Batman: "Nobody wants war."
Robin: "Gee, Batman. Belgravia's such a small country. We'd beat them in a few hours."
Batman: "Yes, and then we'd have to support them for years."
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Evangelicals and Elections: A Measured Response
11/6/08
By Stephen Caldwell
American evangelicals who insist on collectively wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth now that Barack Obama’s earned the title of president-elect need to pause and collectively take in this advice: Stop it. Just stop.
There were many reasons to oppose Obama’s candidacy, but there also are reasons to embrace the new reality – both the reality of the short-term positives that might come from it and the reality of the bigger vision we, as evangelicals, hold in common.
The idea that this turn in history represents the “beginning of the end” is true, but no more true than any other day between now and “the end” – which we, as evangelicals, really see as the beginning anyway.
I speak this truth as one of you.
While I’ve never been issued a card or learned any secret handshake, it’s fair to put me in the bucket commonly known as “evangelical.” Nevermind that I prefer no particular label or that, if forced to pick, it would be, rather simply, “follower of Jesus.”
In a nation that’s compelled to label its residents, however, I don’t shy away from the evangelical tag. My issue with the label isn’t with the defined notion of it, but with the perceived notion of it over the last 20 or so years. The group becomes defined by its actions, or, as its supreme leader once put it, the fruit that it bears. And, frankly, we bear some pretty rotten fruit from time to time (not unlike everyone else).
The evangelical movement has a long, mostly positive history, and much of it includes almost nothing to do with politics (even thought many wonderful politicians, in fact, have been evangelicals). And there were glorious decades when “evangelical” wasn’t considered a voting block. Presidents, if you can imagine it, were elected without exit polling that showed how the “white evangelicals” voted in Ohio.
Back then, the evangelical movement focused more on allowing God to work through its people so that He might add to the “elect” rather than on waging battles to elect certain candidates or creating a political power base.
Now I’m told to “vote God” or “vote the Bible” or “vote Jesus,” as if any mortal might know what the heck that means. Well, for one thing it means asking more than any candidate could live up to. We elect men and women, none of whom are perfect and, therefore, all of whom are sure to disappoint. So while we can carefully consider their policies and their character and their leadership skills and how all those things fit with current challenges and with our values and beliefs, in the end we’re called to something higher, that is to love God and to love others regardless of the politics of the day.
In a practical way, that might suggest that we love President-elect Obama even if we voted for John McCain, and that one way to do that is to stop sending e-mails to everyone in the address book suggesting that Obama is Hitler or spreading some other lie or half-truth.
It suggests that we pray for our leader, whoever it is, just as we pray for our closest friends and our most pressing enemies. (See 1 Peter 2:13, Romans13:1-4, 1 Timothy 12:2, among others.)
It suggests that we remind ourselves that being Christian or evangelical doesn’t mean automatically voting for the person with an “R” next to his or her name. I know people who love and follow Jesus with far greater abandon than myself – people I consider heroes of the faith – who voted for Obama. Guess what? I’m convinced they aren’t going to hell.
Indeed, perhaps the most positive outcome from the election is that we, as evangelicals, can go back to being evangelicals and not a voting block. We can rebuild our “brand,” as the friend of a friend put it.
“I believe that the president elect will restore the good name of evangelical Christians by reminding them that spiritual victories in this world are not achieved though mighty armies, mighty political leaders or the mighty dollar, but by the saving grace of the Carpenter from Nazareth,” this friend of a friend wrote in a post-election day e-mail. “That the proper role of His church is to share through love and service the true Hope of the world who resides not in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but in each and every human heart.”
To that, perhaps, we could offer a collective and heartfelt, “Amen.”
-- end --
By Stephen Caldwell
American evangelicals who insist on collectively wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth now that Barack Obama’s earned the title of president-elect need to pause and collectively take in this advice: Stop it. Just stop.
There were many reasons to oppose Obama’s candidacy, but there also are reasons to embrace the new reality – both the reality of the short-term positives that might come from it and the reality of the bigger vision we, as evangelicals, hold in common.
The idea that this turn in history represents the “beginning of the end” is true, but no more true than any other day between now and “the end” – which we, as evangelicals, really see as the beginning anyway.
I speak this truth as one of you.
While I’ve never been issued a card or learned any secret handshake, it’s fair to put me in the bucket commonly known as “evangelical.” Nevermind that I prefer no particular label or that, if forced to pick, it would be, rather simply, “follower of Jesus.”
In a nation that’s compelled to label its residents, however, I don’t shy away from the evangelical tag. My issue with the label isn’t with the defined notion of it, but with the perceived notion of it over the last 20 or so years. The group becomes defined by its actions, or, as its supreme leader once put it, the fruit that it bears. And, frankly, we bear some pretty rotten fruit from time to time (not unlike everyone else).
The evangelical movement has a long, mostly positive history, and much of it includes almost nothing to do with politics (even thought many wonderful politicians, in fact, have been evangelicals). And there were glorious decades when “evangelical” wasn’t considered a voting block. Presidents, if you can imagine it, were elected without exit polling that showed how the “white evangelicals” voted in Ohio.
Back then, the evangelical movement focused more on allowing God to work through its people so that He might add to the “elect” rather than on waging battles to elect certain candidates or creating a political power base.
Now I’m told to “vote God” or “vote the Bible” or “vote Jesus,” as if any mortal might know what the heck that means. Well, for one thing it means asking more than any candidate could live up to. We elect men and women, none of whom are perfect and, therefore, all of whom are sure to disappoint. So while we can carefully consider their policies and their character and their leadership skills and how all those things fit with current challenges and with our values and beliefs, in the end we’re called to something higher, that is to love God and to love others regardless of the politics of the day.
In a practical way, that might suggest that we love President-elect Obama even if we voted for John McCain, and that one way to do that is to stop sending e-mails to everyone in the address book suggesting that Obama is Hitler or spreading some other lie or half-truth.
It suggests that we pray for our leader, whoever it is, just as we pray for our closest friends and our most pressing enemies. (See 1 Peter 2:13, Romans13:1-4, 1 Timothy 12:2, among others.)
It suggests that we remind ourselves that being Christian or evangelical doesn’t mean automatically voting for the person with an “R” next to his or her name. I know people who love and follow Jesus with far greater abandon than myself – people I consider heroes of the faith – who voted for Obama. Guess what? I’m convinced they aren’t going to hell.
Indeed, perhaps the most positive outcome from the election is that we, as evangelicals, can go back to being evangelicals and not a voting block. We can rebuild our “brand,” as the friend of a friend put it.
“I believe that the president elect will restore the good name of evangelical Christians by reminding them that spiritual victories in this world are not achieved though mighty armies, mighty political leaders or the mighty dollar, but by the saving grace of the Carpenter from Nazareth,” this friend of a friend wrote in a post-election day e-mail. “That the proper role of His church is to share through love and service the true Hope of the world who resides not in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but in each and every human heart.”
To that, perhaps, we could offer a collective and heartfelt, “Amen.”
-- end --
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Jesus Ballot
The other day I told a friend, without giving it much thought at all, that I didn't think Jesus would vote. His immediate reaction was that of course Jesus would vote. Now, having given it some thought, I'm still not sure. My initial reasoning was that Jesus seemed fine leaving the affairs of government to mankind. Render unto Caesar, and all that. Then again, Jesus never side-stepped a debate. So then I wondered about the vote Jesus would cast, if He were, in fact, inclined to vote. Would He vote for the most godly candidate? The candidate with the most pure heart? The candidate with the best ideas about governing? The candidate most likely to protect life? The environment? The poor? Or, having divine foresight, would he simply vote for the person He knew would win (who, in fact, might be nothing like Jesus)? Ultimately, of course, the question has about as much merit as asking what Jesus would drive (assuming He'd drive, my guess is a white horse) or even what Jesus would do (WWJD) in any particular situation. The bigger and far better question seems this: What would Jesus have me do to bring glory to His name?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)