Aim

My new blog friend, Laura, asked me HOW to become more effective w/ our Christian witness and WHAT should be our AIM. These are great questions because they focus specifically on the two biggest beefs I have with the current Christian witness in public policy and politics. That is, our methods and our objectives.

It seems clear that the objectives of the last thirty years have been to force elected officials to vote a certain way. The methods have been to demonstrate that their are many passionate consituents and voters who want them to vote a certain way or adopt a certain policy or face the wrath of an angry electorate. There have been some victories and losses.

On the big issues, abortion and homosexuality, we have lost big time. Just look at whether the culture of life or the culture of death has expanded. Has homosexuality and its agenda increased in power and cultural influence or diminished?

Marshalling resources, fighting the good fight, invoking the name of God….and losing, isn’t a problem for me. As Mother Theresa would say “We are not called to win, but to be faithful.” My problem is with the methods we employ and the witness of Christ it demonstrates to the world.

A witness isn’t hard to determine. Just listen. What do people say about Christians and our efforts in the public arena? Is it persuasive, winsome, redemptive, effective or gracious? Or is it harsh, strident, divisive, and failing? If the latter, do Christians not understand that this is not about us, but about our Lord? How, then, can we disregard the negative witness that is created by ineffective methods? We are compelled to address it.

I believe that much of the problem with the lack of effectiveness of Christian’s involvement in the public square comes from poor aim. We are shooting for something that doesn’t exist – the return to a period of traditional values, of a national consensus that fears God and honors righteousness, and of a societal culture that is explicitly Christian. How can we attain something that simply doesn’t exist or is unrealistic?

As another friend of mine named Laura said to me “I don’t know what to do so all I can do is pray.” That is the right place to start.

 

Stem Cell Research Vote and the State of Our Witness

The Senate voted 63-37 in favor of overturning the President’s current policy of prohibiting federal funds from supporting embryonic stem cell research. This vote margin is four votes short of the two-thirds majority required to over-ride a presidential veto, which will probably occur.

The same strategy employed in the House last summer was undoubtedly used in the Senate to ensure that just enough Senators voted ‘No’ and deny the prospect of over-riding the President’s veto. This is a good thing. It affirms, however, the fact that a pro-life majority does not exist in either Congressional body.

Here is the bottom line: The church has done a miserable job in effectively promoting the sanctity of human life as its number one public policy priority. That is why pro-life legislators in Congress must resort to rear-guard efforts.

People of faith must move past simply having a voice in the public square and begin considering the effectiveness of that voice. We have control over whether or not society considered Christ-followers as narrow-minded, dualist thinking, extremists. It is incumbent upon us as Christians to improve the testimony and witness of the Body of Christ on issues that speak to the heart of creation and a redemptive life. Failure to do so means accepting mediocrity in representing our Lord.

 

Proposition 3: No Pro-Life Majority

Last summer, an important yet relatively unnoticed piece of law-making occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives.  It centered on issues of life and morality, and demonstrated a chilling political reality regarding the involvement of Christians in politics.    

This issue was the tax-payer funding of the destruction of embryonic life; embryonic stem-cell research.  Current law prohibits tax-payer funding for the creation of embryos in order to destroy them in hopes of advancing scientific and medical research.  

The measure was H.R. 810, sponsored by Representatives Mike Castle (R-DE) and Dianne Degette (D-CO).  It directly challenged the Executive Order of President Bush that put a halt to the advancement of embryonic stem cell research with tax-payer money.  Under the bill’s provisions, federal monies would be used to directly support the destruction of human life at the embryonic stage.  H.R. 810 came to the floor of the House or Representatives in May of 2005 and was passed by a vote of 238 to 194.

The sting of this defeat to the Culture of Life was only mitigated by the fact that, unbeknownst to all but a few, a small group of committed Pro-Life legislators worked hard to be ensure that just enough “Nays” were cast to support the President should he veto the bill and prevent the possibility of over-riding any veto. 

While all of this may seem like inside baseball to the average citizen, it demonstrates a significant fact that should set off alarm bells for every church-goer that has ever felt the slight satisfaction that comes with finding a voter guide tucked under the windshield of their car after a Sunday service in late October.  That fact is:  After more than thirty years of pro-life and family values activism, the majority in Congress does not reflect Judeo-Christian priorities.        

 

Proposition 2: Hubris and Assumptions Continue to Limit Believer Effectiveness

It is not unduly harsh to expect more from church-goers that the general public.  After all, the church contributes much in social services, charitable giving, and volunteerism.  It is these exact points that, in my view, place greater responsibility on the shoulders of Believers to lead their communities, political parties, and governments and to do so effectively.

Our Christian heritage demonstrates nothing less.  It was Evangelicals that led the causes of emancipation, suffrage, child labor reform, prohibition, and civil rights.  Social justice has always been part and parcel of an integrated faith and the effectiveness of Christians to shape politics and policy was unparalleled for centuries.

All that changed after the defeat in the Scopes Trial of 1925 put Evangelicals on the defensive and left social reforms to moral relativists and utopians.  The interplay between agnostic Clarence Darrow and layman William Jennings Bryant has proven to be a prescient script between Christians and the broader culture for the last century. 

Of note is Bryant’s hubris and incorrect assumption that tradition and prevailing sentiment would carry the day.  Today, many Christians believe similarly regarding abortion, homosexuality, religious liberty and other matters and, just as similarly, are routinely defeated in the public square. 

 

Proposition 1: The Church is Politically Unsophisticated

In 1993 I was asked the following “gotcha” question by a member of the media: “Are you a member of the ‘Religious Right’?”

This is one of those questions that causes the tiny robot from Lost in Space that lives in my head to cry “Danger! Danger!”

My answer was “I am not sure. I have yet to receive a membership application.” While this seems like a flippant answer, the point I was trying to make was that I refuse to be pigeon-holed as extremist, unreasonable, a puppet, or any other pejorative the media associates with people of faith who are involved in the political.

In the thirteen years since that question, I find myself fighting that same battle but on two different fronts. On the one hand, I wish to break the preconceived notion that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, I hope to, frankly, blow up the dominant notion held by many church-goers. That view is that Christian involvement in social issues, government and politics simply amounts to shrill activism seeking to muscle its way against the moral outrage of the week.

Between convincing liberals that I have a brain and helping many Christians open theirs, the greater challenge has always been with the Christians. Often, the Believers view of politics, activism, and the last thirty years of pro-family activism is short-sighted and wholly ineffective. They may know the latest regarding abortion and the advancement of the homosexual agenda, and typically the name and reputation of their member of Congress (better than the average American), but after that, most Evangelicals are fairly unsophisticated and unaware of the realities of political and social action.