Mark Driscoll, Twitter and the Inauguration of President Obama

 I'll confess, I'm not certain about how I feel right now. I think this issue is not only sensitive but is quite primed to explode. Driscoll and the President both provoke fairly intense feelings on all sides so this controversy is by and large fueled by passion. Which is by no means a bad thing.

I will lay out a few points and attempt to explain what I believe is going on.

1. Mark Driscoll shouldn't have posted the tweet. Period. For a few reasons. One, it is far too hasty and two, the opening clause about "praying" may be well-intentioned, but what follows seems to contradict it.

2. As with the nature of controversy, it is fanned and flamed because people, simply, lose their minds over it. This is, for many, a special day. The inauguration of the President of the United States creates passion and optimism for the future, particularly on MLK day. Detractors of Mark need to realize this and tone things down. Calling him an asshole doesn't do much besides piss off everyone else.

3. Despite Mark's comment about the President not "knowing" God, the President claims to be a Christian. According to the President,

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation.

You can read the entire interview here.

I think we should take the President at his word that he is a Christian. I do not agree with his stance on taxes nor do I approve of his handling of the abortion issue. However, the attempts he has shown to live out in regards to helping the poor and providing healthcare are firmly with the Gospel. If one must criticize him, do so by saying he is "inconsistent," not "unChristian."

Still thinking this through.


--Nick

Down Goes Obama/Romney!

Epic pic. ;)

--Nick

"Why a President's Faith may not Matter"

Blake:

He called himself a “life-long Quaker and a church-going Christian,” and at first there was no reason to doubt him.

He played piano in the church, taught Sunday school, and praised Jesus at revivals. His mother thought he was going to be a missionary. His friends said he would be a preacher.

We now know this former Sunday school teacher as “Tricky Dick” or, more formally, President Richard Nixon. He was one of the most corrupt and paranoid men to occupy the Oval Office. Nixon gave us Watergate, but he also gave presidential historians like Darrin Grinder a question to ponder:

Does a president’s religious faith make any difference in how he governs?

“I don’t think so,” says Grinder, author of “The Presidents and Their Faith,” which examines the faith of all American presidents.

“If I asked George W. Bush what he thought about torture, I think outside the presidency he would say he hates it,” Grinder says. “But he’d do it for the country if he thinks it’s right in terms of American security.”

We elect a president every four years, but perhaps we also elect a high priest.  Ever since George Washington spontaneously added “so help me God” to his inaugural oath, Americans have expected their presidents to believe in, worship and publicly invoke God.

A presidential candidate who doesn’t meet these religious expectations won’t go far, Grinder says.

“It’s going to be a long time before anyone who openly admits that he or she is an agnostic or an atheist is elected,” Grinder says. “We tie character and religious beliefs together.”

 For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

BARNA, Evangelicals and President Obama

From Barna:

Why do you think an increasing number of evangelicals are supporting President Obama?

April 4, 2012
As the 2012 election campaign approaches phase two – when the major-party candidates have been selected and begin to square off – there is an unmistakable lack of ideological and political unity within the Christian community. A new national survey by the Barna Group among likely voters indicates that there are substantial differences across a wide spectrum of Christian subgroups, with only a one segment unwavering in its commitment to defeat President Obama in November…. 

Christian evangelicals represent about 7% of the adult population and 10% of the likely voter population. (In other words, they are much more likely to turnout on Election Day than are people from most other population groups.) Among evangelicals, Mr. Obama received little fervent support; only 3% to 5% said they would “definitely” vote for him, depending upon his Republican rival. That paled in comparison to the 53% to 58% who said they would “definitely” support a Republican opponent. That margin of intensity was unrivaled across all other religious subgroups. 

Evangelicals were one of just a handful of subgroups among whom support for the Republican candidate did not waiver according to who the Republican nominee is.
In the 2008 election, a Barna Group election study found that evangelicals gave Mr. Obama just 11% of their votes, even though Republican challenger John McCain was generally not appreciated much by the group.  

One of the most striking changes emerging from the new study is that if evangelicals wind up supporting the eventual candidates in November in numbers consistent with their current preferences, Mr. Obama will receive double the support from the evangelical community he garnered four years ago (22%).

Jesus Creed

--Nick

Roger Olson on "Christians & Pacifism"

Good schtuff.

"When it comes to Christian social ethics I have two heroes, but the problem is they are widely considered antithetical. John Howard Yoder and Reinhold Niebuhr. Much of Yoder’s reputation is gained from contradicting Niebuhr. And of course, much of Niebuhr’s reputation was gained from contradicting pacifism. Admittedly, the pacifism Niebuhr was against was not Yoder’s. He even tipped his hat to Anabaptists as a needed witness. He was against the liberal Protestant pacifism of the social gospel movement (people like Edwin Dahlberg). Nevertheless, insofar as Niebuhr thought ALL pacifism is wrong and Yoder thought pacifism (Christocentric like his or liberal) is right, they are opposites on that and many other issues. 

Yoder has in recent years enjoyed a revival of interest, probably mainly through Hauerwas. Niebuhr’s influence continues, of course, as he is almost always named as “the most influential Christian thinker” by politicians. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama have so identified him. 

Of course, I don’t see how a Christian COULD be president and NOT appreciate Niebuhr’s approach to social ethics. It would certainly be difficult to be president and have Yoder as your social ethics mentor. 

My problem is that when I read Yoder I find myself saying “Amen” a lot–to almost everything he says. I am convinced that he was right about New Testament, original Christianity and especially the teachings and example of Jesus and how they ought to apply to Christian living today. The church is supposed to be that light set on a hill, living by a different set of values from the rest of the world (not that they can’t sometimes overlap). For example, the way of the world is coercion; the way of Jesus is love. I am convinced that Jesus would not want his followers to engage in deadly force. 

Yoder’s social ethic is focused on obedience. Obey Jesus and let the chips fall where they may. Obedience is our calling; effectiveness is God’s business. We are not called to manage history; we are only called to live as Christ instructed us to live. Amen. 

When I read Niebuhr (e.g., An Interpretation of Christian Ethics or his essays in Love and Justice) I also find myself saying “Amen” a lot. Niebuhr believes it is irresponsible for Christians to abdicate responsibility for the world and he equates pacifism with that. He doesn’t justify war as good, but he believes it is sometimes a necessary evil. He agrees with Yoder that Jesus taught and modeled radical love. They basically agree on the Sermon on the Mount–it must not be watered down or glossed over. Niebuhr thinks it is possible for the individual Christian to live by it somewhat consistently. And he agrees that we OUGHT to live by it perfectly consistently. But he also thinks this is a fallen world where Christians must sometimes hold their noses and do things contrary to the Sermon on the Mount. Effectiveness matters and sometimes requires compromise. That’s where Yoder disagrees. 

John Stackhouse (Regents College) wrote a book a couple years ago entitled Making the Best of It. I reviewed it for Books & Culture. It’s an excellent evangelical re-statement of Niebuhr’s social ethic. I found myself agreeing whole heartedly. 

On the other hand, reading Hauerwas’ War and the American Difference, convinces me Yoder was right. War is something Christians ought to oppose and never participate in or support. 

Well, you see my dilemma. I’m divided within myself. I agree with Yoder that the Christian life, including the life of the church, is one of radical obedience to the love Jesus taught and modeled including “Resist not evil” and “love your enemies.” I also agree with Niebuhr that effectiveness in abolishing injustice is part of the Christian’s calling (including the church’s calling). When Hitler was rampaging through Europe our duty was effectively to stop him. I also agree with Yoder that the church’s main duty is peace making by being a peaceful witness to the Lamb. 

Is there a way to reconcile these two impulses-one toward radical, uncompromising obedience and one toward Christian effectiveness and responsibility for society that sometimes requires compromise (e.g., to abolish injustice using coercion if necessary)? 

Occasionally I look to Bonhoeffer as a guide. Not as a guide in the sense of “Here’s a check list to go through at the end of which you’ll know what to do.” Bonhoeffer was no advocate of casuisty. But a guide in the sense of feeling resigned to the fact that occasionally in this world an evil arises so great that one has to set aside perfect obedience to the new law of love and hold one’s nose and do what it is necessary and trust God to forgive. 

Bonhoeffer was a pacifist–until he was handed the opportunity to participate in the plot to assassinate Hitler. I think he remained a pacifist through that. I don’t think his participation (he volunteered to pull the trigger) was due to a policy of putting effectiveness over radical, uncompromising obedience Niebuhr style. Rather, it had to be something like Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical.” 

IF we think Bonhoeffer made the right decision, even if it was in another sense wrong, then it seems our involvement in World War 2 was justified in the same sense–not due to some policy of just war but due to having no alternative except to allow a madman to take over much of the world and commit genocide against many groups he hated. 

The problem, as I see it, is that AFTER WW2 most previously pacifist Christian groups dropped pacifism altogether and embraced war as good (something to be celebrated). 

That example, Bonhoeffer, doesn’t exactly reconcile Yoder and Niebuhr, of course, but it gives one instance of a person who, while holding fast to pacifism as the norm, embraced violence as the exception (as a necessary evil). Let’s imagine that the Allies liberated Bonhoeffer before he was hanged. (That almost happened.) Would he have then been a Niebuhrian defender of war? I don’t think so. I think he would have remained a pacifist and simply appealed to the exceptional circumstances to justify (not make righteous) his decision to participate in the plot to kill Hitler. 

My point is, the only way forward I can see, to get off the horns of the dilemma, is to stand with Yoder as the norm but remain open to exceptions when circumstances absolutely require them. Some evils are so horrendous that they need to be overcome quickly and the only way to do that is coercion and sometimes even violence. The response is not to create a justification system to prepare for them, but to be the kind of persons who know when they arise and how best to respond. Bonhoeffer was that kind of person. 

As a general rule, I think it is true that God does not call Christians or the church to manage history. He calls us to obedience to the law of love. Coercion using deadly force is always sin but not always wrong. I realize that’s dialectical, but I don’t know any way out of that." -- Roger Olson. 

Full link

--Nick

Making God Look Good "Cover Letter"

Nicholas Ahern

555 Red Herring Ave

Orange County, CA

555.555.1555

February 28, 2012

Re/ Personal Public Relations Director

To: St. Paul

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present myself to Irvine Center for IMAGO DEI Enterprise. 

I believe that endurance and self-motivation are both vital for success.  

I possess the endurance and self-motivation required for a goal-oriented and result-driven marketplace. My drive to succeed coupled with my sense of loyalty has made me an asset to employers and furthered my education. For instance, while I was earning my B.A., I realized I did not have enough money to finish my last semester, but was determined to get my degree. I rode my bike eight miles traveling to and from the train station between a less expensive community college and Biola University. I made it to class on time and graduated. Not with honors, but I did graduate anyway. 

I have a minor in theology, and though I am not classically trained as a theologian, I do have a wealth of experience in storytelling and filmmaking. I am certain that there must be a great many theologians and lawyers willing to work for you, but I believe I am more qualified then them and this is why:

I don't have anything to lose. But your boss does. In fact, if your boss turn out to have a negative reputation, many of the people he created will end up pushing paper in a very hot basement for all eternity.

I have experience in defending many people like Rob Bell, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and John Piper. I can be impartial if paid enough to overlook my conscience. 

I work hard consistently and am always eager to direct people to great products or services. This is why I would love to set up a convenient time to discuss the possibility of working for IMAGO DEI Enterprises. Having worked within the fast-paced environment of academia and Hollywood, I believe I would be a valuable asset to your organization. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. 

Sincerely,

Nicholas Ahern