but I found myself planning political defenses.  I EXPECTED the political opposition to be opportunistic.  I was pleasingly shocked when the presidents statement was, at least in words, an apolitical statement of sympathy and resolve.  But this president has made so much political hay out of so much tragedy that I could not help but note that his tone and demeanor while delivering those words did not necessarily match them.  Therefore, I expect the hay making to begin soon and in earnest.  This is after all, the administration that famously holds, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

I then I ran across a piece from Warren Rojas @ Roll Call under the headline:

No Separation of Church and State When Tragedy Strikes

The piece reprints eight tweets from Congressman, some of them famously left wing, calling for prayer in the aftermath of the bombing.  There is, of course, no dearth of church-going on the left, they just claim to keep it in “its proper place.”  No doubt these Congressmen will claim they were not acting as representatives of the government, but as individuals moved by what they were witnessing – but these were all on Twitter accounts bearing their offices and titles.  The old adage about there being no atheists in foxholes comes to mind.

From this there are two important lessons that I think we must make note of right now, if only to preserve them for our future political use.  We are swimming in  a political sea; I do not think it can be avoided.  I do not think we can afford to grant our opposition momentum here.

Lesson 1 – For our political opposition, religion is a target of opportunity, not conviction.  This means that they often are not attacking religion, but simply attacking our specific religious convictions, often in an effort to divide us one from the other and gain political advantage.  This is bait we swallowed whole in the last election and they reeled us in like catfish.  We have got to get smarter.

Lesson 2 – There is room to appeal to all but the most hardcore atheists through religion.  But it has to be the right appeal and it has to be sufficiently religiously generic so as to have broad appeal.

I will not go on about this at length – I will return to praying for those directly affected by this heinous act.  But I will hold onto these lessons.

Posted in Religious Freedom, Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

During the week just past, I ran across this blurb:

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said you can have “an honest difference of opinion” of what’s causing climate change without “automatically being either all in that’s all because of mankind or it’s all just natural,” BuzzFeed reports.

Barton then cited the biblical Great Flood as an example.

“I would point out that if you’re a believer in in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”

under this headline:

Congressman Says Bible Proves Climate Change Isn’t Man-Made

and I thought, “That, in a nutshell, is why we lose.”  I turned to the cited and linked Buzzfeed piece in hopes of finding more, but really did not.  Now don’t get me wrong.  While most people presume the earliest parts fo the Old Testament to be “mythical” there is strong geological evidence of a massive flood in the region from which the Bible came in early pre-history.  Not to mention the fact that other regional religions have similar narratives.  However, the assertion of a Biblical narrative, particularly one from the pre-Abrahamic sections, as fact is asking for ridicule.  Not to mention the fact that a single massive flood inducing storm is not “climate change” in the sense that it is discussed today.  While people today often cite single weather events as evidence of a trend requiring extensive data points over extended periods of time, we should not be guilty of the same logical and scientific mis-reasoning in refutation.

This is “argument from inside the bubble.”  It presumes that everyone is inside the same bubble with you.

As I reflected on this story, finally much of what went wrong in 2012 came into focus for me.  Our devoted readers know that after the 2008 election, we wrote an extended series of posts in which we told the story of why, in our opinion and from our perspective, Mitt Romney lost the Republican primaries that year.  We are not political professionals, nor journalistic professionals for that matter, we’re just bloggers.  However, we do have some unique insight and perspective particularly on the religious angles of these campaign.  Since the stunning and disheartening loss of the general election of November 2012 we have been working to get our heads around what happened, again from our particular perspective.  And now, finally, I think I see it.

It is not a straightforward tale – one deserving many posts.  In point of fact, I envision two series springing from this.  The first is an analysis of the election.  I am not sure we a lot to add to the work that has gone on many other places, but we will make our best efforts.  But one of the the things we will cite in that series is the collapse of Evangelicals as a meaningful political force.  And that will lead to the second series.

Metaphorically, Evangelicalism these days represents nothing so much as a Gothic cathedral, stripped of the flying buttresses that have held the building up for centuries, and therefore in danger of imminent collapse.  In the second series we will look at the buttresses that Evangelicalism so desperately needs.  They may not be “gospel,” but they are necessary.

Virtually everyone agrees that the 2012 election has the potential to be a watershed.  It certainly represents a massive shift in national attitude, but such is a fickle thing.  Only history will be able to determine if it represents a permanent shift in the nation.  But there is one thing I know – How history judges it will be based in large part on how Christians respond to it.  In order to respond to it properly we need to know what went wrong – what is still going wrong in some instances.

Should be an interesting ride.

Posted in Analyzing 2012, Evangelical Shortcomings | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The AP this morning:

California lawmakers are considering taking some tax exemptions away from youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members — a move intended to pressure the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.

Some cities have withdrawn free rent and other subsidies from the Boy Scouts over the years, but legislation introduced by state Sen. Ricardo Lara would make California the first state to target the Scouts for its anti-gay policy.

The Long Beach Democrat’s bill, SB 323, is scheduled for its first committee hearing on Wednesday.

“Our state values the important role that youth groups play in the empowerment of our next generation; this is demonstrated by rewarding organizations with tax exemptions supported financially by all Californians,” Lara said. “SB 323 seeks to end the unfortunate discriminatory and outdated practices by certain youth groups.”

Non-profit tax exemptions are and always have been a means of social engineering.  I don’t want to cry some sort of legal foul here.  But I want everybody to think about what a radical shift in social mores this represents in the nation.  Non-profit status has gotten completely bent out of shape from its original intent, but at its core lies the idea of the government lending favor to those organizations that shape culture and society in a fashion that helps the nation function better.

I want people to think about the fact that if they do this to the Scouts, how long will it be before they do it to the para-church, Campus Crusade, Young Life, Youth-for-Christ, World Vision, etc.  And once that is done how long before they do it to the church proper?  In such a policy shift we will move from saying that such organizations make the nation better to saying they are just another organization, no different than the store down the street of the manufacturer in the industrial park.

Such organizations have been wrong on issues before – they will be wrong on issues again.  I do not believe they are wrong when it comes to homosexual practice, but I grant that I could be in the minority on that issue.  When such organizations have been wrong in the past people have fought the wrong issues inside the organization based on the belief that taken as a whole those organization did more good for the nation than any harm that might result from stances on specific issues.

That is NOT what is going on here.  This is a move that says such organizations and institutions do not benefit society generally.  What will take their place?  What will be the institutions and organizations that improve us?

The social/cultural myopia here that is extraordinary.  For the sake of a single stance on a single issue, proponents of this law would seek to change the entire fabric of our social/cultural order.

Is this issue truly THAT important?

Posted in Social/Religious Trends | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I am beginning to wonder if the metaphorical “culture wars” are going to become a bit less metaphorical.  And it is more than just a religion thing – it’s a war on common sense.

I should have smelled it coming when “PZEV” started to appear on vehicles in California.  That stands for “Partial Zero Emission Vehicle.”  This is an official government classification out here is looney land:

PZEVs have their own administrative category within the state of California for low emission vehicles.

This vehicle category was created as part of a bargain with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), so that the automobile manufacturers could postpone producing mandated zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), which will require the production of electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Now I realize not everyone is a math person, but I don’t think you really have to be a math person to understand the grammatical absurdity of that designation.  “ZERO” indicates nothing.  How can one have part of nothing?  How can one divide nothing?  This designation is truly Orwellian in its abuse of language.

But it seems California lawmakers and regulators are not done twisting the language:

Leave it to my state of California to head off in radical and expensive directions. Legislation has been filed that would require group insurance to cover gay and lesbian infertility treatments just as they do heterosexual.

Gay and Lesbian infertility?!  Of course they are infertile – it s a definitional thing!  If you want the government to pay for in-vitro and surrogacy and sperm donation and all the rest of the gyrations that would be necessary in this case, then fine.  I won’t vote for it, but that is what democracy is all about.  But to call it “infertility?!” – That’s a bit like saying, “We have to fix this whole night and day problem and compensate everyone for the lost wages while they sleep.”

Remember last week when I talked about Christianity as being a force to preserve excellence?  This is part of that, this may seem like a little thing, but the abuse of language and definitions here is horrifying.  That people would buy into this is testament to an utter lack of anything resembling educational excellence.  This is not college level stuff here.

But the “war” is more overt than just language perversion.  There is this from the United States Army:

A U.S. Army training instructor listed Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Fox News has learned.

And this from the most liberal paper in the UK:

Which brings up the second obvious aspect about these issues: that they will be with us as long as there are political actors and business interests that have an interest in promoting and exploiting them for their own gain. If one scapegoat gets away, there will always be another to take its place. In fact, there is no shortage of replacements for the fading attack on gay rights.

One of the newer sources of potential conflict is the religious right’s novel idea of “religious liberty”. Religious freedom used to mean freedom from having other people impose their religion on you. Now, it apparently means the freedom to impose your religion on others.

WOW! That perverts language, history, and declares war all in two paragraphs.  “Religious freedom used to mean…,” well if “used” extends back no farther than 1963 or so, perhaps, but religious freedom as it was coined in the United States, and Britain for that matter, was about PRACTICE of religion – that we are free to practice our faith.  And yet we find our freedom of practice curtailed everyday in things like the HHS mandate, and you know it is not going to be long before states where same-sex marriage is legal are going to force churches to perform same-sex ceremonies in the name of equality.

Which brings me to this little number from The American Conservative:

Mike Huckabee warns that if the GOP caves on same-sex marriage, Evangelicals will walk. I don’t believe it. This is an empty threat. Huckabee and I are on the same side of the SSM question, so for “Evangelicals” you might as well substitute “social conservatives.” I think very few of us will abandon the Republican Party over this issue. Why would we, given the alternative would be a Democratic Party that’s more hostile to our values and concerns?

If he’s talking about Evangelicals and other social conservatives walking away from political engagement within the GOP, and on behalf of GOP candidates, he may have a point. If they decide that the party has surrendered on the issues that are most important to them, that can’t help but reduce enthusiasm and engagement. It’s not quite the same thing, but in the wake of the Iraq War and the economic crash, and the subsequent inability of the Republican Party to do anything but double down on its ideology, I quit identifying as a Republican, changed my registration to Independent, and now consider myself simply a conservative. I am more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, given my convictions, but I’m not nearly the automatic Republican vote that I used to be, while also not becoming enthusiastic in the least about Democrats.

Point is, the GOP alienated me from politics in general. The only reason I retain a likelihood to vote Republican for national office is over social issues, especially same-sex marriage and abortion and, relatedly, religious liberty. If the GOP gives these up, there will be no strong reason at all for me — or the group Thomas Kidd calls “paleo-Evangelicals” — to privilege voting Republican over Democratic.

That’s called “quitting” folks- and reflects a gross misunderstanding of how the nation works.  If the GOP is “caving” then it is because that is where the consensus lies.  And if that is where the consensus lies then we have failed the nation in so many ways.  We have failed to convince the nation of the correctness of our stance.  Which takes me back to excellence.  If we were excellent in education, excellent in argumentation, excellent in evangelism and excellent in political engagement, then the consensus would be in our direction.  But rather than try to get excellent in those things, by say diving into the party and working harder and better to make it represent our views, we pout and run home.

There is some deep sociological and eccesiological stuff at play here.  I need to explore it more before I wirte about it at length, but the Evangelical church does very little of what the church has done historically – it is church reduced.  Subsequently, many in Evangelical circles have moved to other places to try an exercise that stuff, the GOP being amongst them.  But the GOP has a stated purpose and it is not to do some of the things the church is supposed to do.  This kind of disappointment in the GOP is really disappointment in the church.  At least that’s my theory at the moment, as I say, need to explore it a bit more.

But in the meantime what is obvious is we HAVE to engage or we are going to lose.  We are being assaulted not just on our religion, but on our simple common sense.  Can’t we at least stand up and fight back for common sense?

Posted in Political Strategy, Social/Religious Trends | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Washington Times ran an editorial this morning under this startling headline:

The triumph of mediocrity

It’s a little piece about the enormous waste in a very small federal program.  Their comment:

What is striking about the floodplain restoration program is just how ordinary the errors and inefficiencies were. There was no smoking gun of corruption, no lavish payouts or accusations of improper influence. It was a triumph of mediocrity,….

That struck me deeply.  A Bible verse jumped into my mind:

1 Cor 12:31 – But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

And I show you a still more excellent way.

I wonder – do we as Christians still seek a more excellent way?  I wonder if our losses in the public square stem from that fact.  Another Bible verse:

1 Peter 2:12 – Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

I think perhaps this is what I mourn most deeply when I look at the waste land of Christian activity in politics.  We have conceded to mediocrity.  Oh sure, we have insisted on “excellence” on our issues – abortion, marriage, etc.  But have we insisted on excellence generally, in ourselves and in our governance?  If I wanted to get ugly I could point to countless churches that are administered as poorly, or even more so, than the agency the Washington Times calls to task.  Do I even need to talk about the personal peccadilloes of so many that have sought to lead us.

We pat ourselves on the back, thinking all along of that 2 Peter verse, when we are insulted for staying married to someone of the opposite sex and raising children – but what about everywhere else in our lives and the lives of our churches?  Are we really excellent?  Do we even strive for excellence?

The more I think about it, the more I think our problem is that we have aimed too low.  We have sought excellence on a few issues.  But what we should seek is excellence in all things – personal and public.  Radical, world changing excellence.  Christians in public service, not the elected or appointed – I’m talking about the run of the mill bureaucrat, should be excellent in that service.  They should be the ones that would prevent the kind of things the Washington Times points out.

The way forward does not lie in the grand electoral strategies and ground-breaking new communication tools – it lies in excellence.  The kind of excellence that can change everything.

Posted in Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

From the Washington Times:

The Rev. Robert Jeffress knows how to make headlines, as witnessed by a recent kerfuffle over whether or not NFL quarterback Tim Tebow would speak to the congregation at the reverend’s First Baptist Church in Dallas. (Mr. Tebow didn’t). Last year, the question was whether, Mr. Jeffress, having classified the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as not being Christian, would endorse Mormon candidate Mitt Romney for president. Mr. Jeffress did.

Dust-ups aside, Mr. Jeffress knows how to do one thing well, and that is preach the Christian Gospel in a town known for wealth, extravagance (Dallas is home to Neiman Marcus, after all) and, to be honest, more than a little ostentation. First Baptist, a 145-year-old congregation once thought to be in decline, is about as solid as one could imagine. It also has a link to the Washington area: Mr. Jeffress‘ radio program, “Pathway to Victory,” airs weeknights on WAVA-FM.

One measure of that rebound is the church’s rebuilt sanctuary opening on Easter Sunday, just behind a glass wall and an outdoor water fountain whose patterns rival anything on the Las Vegas Strip. Five years ago, just as the last recession was getting under way, Mr. Jeffress launched a $130 million capital campaign to cover the cost of renovating much of the downtown church campus. This was, by the way, a time when many downtown churches were bolting for the suburbs and church giving was hardly certain.

You know, when Jeffress was doing his anti-Mormon thing, I pegged the guy as an attention hound.  Let the record show that the man was willing to throw the nation to the Obama dogs for a second term for the sake of building a cool fountain in front of his church.

I just don’t get it.  The nation is under serious threat from many angles.  Consider the words of Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, as passed on by Peter Kersanow:

Hosanna- Tabor is not an isolated case. It belongs to a pattern of government coercion that includes the current administration’s HHS mandate, which violates the religious identity and mission of many religiously affiliated or inspired public ministries; interfering with the conscience rights of medical providers, private employers and individual citizens; and attacks on the policies, hiring practices and tax statuses of religious charities and ministries.

Why is this hostility happening? I believe much of it links to Catholic and other religious teaching on the dignity of life and human sexuality. Catholic moral convictions about abortion, contraception, the purpose of sexuality and the nature of marriage are rooted not just in revelation, but also in reason and natural law. Human beings have a nature that’s not just the product of accident or culture, but inherent, universal and rooted in permanent truths knowable to reason.

This understanding of the human person is the grounding of the entire American experiment. If human nature is not much more than modeling clay, and no permanent human nature exists by the hand of the Creator, then natural, unalienable rights can’t exist. And no human “rights” can finally claim priority over the interests of the state.

Such is the very real danger we face.  True freedom lies in the ideas of faith, not in their absence.  And yet people like Jeffress and Phyllis Schlafly are willing to rip to shreds the only party that even tries to carry this message forward.  Jeffress appears to be about the basest of motives, lining his pocket.  Schlafly, on the other hand seems to be purely confused about the idea.  She seems to think that we can return the nation to its moral underpinnings through legislation.

Such legalism so misses the point of pretty much the entire New Testament that it is stunning in its miscalculation.

I got involved in this mess because I thought the Romney candidacy represented a turning point for American Christianity in politics.  That is turning out to be more prophetic than even I thought at the time.  There is a very real crisis brewing.

Posted in Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post