When Pot is Legal Everywhere

Over the years, I have nurtured my inner libertarian.  My embrace of liberty has less to do with theory and more to do with my attitude of “leave me alone.”  Unlike Thoreau who suggested, “That government is best which governs not at all,” I believe in limited government.  I want government to be competent and active but only in the areas that are proper for it.  I also give more latitude to local government.  If the people of New York or California want to destroy the business climate, at least people can move somewhere else.  

Nevertheless, there is a favorite issue among libertarians that I just don’t get excited about—the legalization of drugs.  I am sympathetic to the plight of non-violent drug offenders sitting behind prison bars, and I favor local control on the issue.  However, libertarians often don’t acknowledge the realities surrounding the issue of legalization.

I enjoy reading Reason.com, and I appreciate Nick Gillespie’s writing there.  However, I was a little surprised at his column on Time’s website entitled, “8 Things We Won’t Miss When Pot is Legal Everywhere.”  With legalization, he argues, certain annoyances will disappear.

1. “Vapid anti-drug commercials.”  Currently the U.S. government provides subsidies to growers of a legal substance while paying money for anti-smoking campaigns.  I do not imagine that those anti-drug commercials are going anywhere.  Even if government dropped its public health role, I wouldn’t discourage non-profits to spend advertising dollars to encourage teenagers to stay off drugs.
2. "Ritual apologies by world-class athletes.” Private organizations such as Major League Baseball or the National Football League already regulate drug use beyond the laws. I don’t expect that to change. Likewise, sponsors hoping to protect their brands often regulate the private behavior of athletes. Legalization does not imply social acceptance. Take a look at tobacco.
3. “Breath-taking personal hypocrisy by politicians.” I would hope that Gillespie is correct here. It is annoying that the rich and powerful can get away with smoking pot in their youth, but the poor today get incarcerated. However, I don’t know that legalization will make a huge difference in the hypocrisy of politicians.
4. “Long federal prison sentences for legitimate business owners.” This might happen with legalization, but we must acknowledge that there will be regulation of pot. Legalization will only go so far. For example, no one argues that pot should be available to 5 year olds. I would guess that marijuana will be as regulated as firmly as alcohol or tobacco if not more.
5. “People denied medical marijuana treatments.” I never understood the issue of medical marijuana. If marijuana has any medicinal benefit, it should be allowed under a doctor’s care. However, I would never assume that marijuana will be treated different than other drugs. The state will continue to regulate both the drug and the delivery system.
6. “Arguments that marijuana is a ‘gateway drug’.” Marijuana use doesn’t necessary lead to harder drug use. However, there is a strong correlation between marijuana use and drug use like cocaine. Granted, correlation is not causation. Nonetheless, society will need to address the negative effects of marijuana use. If the government will not be making that argument, I know that churches, charities, or even businesses will do so.
7. “Arrests for simple possession.” This is probably the only thing on the list that will actually disappear “when pot is legal everywhere.” However, social costs associated with drug abuse and driving intoxicated will still be with us. Society will search for other ways to address these concerns. That might mean a stronger social welfare state for those who cannot hold jobs or are in need of rehabilitation. It also might mean higher automobile insurance or medical insurance premiums. It might mean fewer qualified candidates for jobs.
8. “Drug raids that go wrong.” Legalization will not make tragedies disappear. Granted that police will be spending less time looking for drugs. However, their job will become much more stressful and intrusive. For example, I don’t anticipate that laws against driving while intoxicated will go away. However, checking a person for marijuana is much harder than giving someone a Breathalyzer test for alcohol. Police will need blood or urine samples.

At the very end of the article, Nick Gillespie acknowledges that “Legalizing pot won’t create a problem-free country”. That is quite a concession. I am quite willing to entertain the legalization of marijuana. However, waving a magic wand and making drug laws disappear will not change the underlying reasons for that legislation. I would guess that there are be better solutions outside prosecution and incarceration. However, we need to have a conversation about those solutions before we get rid of those laws.

Q&A: Would you be comfortable?

It's time once again for my opportunity to answer the questions that no one has asked me.   As I watch the news, I often wonder what I would have said under similar circumstances.  I'm lucky because I have weeks to think about my answer. 

Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is currently making a stir in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.  Personally, I find Cain a compelling figure.  I like his biography and his experience.  I've never been a CEO, but I've run a pizza restaurant.  I have no problem with a president who once asked, "thin or deep dish?"

The question that Cain received was, "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim to your cabinet or as a federal judge?"  What we receive here is only an excerpt.  Both the questioner and Cain suggest a prior conversation about the role of Islam in American society.  I can't help to think that something is missing something from the conversation.  Cain certainly looks annoyed with the questioner.  Giving Cain the benefit of the doubt, I was still perplexed with his answer.

Herman Cain emphatically states that he would not appoint a Muslim.  He then states that he is concerned about the imposition of Sharia law on American society.  I certainly wouldn't want that either.  As a Christian, I am very quick to point out that I reject the main tenets of the Islamic faith.  Nonetheless, religious bodies in the United States use their own law to regulate the life of the community.  However, there are limits to the freedom of religion.  For example, recently an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state judge who accepted Sharia law as an excuse for marital rape.  I would suspect that the judge probably knew as little as I do about Sharia.

A president should only appoint those who he or she believes will be faithful to the U.S. Constitution and the law.  Also, I would hope that a president would inquire into how the Constitution should be interpreted.  The question is really about living and working within a pluralistic society. 



Here's my response to the question:

Q:  Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim to your cabinet or as a federal judge?

A:  A president never appoints generic categories to positions of authority.  Each person has a name, a character, a background, particular beliefs, and talents.  These individuals will be thoroughly vetted, and I will only make the appointment if I am comfortable that they will uphold the constitution of the United States.

Q&A: "What is your take on jihad?"

When I watch debates, interviews and press conferences, I often think how I would have answered the question differently.  That doesn't mean I would do a better job.  I have the benefit of sitting at home away from the television cameras and the pressure.  I don't have to worry about an election or world opinion.  Still, it's fun to play the game. 

Today, President Obama is getting flack about an answer he gave to a Catholic schoolgirl in Indonesia.  The question was, "What is your take on jihad?"  The president is speaking before a Christian audience in an Islamic country while fighting a war in another Islamic country.  He is walking a tightrope.  I certainly don't envy the guy.  Still, I find it bizarre that the president would want to get into a debate about the finer points of Islamic doctrine.  I suggest keeping things simple.



Here's my response to the question:

Q: What is your take on jihad?

A:  I am not a Muslim, nor am I a religious scholar.  As a result, it would be presumptuous of me to explain the tenets of another faith.  Nonetheless, I know peace-loving people of many faiths, and I am willing to work with them to make this world a better place.

Likewise, I am familiar with people who hate and use violence against innocents.  It doesn't matter if they justify their actions by a religion or a particular ideology.  We should stand against them on the side of justice.

Peace through Irony

I applaud Jon Stewart and his “Rally to Restore Sanity” that took place in Washington D.C. last weekend.  I frankly didn’t watch much.  Instead, I saw bits and pieces afterwards on the internet.  As always, I’m impressed when thousands of people can peacefully gather together without incident. 

I enjoy smart humor, and over the years, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have delivered.  However, I am just not that interested any more.  In the past, I thought Colbert had the better wit, but he is becoming more and more self-parody.  Stewart still has his moments, but the smugness is wearing thin. 

The shtick seems to be that we take ourselves way too seriously.  Don’t hold opinions or beliefs too tightly.  Otherwise, you’re divisive.  In fact, you might be mentally unstable.  The best example of this argument that occurred at the fake rally hosted by the fake newsmen was when they asked a fake priest to offer a fake prayer.  Fr. Guido Sarducci, a character by comedian Don Novello, asked God for a sign of which religion is correct.  When God didn’t answer, Sarducci was left in an awkward position of thanking God for dogs and good works by other people. 

The agenda is peace through irony.  If no one had deeply held convictions, we could sure get more accomplished around here.  Our divisions are suggested to be simply matters of taste like the person who prefers Mexican food to Italian food.  If so, it does little good to yell at one another about it.  We should just get over our preferences.  John Lennon’s Imagine is probably the best anthem for this attitude. 

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I am very sympathetic to the cause.  I decry the meanness found in our public life.  I think that many of our differences and disputes at their source are meaningless.  I long for debate that is thoughtful and reasoned.  Do we really think the Daily Show is the solution?  Laughing at silly divisions doesn’t necessarily create unity.  In fact, it often leads to self-satisfaction and self-righteousness. 

Someone from the rally “tweeted” a picture of a sign.  It had a simple, clever message, “  +  >  ÷  ”.  The person commented, “The best thing about this sign is that the Tea Party won’t understand it” (my paraphrase).  Talk about irony. 

Moreover, some divisions are important.  Some differences are meaningful and should not be dismissed.  Depending on the cause, dying for something or someone can be noble.  Strongly held and defended beliefs can promote a better society.  How do we make the case to our neighbors?  The question is not one of sanity but civility. 

In a way, Jon Stewart’s final statement was the best moment of the entire rally.  He finally was talking about how we get along in a society.  The example of cars on the freeway entering a tunnel was smart. 

Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear—often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.

The drivers will get to their destinations because each person makes, in Stewart’s words, “little reasonable compromises”—a concession here,  a concession there.  Stewart is absolutely right, but the question is why?  No one on the stage was answering, "Why does civil society work?"  If we can answer that question, we will go a long way to solve our problems.  For example, I would suggest that honking your horn is a preferable way to deal with a problem than shooting the driver next to you.  I prefer shouting on cable news shows than fighting in the streets. 

Drawing upon our traditions, history and heritage, what are our non-negotiables?  Irony is not enough.  Eventually we need to stand for something.

Terrorism as a Disqualifier

After the destructive acts of September 11th, 2001, the United States responded with a "War on Terror."  Critics of all political stripes have suggested that the name doesn't fit.  Even President Bush, who coined the name in June of 2002, was not keen on the name in 2004 when he stated,

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be: 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.'"

Some take issue with the designation of "war".  I think this was the rationale behind President Obama dropping the name.  He has opted for a bureaucratic and innocuous sounding name, "Overseas Contingency Operation." With large numbers of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan where bullets and bombs continue to kill, it seems a bit disingenuous to call those conflicts anything other than wars. 

Others take issue with the term "terror."  Pastor Rick Warren actually made this point in a recent "tweet".

Terrorism is a TACTIC. You dont fight a war against a method (like blitzkrieg) It's a battle of ideas, a war of worldviews

I actually tend to agree with this argument. The battle is with a particular terrorist entity and perhaps the failed nation-states who harbor them.  I found Peter Breinart helpful as he describes the conflict with Al Qaeda as a long-term ideological struggle.  Just like the "Cold War", this struggle will be fought with military and law enforcement, but also with education, diplomacy, and economic aid.

That being said, I do find something useful in the designation, "War on Terror."  In its imperfect and clunky way, the title suggests that terrorism is out-of-bounds.  If we are entering a period of history marked by the clash of civilizations and ideologies, then we should establish some ground rules.  However legitimate our concerns, we cannot further our political ends by terrorism.  The person or group who commits terrorist acts has given up the right to be heard. 

For example, the abolitionist cause in the United States before the Civil War was just.  However, John Brown's armed insurrection disqualified him personally from taking part in the debate.  Likewise, I found Chris Kennedy's position on refusing William Ayers emeritis status at the University of Illinois at Chicago correct:

“There is nothing more antithetical to the hopes for a university that is lively and yet civil, or to the hopes of our founding fathers for their great experiment of a self-governing people, than to permanently seal off debate with one’s opponents by killing them.”

My only regret is that William Ayers was given a teaching position in the first place.  Can someone renounce violence and return to the debate?  Yes, I certainly would welcome that possibility.  Nonetheless, our methods are as important as our ends.  Frankly, I may be naive, but I have confidence that truth will ultimately succeed if civility rules the debate.

Avoid Speeches on the Constitution?

I recently read the article "Republicans and the Tea Party - Enlist but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution" by Kate Zernike.  Unfortunately, I can't tell if this is Ms. Zernike's advice for the Republicans or the mood within the Republican party.  The only authority that she cites is Stuart Rothenburg who is a non-partisan political analyst.

“You see these rallies and the signs are all about the Constitution,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. “They want it to be about these big ideological ideas, when I don’t think most voters think that way. It’s very clear that what’s best for the election is to make it about Obama, Pelosi, health care, the deficit.” 

From wherever the advice is coming, I disagree.  It seems that the American people could benefit from a large-scale debate about the Constitution and the proper role of government.  Some guy in a tricorn hat railing on the 17th Amendment and the direct election of senators might be a non-starter, but American rhetoric needs more than "who's hot" and "who's not".  In the last presidential election, I was sadly disappointed that neither candidate seemed willing or able to articulate a governing philosophy.  There are hard questions facing the republic, and many voters want to know how a leader thinks. What can government do and not do?  What are the limits to freedom?  How will a leader establish priorities and resolve conflicts of interest? 

All these folks dressed as Revolutionary reenactors have a point.  History and our founding documents matter.  The excesses of the Tea Party movement should be met with principled argument, not ridicule.  Whether the issue is health care or war in the Middle East or the role of religion in society, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" require some explanation.  Americans are generally conservative, and they want to know that the rules aren't changing in the middle of the game.  At the very least, they want to know that change is consistent with their heritage and principles.  The conservatism of which I speak is not ideological.  It's an outlook.  In a few years, I bet we will hear again that the Republicans have overreached precisely because they forgot this advice. 
 
In the meantime, showing disdain for the Constitution is not the way to get elected.  

September 11th

Nine years ago, we were reminded that evil is real, that heroes exist, and that hope never dies. Despite her sins, America remains a beautiful, wonderful land whose greatest resource is her people. Let us not forget those who died, those who mourn, and the children whose parents are never coming home.

"Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever! I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth" (Job 19:23-25).

Community Organizers

I currently receive e-mail from Sojourners.  Even if I disagree with an article, there is always food for thought.  The cover story for this month is about congregation-based "community organizers".  In another time in my life, I worked as a teacher in a poorer community in Arkansas.  I appreciate the work of those who bring communities together, empowering individuals and strengthening families.  Those folks are doing the Lord's work.  From the conclusion of the article...

That is what hundreds of thousands of Christians and others have found in congregation-based community organizing, a practical way to live the values of the kingdom of God, or “the world as it should be,” amid the messy realities of “the world as it is.” As Nolan said, “Organizing is a really great marriage of the pragmatic and the prophetic.”

Unfortunately, there are some organizers who only see the community as "haves" and "have-nots".  They reject the possibility of personal transformation, ignore the gifts already present in the community and treat the powerful as the enemy.  Rather than seek reconciliation, they perpetuate the divisions in society pitting one group against the other.  Others have a myopic view of the problems that communities face.  Clearly, encouraging political involvement is important, but politics is not a panacea.  Even Barack Obama, the former community organizer, has acknowledged, "...we know the government can't solve every problem."

Saul Alinsky is credited as the father of "community organizing" which I personally think is unfortunate.  Alinsky's writing gravitates toward the worst tendencies of community organizing.  However, the Sojourners' article suggests that things are changing...

When organizing moved into churches, it also started to lose some of the rough edges that were hallmarks of the Alinsky style. For instance, Alinsky’s method called for “personalizing” the issue, making one individual the face of the enemy. Today organizers are more likely to talk in terms of building relationships, even with public officials or business leaders who might be the current adversary.

Thank God that we are moving away from "personalizing" the issue...

...Never mind.

The Benefits of Being Wrong

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments exist in order to secure the rights that we have naturally.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

When John Locke speaks of rights, he has a different triumvirate--life, liberty and property.  "The pursuit of Happiness" although not original with Thomas Jefferson is the American innovation.

Happiness is not about emotional well-being.  It is about teleology.  What is the proper end of society?  What are our highest aspirations?  History gives us multiple examples of the ends of social life.   Honor, virtue, salvation and wealth are but a few.  The Declaration was purposely vague on the meaning of happiness.  This was not an endorsement of a moral relativism where truth did not exist.  Instead, the Founders believed that truth would be revealed in the free exchange of ideas. 

Kathryn Schulz in a recent post on the Freakonomics blog doesn't write explicitly about the pursuit of happiness, but her insight is helpful here.  She speaks about the tolerance of dissent and disagreement.

...We are a young country built on a mature idea: that all of us must be at liberty to make mistakes. We are free to say things our fellow citizens think are untrue, worship gods our neighbors regard as idols, hold fast to convictions that contradict those of our leaders.

We think of these liberties as embodying the American tolerance for dissent.  But our nation’s founders were not simply some kind of 18th century ACLU, fighting to protect everyone’s right to express even the fringiest beliefs.  Instead, they protected minority opinions for a pragmatic reason: they recognized that, over time, the fringe rather than the mainstream might prove right. What they inscribed in the Constitution was an awareness of the perpetual possibility that we are mistaken.

The proper role of government is not to interfere with our freedom to discover and pursue our own happiness.  Our laws provide proper channels for the resolution of disagreements when our pursuits conflict.  Whether from a minority or the majority, all opinions are tested.  Even if someone is mistaken, there is a benefit to society.  It serves as a teachable moment.  We revisit the arguments and discover the truth once again.

I recall recently that some of our politicians thought an election ended the conversation.  One party won, and the other lost.  Therefore, the losers should just sit down and be quiet.  Thankfully in the United States, it is never enough to win an election.  We must continually put our arguments before the people.  Our leaders always have the responsibility to teach.

Improbabilities Don't Prove a Creator

According to Stephen Hawking, God did not create the universe.  Apparently this is the revelation found in his recent book, Grand Design which has gotten all the press.  Sadly, there are probably much more fascinating comments in the book, but in the interest of internet clicks, God vs. the atheists is always good seller.

In a Wall Street Journal article, Stephen Hawking explains the fire behind the smoke.  If I understand him correctly, Hawking suggests that we shouldn't be fooled by the amazing improbabilities that life even exists.  What improbabilities?  The scientist gives us a litany.

• The distance from the earth to the sun is just right.  Too close water would boil.  Too far water would freeze.
• If forces were not conducive to the formation of stars, heavier elements would never have formed including carbon and oxygen which is necessary for us to exist.
• If the dynamics of stars did not include that some would explode, then those heavier elements would not be distributed throughout the universe.
• Change 0.5% or the strong nuclear force or 4% in the electric force and all carbon and oxygen would be destroyed in stars.
• The orbit of our planet needed stability for a few hundred million years in order for life to develop.  This is an amazing feat considering all the gravitational influences from other bodies in the solar system.

I find such facts quite incredible, and at the very least suggest a posture of humility.  Laying coincidence upon coincidence, for many the probabilities seem too improbable.  As a result, they postulate a Creator.  Hawking suggests we make those conclusions too quickly. 

I see his point.  Moving backwards from a swarm of improbabilities to a certitude of a Creator is a leap.  God doesn't play dice with the universe, at least according to Einstein, but we certainly do.  What is the probability that someone would throw a "6" on a regular die?  Around 17%.  The odds are against it.  After the die is thrown and the player actually gets a "6".  What are the odds now?  100%.  To put it another way, The odds that a particular person would win a lottery are millions to one.  Let's say Homer Noodleman of Houston, Texas actually wins.  Is it fair to argue backwards?  It was so improbable that Mr. Noodleman would win that he must have cheated or the gods of luck favored him or something.  However, the improbabilities prove no such thing.

For the person of faith, of which I am one, the improbabilities are not a proof but a hymn of praise.  I thank God for the incredibly complex and fragile universe that he created.  The atheist who has read this far will suddenly take issue.  So be it.  However, I am intrigued by Stephen Hawking's assertion, "Everything in the Universe follows laws, without exception."  That there is a discernible logic to the universe may not prove God's existence, but it certainly moves us away from a meaningless and random universe.  It even opens us to the possibility of natural laws relating to justice or ethics.  During the Enlightenment, many thinkers who spoke of God or Providence were thinking precisely of those natural laws.

It's interesting.  I believe in the God of the Old and New Testaments.  However, I have much in common with a person like Thomas Jefferson or even Christopher Hitchens who despite religious differences, believe that the universe is reasonable.  We are in fact living with many of the same epistemological assumptions, most growing out of the fertile soil of religious belief.  Stephen Hawking hasn't ended the God debate.  He still is indebted to his opponents.

A Defense of Theological Debate

Rick Warren the pastor of Saddleback Church  in California and author of the Purpose Driven Life offered this afternoon a "tweet".

"Rick Warren (@RickWarren) 9/4/10 1:44 PM
We like to defend our preferred worship styles in theological terms but it's really more about your background than beliefs"

Whether hot or cold, the worship wars in our congregations continue to be fought.  In an important sense, Warren is correct.  Our preferred worship style says much about our background.  What is comfortable for us?  What are our cherished memories?

However, I disagree with Warren here.  I rarely hear people defend their preferred worship styles in theological terms.  Frankly, I would see a theological defense as an improvement.  As a pastor, I am constantly trying to move the conversation to the theological.

There is no pathway out of the quagmire of opinion, taste or feelings.  If a particular style assaults my comfort level, there is nothing I can do.  You have your pleasure, and I have mine.  In theological conversations, by contrast, there are authorities such as the Bible and tradition.  There are expectations of civility and love for those with whom you disagree.  Often there is a hierarchy of purpose.  I honestly thought that was the whole point of the Purpose Driven Church/Life/etc.  We sacrifice for the sake of the greater purpose.

Finally, I don't like the implication of Warren's statement.  If I raise theological objections or concerns to a particular worship style, then my motives are suspect.  No one has to answer my concerns because I am the one being silly.  I am just being moved by my own background and prejudices.  I know that often our inner psychological struggles and family issues influence how we see the world, but as Sigmund Freud supposedly said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Beyond a Christianity That's Cool

Brett McCracken has written a new book entitled Hipster Christianity.  The book has apparently just been released, and I haven't read it yet.  However, McCracken used material from the book to write a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.

Part of the thesis seems to be that Christianity is trying to re-brand itself once again.  McCracken suggests that the change is a reaction to numbers.  The latest generation isn't attending church, and leaders are working hard to find the magic formula to bring in waves of young evangelical Protestants.

Increasingly, the "plan" has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called "the emerging church"—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement. Perhaps because it was too "let's rethink everything" radical, it fizzled quickly. But the impulse behind it—to rehabilitate Christianity's image and make it "cool"—remains.

There are plenty of "emergent" church folk who would take issue with McCracken's judgment that the movement fizzled.  Despite that small quibble, McCracken is correct.  The church desperately wants to be cool.

However, this is nothing new.  Style and attitude have always accompanied the journey of faith.  Fads come and go even among Christians.  Probably, 21st Century Americans understand this better than anyone.  We live in a culture in which style trumps substance every day.  We covet celebrity, and those futures are more volatile than any financial market.  Today, among Christians or "Christ followers" there is a certain style in ascendancy.



I have spoken about this video before, but it illustrates the point well.  For all the desire to be inclusive, we are merely replacing one style with another.  Clearly, the "Christian" in the video above is a caricature.  In a way, McCracken is suggesting a caricature of the "Christ follower".  The "cool" or "hip" of one generation are just as self-righteous or judgmental as another.  We have merely changed what we value.

Every generation is so self-regarded that it often cannot see the contributions of another.  For example, I have heard edgy preachers condemn those wealthy churches who worship Mammon, but then rely on those same churches for contributions for their "alternative communities."  In addition, consider the churches that actually promote themselves as "This is not your parent's church".  As much as proponents will not admit it, this is a soft condemnation of our parents' church.  Something was missing which we have figured out.  

The danger is when style and attitude become unmoored from something more substantive.  In the past, the church was identified by a set of moral behavior or by its theological doctrines.  Both were limiting in their own ways.  After all, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  We worship God, not our good works or intellectual constructs.  Nonetheless, living in an age of biblical illiteracy and moral license makes one pine for stale orthodoxy.

I am a product of this generation.  I don't want to return to a golden age that never was.  Likewise, I don't want to enter into a golden age devised at some late night seminary bull session.  I am part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.  A respect for others, whether "cool" or not, shows my unity with the greater church.  Who knows?  Maybe I'll learn something from those who came before me, or at least I'll discover that I've never had an original thought.

Worship Attendance Overrated?

Bill Easum has been a leader in the "church growth" movement for years and years.  In a recent blog post, Easum grapples with the reality of competition between worship and youth sports.  In the past several decades, the culture has grown less and less accommodating to Christianity, and families must often now choose between extra-curricular activities for their children and worship attendance.  Easum's solution is to let the youth participate, but then encourage them to be missionaries on the ball field.  Worship attendance, according to Easum, is overrated.

I think we place too high a premium on church attendance.   Most of our people spend too much time a church and not enough time sharing their faith with their neighbor. We have led our people to believe that attending church is the mark of a Christian. But it’s not. The mark of a Christian is what we do in our everyday lives.  

Although I love the idea of young people showing the love of Jesus to their teammates, Easum shows a regrettable disregard for worship.  I'm afraid that he is not alone.  For many Christianity is simply doing.  Modern evangelicals might add a vague personal relationship with Jesus, but we Protestants have primarily focused on doing good works and changing social structures.  What we are missing is an ecclesiology and a theology of worship.

Consider the church's current infatuation with the word, "missional".  If the purpose of the Christian life is mission or ministry, the church simply becomes a society for good works, and worship becomes a pep rally for mission workers.  A biblical focus on God's mission to the world need not exclude the church or worship, but sadly too often it does.

In contrast, I would argue that the purpose of human life is in fact worship.  As the Westminster Catechism describes it, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever." As the Apostle Paul states,

"God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11).

When the Scriptures criticize worship, it criticizes worship that is hypocritical.  For example, Paul condemns gluttons and drunkards who deny others food and drink at the Lord's table (1 Corinthians 11). The problem is not the Lord's Supper, it is the Christians who fail to "discern the body".  Mission, ministry or the life of discipleship should be an extension of worship.  The Bible again and again uses the language of worship to speak of our good works.  The acceptable sacrifice is a "broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51).  The fast that God chooses is "to loose the bonds of injustice" (Isaiah 58).  As we gather in worship, we catch a glimpse of the kingdom of God, and we are called to carry that vision into the world.

Our salvation is not dependent on our Sunday morning attendance, but why would we want to give up that vision?  Why would we begrudge our youngest missionaries the reason we go into the world?

UPDATE: Bill Easum responds on his blog.

James, you took my comment out of context. I didnt say worship wasn’t as important as doing good. No way. I said we put too much emphasis on going to church as if that were the measure of a Christian. I was talking about being a representative of Christ in the community as one of the most important thing a Christian does. Sure worship attendance is important, but it is not the final measure of a person or churches worth. The final measure is whether or not the community would miss the church if it were no longer there.

Social Justice and the Temptation of a Personal Faith

A few months ago, Glenn Beck took on Jim Wallis at Sojourners.  He lambasted the concept of social justice, and Jim Wallis has gotten a bunch of mileage out of the controversy.  First, I must offer my props.  Glenn Beck has loudly turned the attention of his audiences to history and the American founding.  If people watching his show actually read Federalist Paper #10, the republic would be in a much better position.  Likewise, Jim Wallis has always couched his political agenda in the language of faith.  As a result, he has forced me again and again to go to the Scriptures to examine my own positions.  Both Beck and Wallis play an important role within our media culture.  I tip my hat to both.

That being said, I have my concerns.  Both men offer simplistic soundbites and surface understandings.  I have written before about Jim Wallis.  Those familiar with my blog know my criticisms.  Glenn Beck however is a newcomer to my comments.  My wife got me to listen to him years ago, and he can be entertaining and thoughtful.  However, I frankly don't trust Glenn Beck on matters of religion.  Hurried show-prep read through the lens of Mormonism is a bit suspect.

Beck has equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism.  He claims that "social justice" and "economic justice" are codewords for "the redistribution of wealth."  However, Beck ignores a long tradition of Christian teachings on social issues.  The term "social justice" has been adopted by the overwhelming majority of Christians including the Roman Catholic Church.  To be fair and to give Beck some credit, there are folks who lurk in the shadows of "social justice" who believe with all sincerity in "the redistribution of wealth."  In fact, there are some within the church who seem more influenced by the Communist Manifesto than the Sermon on the Mount.  Rather than telling parishioners to run, as Beck reportedly has, church members need to get facts and ask questions.  Particular political positions need to be examined in the light of Scripture, church tradition, and common sense.
.
Recently, Beck brought on a gathering of religious folk on his show.  In that conversation, I think he revealed a very basic and culturally, a very American attitude toward faith. He states,

...The reason why I want to talk to some preachers is George Whitfield.

We learned about George Whitfield on the show about a month ago. This guy came before the American Revolution. He had to bring people and open their eyes and say, wait a minute. God is personal. He works through me, and it's an individual thing. And it's not collective salvation. It's up to me to do these things.

There needs to be another Whitfield. And so we're talking tonight about the role of faith...

Lay aside whether or not this is an accurate understanding of George Whitfield.  Beck understands faith as a personal issue, an individual thing.  My religion is between God and me.  As a result, there is no "social justice".  There is no sense of God redeeming the community or the political order.

Again, my tradition is very different from Glenn Beck, but I also am thankful that salvation is not collective.  Jesus Christ redeems me--not my race, my tribe or the blood coursing through my veins.  I celebrate the fact that God loves this particular and individual person.  Like John the Baptist said, "..and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" (Luke 3:8).  God touches us individually, and we respond as individuals.

However, the temptation contained in this theology is a rampant individualism.  If my faith is all about me and Jesus having warm fuzzies, then nothing else matters.  My religion may make me a better person, but my God has little to say about politics, work or family life.  Church is no long about a community embodying Christ in this world.  Instead, we are a group of individuals gathered for our own individual needs.  Individual Christians are no longer a people with a message that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ."  We become either chaplains, endorsing the existing order, or we hide from the existing order in our own cultural ghetto.  
  

Beck's argument against Jim Wallis and those who carry the flag of "social justice" seems to be:  "Faith is personal.  Talking about the collective concern of justice in society is thus out of bounds."  However, Beck every night complains about the injustices in society.  By Beck's own argument, the modern prophet who speaks for the just and against the unjust cannot stand on his or her faith. 

Rather than a ad hominem condemnation of social justice, Beck would do better by arguing that his policies would benefit society including the poor, the orphan and the widow.  He should make the argument that Wallis, however well-intentioned, would make society more unjust.  If he can't make that argument, then perhaps he should rethink his position or at least be quiet. 

Pacifism, the Bible and the American Founding

Kurt Willems, a Mennonite pastor and seminary student from Fresno Pacific University has caused an uproar concerning an article he wrote for the Sojourners' blog.  His claim is that Christianity and July 4th are Incompatible.  Mark Tooley over at the Institute on Religion and Democracy has responded.  (Unfortunately, I noted at least one error in his article.  Stanley Hauerwas is not an Anabaptist.  He is United Methodist.  He is highly influenced by Mennonite writers, like John Yoder, but he's a Methodist.)

Clearly a pacifist would have a problem with any political system founded upon an act of violence.  Tooley has a point in suggesting that the one who condemns American Independence on the grounds of pacifism should rightfully be condemning Bastille Day or the Bolshevik Revolution.  For that matter, that same person should also condemn the blood spilled to liberate slaves in America or concentration camps in Europe.  Even further, one might even question the use of deadly force by a police officer in the line of duty.  I personally am not a pacifist, and I do not believe that rulers bear the sword in vain.  Nonetheless, I am respectful of the pacifist tradition in Christianity.  Hauerwas and Yoder are respected dialogue partners of mine.

The critique that I find more interesting comes from Mark Noll, a leading evangelical among academics.  Willems' own comments spring from an article that Noll wrote for Christianity Today.  I disagree with Noll when he suggests that America probably would have received independence freely as Canada and Australia later did.  Such conjecture is not possible because independence for other colonies only occurred after the Americans took their freedom by force.  Nonetheless, Noll's critique of the rhetoric at the time of the founding is helpful.  Many used and misused the Bible to further political ends.  He writes,

"An evil precedent was also established in America for later times of national crisis by employing the Bible eccentrically (instead of theologically) and by worrying about classical Christian justifications for warfare hardly at all."

Just because someone finds a slew of Biblical references and allusions does not make a country Christian.  For example, I find Newt Gingrich's "Walking Tour of God in Washington D.C." of only limited use.  Sure, you can find biblical quotes or references to Moses on public buildings, but does that baptize our system of government?  I personally find John Murray's book, We Hold These Truths, to be a more sober reflection on Christian tradition and the American founding than what we usually find on the left or right.

The United States of America is a nation is under God, which does not mean that everything we do is compatible with faith.  Instead, it means that we are always subject to God's judgment.  This country is not perfect, and I pray that God would mend her every flaw.  Our first allegiance must only be to God and only secondarily is our allegiance to nation.  That being said, our political freedoms and our understanding of limited government are wonderful gifts to the world.  Unlike Willems, I do think that celebrating America's founding is compatible with the Christian faith. 

Happy Anniversary

Fourteen years of wedded bliss. Happy Anniversary, Sara.

Pondering Self-Government

Over the years, Sojourners and Rev. Jim Wallis have tried to be a corrective to the politics of the Religious Right. They are the natural heirs of the social gospel movement from late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. They have bathed (or perhaps baptized) their policy proposals in the language of faith. Although he comes from a very different perspective, the rhetoric that Wallis uses is almost as judgmental and condemnatory as a Fallwell or Robertson. Despite my own criticisms, I like reading Jim Wallis. Arguing about politics with the Scriptures in hand is a wonderful discipline.

Most recently, Rev. Wallis has turned his sights on the Tea Party Movement. Frankly, I find the Tea Party Movement so amorphous that I don't know exactly what it believes. There are no party platforms, and leaders are typically self-appointed. Anger at the status quo and politicians in general seems to be the unifying theme. I do also hear the rhetoric of limited government and devotion to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Beyond these vague notions, I don't find much else. I'm sure there are racists in the movement, but that isn't the defining characteristic. People are simply frustrated and scared, and they have a right to assemble, speak, and vote. That seems a preferable way to deal with dissent.

Where I haven't found a governing philosophy, Jim Wallis has found "libertarianism", and he states that in "several major aspects of biblical ethics, Libertarianism falls short." Wallis is quick to build straw men, and warns us against libertarians who wish to sell liquor to our children and segregate lunch counters.

Wallis tells us that these libertarians "seem to believe in the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society." I don't know if they were libertarians, but I have met a few people who suggested as much. Where it exists, I agree with Jim Wallis that the idolatry of the market should be unmasked.

However, Wallis seems to replace the sinless market with almost sinless government.

Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.

The word "aberration" suggests that power-hungry governments are against the norm. I would argue that governments that voluntarily limit their power are actually more the aberration. That doesn't mean that government isn't necessary or that it doesn't have an important role protecting citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. Nonetheless, history, including biblical history, has shown us that tyranny is always a temptation for those in power. As a simple example, consider David and the unfortunate incident with Uriah.

I do not understand how we must mistrust the self-interest of business owners and corporate shareholders and not mistrust the self-interest of politicians and the voters. Devotion to the rule of law, the checks and balances of our political institutions, limited government and local rule help curb vice and encourage virtue. Other institutions outside of government such as families, businesses, and a free press also limit abuse. Finally, churches have a huge role to play in society. Along with social services and a prophetic voice, the church remains salt and light in the world.

Will a society of freedom, limited government, and competing institutions create some utopia? Of course not. However, a naive reliance on the government as a panacea for all our problems is even more utopian. A better question for Jim Wallis (and for that matter, the Tea Parties) might be: How best can a society of sinners provide justice for all, including the least and the vulnerable?