It makes perfect sense that Obama is courting, and will win the support of, many young evangelicals in November. Many Gen-Xers and Millennials are exhausted by a Christianity that does nothing but throw rocks at “da-big-bad-culture” and, for some 40 years, seems to care more about gaining power in the federal government than loving and serving their neighbor. Obama has wisely tapped into the angst of an entire generation of people who heard sermons about abortion on “Right-To-Life Sunday” but never heard sermons about Christians needing to fight for children forced into sex slavery.

Why is sex slavery not a “Right-To-Life” issue?

The religious right revolution of the 1980s was witnessed by a generation who now understand, in adulthood, that being a Republican and a Christian are not necessarily synonymous. As a matter of fact, the only political party with values consistent with Christian political thought over the centuries is the Constitution Party. Some have lamented the seemingly blind allegiance by Christians and others to a Republican party that many have argued is moving closer and closer toward big-government statism. But is there really any political party that consistently holds to the priorities of the Kingdom?

The Constitution Party has the following seven principles:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

So why aren’t Christians, en masse, joining the Constitution Party? It may have something to do with the fact that for most Christians, our theology really does not inform our politics. Politics and faith are two unrelated compartments for most of us, if we’re honest. This compartmentalization, in part, explains why so many evangelicals uncritically embrace the socialistic and Marxist visions of Jim Wallis, Wendell Berry, Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, and so on.

At least in the U.K., leftist Christians are honest about their socialism and have formed the Christian Socialist Movement (CSM). The Christian socialists have “a radical commitment to social justice, to protecting the environment and to fostering peace and reconciliation.” Sound familiar?  ”We believe that ‘loving our neighbour’ in the fullest sense involves struggling for a fair and just society, one in which all can enjoy the ‘fullness of life’ Jesus came to announce,” CSM declares.

Jim Wallis’ Sojourners group, “Christians for Justice and Peace,” also has a mission “to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.” Why don’t we just call it for what it really is?  Christian socialism.

Regardless of what happens in November, Christian voting trends in this election season reveal a need for more teaching about God’s desires for His world and the church’s role in building civil society. While it could be good that Christians are all over the political map in this political season, it could also be a sign that we’re all confused at the moment.

Last week, we blogged on the Times essay by David  Kirkpatrick titled “The Evangelical Crackup,” about the splintering of the Christian right.  One Evangelical says this isn’t the case, though. Evangelicals aren’t cracking up, because we never were a bloc in the first place.

(more…)

…is the title of a great big piece in the Times magazine about the changing politics of the pulpit and the church.  The story begins with Terry Fox, a conservative Southern Baptist minister forced out of his church for getting too political: “The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. ‘It just wasn’t pertinent,’ Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook [said].’”

Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but he was stunned that the church’s lay leaders had turned on him. “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!” he told me on a recent Sunday afternoon. “And these were deacons of the church!”

The gospel has to do with everything, but the pulpit is not a political stump, and pastors - both liberal and conservative - confuse the two at their peril.  Read the rest of this magnum opus here.

There’s a terrific series of essays over at Cato Unbound about religion and politics. Pick your side and enjoy the reading…

(more…)

The Appleton, Wisconsin, Post-Crescent headline said this: “Turnout huge for controversial Christian event .”

What was the event? The “Secret Keeper Girl Bod Squad Tour,” which encourages girls in grades three through six to (gasp!) dress modestly. Why was it controversial? Because the program is sponsored by a (gasp!) Christian author, and a foundation with ties to the local school district contributed $500 to put it on.

This, of course, raised the hackles of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and another Christophobic junta with a rising profile, the Freedom from Religion Foundation. After Americans United sent the usual threatening form letter to Kimberly School District officials, organizers moved the Bod Squad event to a nearby church. Can’t have little girls tutored on public property in such subversive right-wingery as (gasp!) dressing modestly, now can we?

“If the district understood what it was getting involved with, then it shows a disturbing inability by authorities of the Kimberly Area School District to separate their personal religious views from their professional obligation to run a secular school district,” Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of Freedom from Religion Foundation, opined in a letter to the district. The Positive Youth Development Foundation, not the school district, paid for the event, school superintendent Mel Lightner told the Post-Crescent.

The president of the foundation, Dan Lenz, is also president of the Kimberly School Board, proving, of course, that Hillary was right: There is a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy!

“It is all about a mobilized group of people who just want to raise funds and give it back to the community to help the positive development of children in our community,” Lightner said. Since 1998, the Positive Youth Development Foundation has awarded more than $100,000 for programs that promote youth and family development or work toward prevention of at-risk behaviors. The nonprofit organization generates money through fundraisers. “Frankly, we have funded things at parochial schools and have never thought to make a distinction between a faith-based thing or anything else,” Lightner said. “We’ve funded Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, which have a distinct message, too. The foundation board thinks if it’s good for kids, we’ll do it.”

This tempest in a Wisconsin teapot highlights the fevered Christophobia of groups like Americans United and FRF: Their leaders move to stamp out healthy, sane programs for kids when those programs are religion-based, while keeping mum about multimillion-dollar tax-vampires like Planned Parenthood, which have all-access passes to public schools and sponsor programs like this one. (Go ahead and click around in that last link. I couldn’t find a page suitable to link to.)

And they call us “ideologues.”

With the presidential election season set to shift into high gear, Concerned Women for America is reminding pastors that they don’t have to sit on the political sidelines. The Washington, D.C., group (which claims to be the nation’s largest women’s public policy group) yesterday issued a letter responding “to misleading information sent to churches from groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State which seeks to intimidate religious leaders from engaging in social issues. Some groups have also filed complaints with the IRS to harass churches and organizations, including CWA, with investigations that have proven utterly unsuccessful.”

Americans United, for example, sponsors something called “Project Fair Play,” in which it sends letters to churches warning them against potential loss of their tax-exempt status should they stray incorrectly into politics. Some churches do stray incorrectly and have been slapped down by the IRS. CWFA notes an interesting irony: “On the one hand, when people of faith speak out about moral issues in public, they are accused of attempting to force their religion upon others; but when they speak of moral issues in church, they are accused of engaging in politics. The Jeffersonian ‘wall of separation’ doctrine has been twisted in an attempt to silence people of faith not only in the public square.” What’s your take on that?

Meanwhile, here’s a quick guideline on church politicking, according to the CWFA letter:

“Active” electioneering cannot be done by a church. Active electioneering involves actions such as endorsements of candidates and expenditures of funds to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate for political office. Active electioneering is of three types: (1) a direct contribution, which is a monetary contribution given to a candidate, (2) in-kind contributions, which include giving anything of value to a candidate (such as a church mailing list) or paying for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate made in coordination with a candidate, and (3) independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of a political candidate made without the knowledge of or consultation with any candidate.

Issue-oriented speech can also influence elections. Issue advocacy, however, may not be limited by government and may be freely engaged in by churches. Issue advocacy includes the discussion of issues of public concern, the actions of government officials in office and even the positions of candidates on issues. As long as one does not use explicit words expresslyadvocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, one is free to praise or criticize officials and candidates with regard to their positions on certain topics.

Pastors have even more freedom to participate politically, and (I was surprised to learn) may even endorse a particular candidate as long as they are speaking as individuals, and not for their church. How active have your pastor and church been in elections past? Any related trouble there? Have you detected any hesitation at your church to speak from the pulpit about election-related issues?