talking-heads

God Knows Your Vote!

Frank

Sometimes the choice seems so clear.

“God and a religious president, or _____ and no God!”

“We must prevent the election of ____. If he is elected president, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible!”

This candidate has broken every one of the 10 Commandments, but to go into detail “would be too shocking, too disgusting to appear in print.”

And if you needed any extra motivation, if you vote for the wrong candidate you “will go to hell”.

None of these scare tactics are new. The first quote was used against Thomas Jefferson by John Adams in the third ever presidential election. The second was against Alfred Smith who was running against Herbert Hoover. What makes this quote even more remarkable by today’s standards was that it was in a newsletter sent home from school by a local school board. Take that, separation of church and state! The third quote is hilarious in that James Polk didn’t have to prove his allegations against Henry Clay because they were just… too…disturbing!

And you might not recognize the last one because it is so new. This is a reactionary headline to an advocacy ad put out by Mike Huckabee yesterday against President Obama. Never mind that Huckabee never uses those exact words, the headline is enough to get your attention.

Using religion as a tool to manipulate campaigns is nothing new. We expect candidates to sling mud. What is concerning to me however, is when sincere Christians use their faith to defend their unique political positions.

What do you think of this picture? Do you want to cheer, or do you scratch your head trying to figure out what the scripture has to do with gun control? Or how about my favorite prayer from Billy Graham:

‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!’

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, ‘The Rest of the Story,’ and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called ‘One nation under God.’

And even though someone just the other day posted this on Facebook as if these words were uttered recently, this is not a new prayer. Not only that, but neither Billy Graham or Paul Harvey had anything to do with it. This was a variation of prayer by Bob Russell in 1995 at the Kentucky Governor’s Prayer Breakfast and recited by Joe Wright as the opening prayer of the Kansas House of Representatives in 1996. Sadly, neither Russell or Wright are big enough names to start an email chain or to get quoted on Facebook, so we end up with the version we see here. What really gets under my skin though, is that somewhere along the line someone claiming to be Christian chose to lie in order to advance an agenda.

If we are to believe the statistics that roughly 80% of Americans claim the label “christian” and political polls show the country to be pretty evenly divided over the presidential candidates, then chances are that you and I aren’t likely to agree on politics even though we agree that Jesus is Lord. Does that mean I hate you or that you are going to hell because of how you vote? To suggest such a thing is abusing the faith that should be uniting us. Besides, if electing an alleged atheist 212 years ago didn’t force closed the doors of every church in America, then the results of this election are unlikely to affect my citizenship in the only Kingdom that matters. The only thing I know for sure, is that come Wednesday half of us are going to be upset.

“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:23)

“You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow [Romney],” and another, “I follow [Obama],” are you not mere men?” (1 Corinthians 3:3-4)

“Welcome all the Lord’s followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don’t criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours ” (Romans 14:1, CEV)

Crunch Time

Frank

I’ve been putting off this topic for weeks. I look at my bookshelf and a few specific titles jump out at me. I log onto Facebook and cannot avoid it. And as I turn one more page on the calendar I am forced to face this reality.

The next presidential election is just over a week away. When I first started this blog one of my observations that drove me to this was the uncomfortable marriage between faith and politics. One show on Christian-talk defines politics as “faith put into action”. I wonder if Jesus would agree. I heard another Christian talkshow host hang up on a caller who disagreed about homosexuality. No honest open debate, rather he literally hung up on the caller mid sentence as he was trying to quote a scripture. And now, six years after I started this blog, twelve years after George W. Bush and the “value-voter” Christians are identified as much by how they vote than by how they live, if not more.

I had wanted to do a series of blogs on some of the stickier issues this election but I just couldn’t bring myself around to it. I hate to say that I just haven’t cared that much about this election cycle. But that doesn’t mean my apathy is acceptable or that my vote is not important.

I won’t get around to hitting on every hot-topic between now and then, in fact I’m not even going to try. But to be consistent with the theme and intent of this blog, I do want to focus our hearts and minds towards the Word of God so that we can make political decisions based on God’s Will rather than any political party.

I’m not the only one who has this ambition. I’m sure if you looked around enough and listened to enough lessons, you’ll find someone who agrees with you politically. I’m not interested in that. I want to hear from someone who is going to challenge the way I think and convictions I may hold because of my upbringing, my race, my socioeconomics, or my geography.

I’m a big fan of the ministries of Living on the Edge and Ransomed Heart (just look at the buttons on my sidebar). I encourage you to listen to the series Culture Shock over at Living on the Edge and the last few podcasts from Ransomed Heart. Set aside your preconceptions. Set aside your political affiliations. Open your heart and your mind and just listen. There’s a lot there to catch up on (I’m not totally caught up myself) but at least start with Chip’s lesson on “The Church and Politics” and John’s discussion on “Voting” and “Jesus’ View on Government”. Then come back here later this week and we’ll talk about this some more.

Political Expediency, Todd Akin, and the Religious Right

Frank

As the days become shorter and begin to cool, it can only mean one thing. Summer is drawing to a close. And being an even-numbered year, that also means election season is right around the corner. Election season, in other words, when I am usually embarrassed to call myself a Christian.

This election cycle is holding to form with the latest soundbite flub of Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin. In case you haven’t heard, Akin made a comment about “legitimate rape” not causing pregnancy because a woman’s body automatically shuts down its reproductive ability due to the trauma. When I first heard this, I didn’t blink and I didn’t flinch. I just chalked it up as a politician trying to score some pro-life points. But the statement itself did not phase me. I am a data-nerd so I take any claim by a politician without data to back it up with a grain of salt. So I was surprised to see so much backlash come against Akin. Did he say something stupid? Absolutely. Should he be vilified for it? No, but…

Like I said, it’s election season and there’s this thing called political expediency. You might also hear discussion on electoral math or listen to prognosticators speculate who will gain or lose seats in Congress to maintain, or regain, control of one or both houses. This is the time of year when logic is set aside for the sake of votes- see Palin, Sarah. (And let’s be honest, doesn’t most of the pandering for votes by either party defy logic?) So political expediency demands that Akin take the fall for his comments for the greater good of his party. Is that right or is that fair? Well it doesn’t matter in the cutthroat world of politics.

But then something strange happened. I knew we were in trouble when I saw the headline, “Kirk Cameron defends Akin“. After first asking myself why I should care what Kirk Cameron thinks, I was compelled to click on the link to find out why exactly Cameron was stepping into this political mess. Come to find out, Akin is a favorite of Conservative Christians (somehow I failed to get that memo) so it was only natural during an interview with Cameron on something completely different for the hosts of the Today show to ask him about it. Cameron’s comments opened the door for the Religious-Right to come out to support Akin in defiance of their party’s wishes.

First Kirk Cameron, then Mike Huckabee and David Barton (really?). Although they have the platform, it is important to note that not everyone who calls themselves Christian agrees. And now there are children conceived by rape and mothers who are the victims of rape stepping out to add their voice to the debate. So now the debate is no longer about an abstract theory, but about real people.

What worries me about this whole ordeal is the precedence it sets. I knew Christian Conservatives were a significant voting block to be pandered to, but I did not expect them to wield this big of a stick to get their way. This also doesn’t help the perception that Christianity is anti-science. Add crazy fertilization science to the growing list of anti-global warming, anti-evolution, anti-sun being the center of the Solar System, and so on. Meanwhile this anti-everything faction of the Republican Party is risking derailing the party altogether. Remember what I said about political expediency? Well you can forget about that when these Christians get a bur in their saddle.

And I’m again reminded why I loathe this time of year.

“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.” (Titus 3:9)

Chicken With a Side of Politics, Business, and Religion Causes Indigestion

Frank

One night while I was in college, I was pulling an all nighter with some friends when the munches came. So like any other college student, we debated what brand of cheap pizza would torment our stomachs in the morning. “I will not eat Domino’s” expressed one friend. She then explained how the CEO of Domino’s donated significant money from the company’s profits to pro-life groups. It was also right around this time that Eddie Vedder wrote “pro-choice” on his arm with a sharpie prior to playing a song on MTV. You might say this was a coming of age moment for me. No longer were brands apolitical. Even favorite musicians had an opinion; often strong ones at that. The innocence was gone.

At this time I identified more with the College Republicans than with campus ministry. The Michael P Keaton capitalist in me recognized that a private company had the right to spend their profits however they wished, just as consumers had every right to not give those companies their patronage. Musicians could hold an opinion, and listeners could choose not to buy their albums.

With this attitude in mind, I really wanted a Chick-fil-A sandwich yesterday. One, because I happened to be traveling in the Southeast and there aren’t any restaurants back where I live. And two, I thought it would make a good anecdote for this post. Unfortunately, my terminal at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport didn’t have one, so I settled for pizza instead. From Pizza Hut, not Domino’s.

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to wade into this debate. The doctrinal and political leanings of Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy are not news. And I think this whole firestorm has been fed by fuel poured on by the media. Yet the heart of the issue is right in the wheelhouse of the theme of this blog- in our democratic, capitalist society, what is the best way to stand up for our convictions in the public square?

In the context of the Freedom of Speech, Cathy didn’t do anything wrong. But was it the wisest approach?

Jesus was relatively apolitical. When the Pharisees tried to trap him into speaking out against Rome, he turned the tables on the instead. Paul wrote about soldiers who don’t concern themselves in political affairs while instructing Timothy to not get wrapped up in useless quarrels and debates.

In practice I think this would allow for financial support for causes when done in private, or vocal support when independent of business. I think you get yourself in trouble when you mix the two. But then again, I think it gets messy when you mix religion and politics in the first place.

Yet you could argue this is a moral issue, not a political one. But if it were not for the politics, would we even hear about this? And since Cathy so strongly supports “traditional marriage” is he as vocal opposing divorce? Or warning against workaholism? So how should he have expressed his convictions and how should we, as Christians have responded?

Others have written plenty on this already. Matthew Paul Turner, Rachel Held Evans, Alise Wright, David Kenney are just a small sampling. And Get Religion has done an excellent and thorough job scrutinizing the media attention this has received. (In order, Where’s the Beef, The Internet Honors Stupid Stories, The Media’s Irrational Fear of Chick-fil-A, Shocking AP Quotes, Hating on Chick-fil-A)

Please review these viewpoints, the pros and cons of boycotting or “eating mor chikin”, and tell me what you think the most Christ-like approach would be.

Update: A friend of mine, who also happens to be gay (yes, it is possible for a conservative Christian to have gay friends; shocking, I know!) posted this link showing the “Top 50 homophobic Chick-fil-A tweets” on his Facebook account. I know this is polarizing, but does it necessitate this kind of response? Warning in advance, the language in those tweets are beyond crude and definitely NOT Christ-like.

(Hah! I just noticed a typo of financial was auto-corrected to fanatical, completely changing the point of that sentence. Typo corrected, carry on)

Legacy

Frank

Chuck Colson passed away over the weekend. Christian conservative, founder of Prison Fellowship, former Nixon aide and Watergate conspirator… the reflections on the man, his faith, and his legacy take many different views depending on where one falls on the faith and politics spectrum. Here’s just a small sampling:

  • Frank Schaeffer: An Evangelical Homophobic Anti-Woman leader passes on
  • Christianity Today: Remembering Charles Colson, a Man Transformed (among others)
  • The Christian Post: Christian Leaders Remember Their Hero Chuck Colson Among Media Skepticism (among others)
  • Get Religion: On Chuck Colson: Can Reporters See Past Watergate?
  • Internet Monk: Eulogies and Dyslogies for Charles Colson

I don’t really have much to add; I didn’t know the man and was born in the aftermath of Watergate. My politics in general aligned with his, though I bristle at the notion of a Religious Right. I included Schaeffer’s controversial post above to point out that not everyone sees the man the same way and politics often cloud our perspectives.

The legacy I want to focus on however, has nothing to do with politics per se. I knew the name, and associated it with the Religious Right, but it wasn’t until I started to listen to his daily radio program, Breakpoint, that I really began to take notice. When I started this blog, Colson’s words from his program and from his colleagues on his website, were in the back of my mind when I named it Public Christianity: The Opposite PC. You may have disagreed with Colson’s politics, but it would be hard to argue against his ministry to engage the culture around us with our faith. In fact, I kept links to his website alongside Sojourners to encourage that engagement, regardless of political affiliation. (And I’m sad to see that SoJo has yet to post anything on Colson’s passing)

So Colson has passed on. Eric Metaxis, author of the best-selling book Bonhoeffer: Paster, Martyr, Prophet, Spy now takes on his radio program. Fitting, as Bonhoeffer is another who felt the fire of the Holy Spirit to engage his culture with his faith. So that torch has been passed to the next generation. How will we engage our culture in Colson’s wake? Will we protest and picket? Will we “get out the vote”? Or will we live out our faith actively in our daily lives, exhibiting the love of Christ and his call to discipleship to those around us through ministries such as Prison Fellowship? Will Colson’s legacy ultimately be political, or will it be transforming?

Flashback Friday: Jesus is my Campaign Manager

Frank

***Originally posted 10/23/08. Posted today in light of a radio station pulling support for a Christian music festival for inviting Jim Wallis as a speaker in addition to my debate with Sojourners on Twitter and in my post on Monday.***

I made the mistake last night at church talking politics with one of my friends. Actually, she brought up how she can’t wait for it all to be over; she’s tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. Then she said something that totally boggled me. She commented on how Jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality. Now I understand where she was coming from. The Religious Right is too narrowly focused on these issues above all else. But the case she makes doesn’t apply to her point. She commented on how the world was more “jacked up” in Jesus’ day, yet he didn’t bring up these issues. The Romans practiced infanticide, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Homosexuality was common in pagan worship and temple prostitution, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Well first of all, Jesus ministered to the Jews who lived in and around Jerusalem. He never went to Rome or Corinth or associated with Greek prostitutes. So why would he bring these subjects up? But here’s a twist on the argument. Slaves were present all around Jesus’ ministry. In fact, the Old Testament gives instructions regarding slavery. And Jesus never said a word about the practice. Should that mean that slavery is not a religious issue of concern to Christians? Someone should’ve told that to William Wilberforce.

I mentioned that and she side-stepped it by then saying that Jesus never preached politics anyway. Well yes, and no. His comment on “giv[ing] to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” was both a theological and political statement since Caesar claimed divinity. At the same time, he didn’t take any side to the dismay of the religious leaders. The same was true when Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray by saying “Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The first comment personalized the God of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which would’ve upset the religious leaders, but followed that up by praising his name which usurped the divinity of Caesar. If anything, his politics were indirect. But because he wasn’t the political leader many thought the Messiah should’ve been, it was easy to entice Judas to betray him.

The extension of my friend’s argument, that she didn’t mention, was that Jesus preached about the poor more than anything else, so that should be a political priority. I don’t disagree, except for the political aspect of it. Jim Wallis, in his book God’s Politics, dedicates a section in his first chapter titled, “The Political Problem of Jesus” and then goes on to turn Jesus’ teaching into a political argument. This is where I disagree with him. I don’t believe that because Jesus said to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” that that should apply to foreign policy. That is a personal command. Not a political one. And there’s a difference between being under attack and persecuted. But he argues that if a political leader claims to be a Christian, then they should apply that to their politics. I agree that faith should guide morality applied through politics. But to apply faith directly to politics turns this pluralistic country into a theocracy, which I believe Jesus would’ve opposed. A political leader needs to consider the big picture and the good of the country and balance that not against, but rather on, their faith. In other words, their faith should be the fulcrum of their lever, not one side of the balancing act.

Back to the personal aspect of Jesus’ teachings. His commentaries on the poor, lack of explicit political stances, and teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven are personal, not national. So we can’t apply “love your enemies” or “blessed are the peacemakers” to policy. That’s not to say I’m pro-war. But whether or not to go and participate in war is a personal decision that would have to be informed by a personal faith. Whereas the decision to engage in war on the national level must be policy driven. At the same time, I believe our Freedom of Speech also obligates us to speak out against war if our conscience leads us to.

This would then imply that a Christian politician cannot effectively hold an office and still keep Jesus first and God above all. And I think there’s truth to that. That’s why I’m suspicious of any politician who says I should vote for him or her because of their faith. And that’s also why I don’t expect our moral problems to be “fixed” via politics, but instead through individual Christians actively living out their convictions.

As for abortion and homosexuality, I told my friend that sin is still sin. That doesn’t mean that morality at that level should be legislated. But if my vote gives me a voice, I want to cast it to make a statement of my faith. And that is what I will continue to wrestle with up to, and beyond, November 4.

Move over Carrie Prejean

Frank

I apologize for diverging from our regularly scheduled (well, scheduled anyway) study of Living on the Edge to catch up on some news, but I couldn’t avoid this subject on the radio during my drive home and I need to vent. Last night, Rima Fakih won the Miss USA pageant, becoming the first Arab-American to win the pageant. During her Q&A, she was asked about the divisive illegal-immigration law recently passed in Arizona. Her response was diplomatic, but not very politically-correct siding against illegal immigration. This is now the second year in a row a celebrity judge has tried to bait a contestant with the hot-button issue of the day after last year’s pillaging of Carrie Prejean by Perez Hilton. At least Oscar Nunez didn’t call Ms Fakih the c-word.

But I wonder where’s the outrage? Protesters are gathered around Staples Center this very minute protesting Arizona’s law prior to the Lakers-Suns NBA Playoff game. Besides this event, sports radio was consumed with an effort to boycott an upcoming Dodgers-Diamonbacks game. This issue has reached such a level that the City of Los Angeles is officially boycotting the State of Arizona (not sure how that works) and even the director of the Fiesta Bowl in Phoenix was asked whether these boycotts would affect next season’s BCS slate.

But I don’t hear any outcry against Ms Fakih (or do I call her Ms USA now, like she’s some kind of superhero?). Don’t get me wrong, I do not believe she deserves it, and in some respects I do believe it is a fair question. We shouldn’t expect our eye candy to be vapid. We live in a new enlightened world after all. But I do see a double standard.

To add to my outrage comes reports that Ms Fakih won a faux-stripper contest at a local radio station. Crowns have been stripped for less. And again, this was more fuel on the Carrie Prejean fire.

Now, I am no fan of Ms Prejean. I think the ‘persecution’ card was overplayed and continues to be overplayed today. But with the deafening silence surrounding this latest ‘pageant scandal’, I begin to wonder if there’s fire behind all the smoke. Maybe we’re walking on egg shells because of Ms Fakih’s faith and ethnicity? Maybe Ms Prejean made herself a target by making such a big deal out of it last year? Likely, the truth is probably a little of both. But I cannot help but wonder, what if a white Christian woman from a very-Red state was asked the same question and then won the crown, what would be the response?

Move over Carrie Prejean

Frank

I apologize for diverging from our regularly scheduled (well, scheduled anyway) study of Living on the Edge to catch up on some news, but I couldn’t avoid this subject on the radio during my drive home and I need to vent. Last night, Rima Fakih won the Miss USA pageant, becoming the first Arab-American to win the pageant. During her Q&A, she was asked about the divisive illegal-immigration law recently passed in Arizona. Her response was diplomatic, but not very politically-correct siding against illegal immigration. This is now the second year in a row a celebrity judge has tried to bait a contestant with the hot-button issue of the day after last year’s pillaging of Carrie Prejean by Perez Hilton. At least Oscar Nunez didn’t call Ms Fakih the c-word.

But I wonder where’s the outrage? Protesters are gathered around Staples Center this very minute protesting Arizona’s law prior to the Lakers-Suns NBA Playoff game. Besides this event, sports radio was consumed with an effort to boycott an upcoming Dodgers-Diamonbacks game. This issue has reached such a level that the City of Los Angeles is officially boycotting the State of Arizona (not sure how that works) and even the director of the Fiesta Bowl in Phoenix was asked whether these boycotts would affect next season’s BCS slate.

But I don’t hear any outcry against Ms Fakih (or do I call her Ms USA now, like she’s some kind of superhero?). Don’t get me wrong, I do not believe she deserves it, and in some respects I do believe it is a fair question. We shouldn’t expect our eye candy to be vapid. We live in a new enlightened world after all. But I do see a double standard.

To add to my outrage comes reports that Ms Fakih won a faux-stripper contest at a local radio station. Crowns have been stripped for less. And again, this was more fuel on the Carrie Prejean fire.

Now, I am no fan of Ms Prejean. I think the ‘persecution’ card was overplayed and continues to be overplayed today. But with the deafening silence surrounding this latest ‘pageant scandal’, I begin to wonder if there’s fire behind all the smoke. Maybe we’re walking on egg shells because of Ms Fakih’s faith and ethnicity? Maybe Ms Prejean made herself a target by making such a big deal out of it last year? Likely, the truth is probably a little of both. But I cannot help but wonder, what if a white Christian woman from a very-Red state was asked the same question and then won the crown, what would be the response?

Movements and Messiahs

Frank

The Tea Party movement has gotten a lot of press recently, from being credited for Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts to CNN doing a week-long look into the movement prior to its first “national conference” to the recent article in the New York Times. The biggest questions being asked are will this amount to a third party and/or how much influence will this group have on the Republican Party?

Sounds a lot like what was being asked about the fledgling Christian Coalition thirty years ago. Like the Tea Party, the Christian Coalition was initially focused on local involvement from people with little or no prior involvement in politics (at the time conservative Christians). Eventually their influence grew to such an extent that they are now blamed for everything wrong with the Republican Party. Egos, internal politics, and the idol-worship of fame eventually led to this movement’s downfall.

Another similarity is the lack of unity or homogeneity among the grass-roots supporters. There is no definition of a “Christian voter” that applies to all Christians as Jim Wallis so accurately pointed out in his book, God’s Politics, Why the Right Gets it Wrong and Why the Left Doesn’t Get It (the subtitle sums this up the best). At the same time, the media has been unable to nail down a universal platform that applies to each Tea Party other than the expected discontent with the current administration. Some want a new party, some want an overhaul of the Republican Party. All want a smaller government, but there is disagreement how. Again, sounds a lot like the “value voter” broad-brush the media tried to invent after the 2000 election.

Tea Party organizers would be wise to study the history of this group as it appears they are going down the same road. We, as Christians, would also be wise to remember our folly with the Christian Coalition and not be enticed by the promise of any political Messiah as there is only one true Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. (2 Timothy 2:4)

Our commanding officer is God, not country nor political party. And our battle is not political but moral and the prizes are not votes but souls. We will never be the salt that Jesus calls us to be as long as we are only striving to score political points.

Movements and Messiahs

Frank

The Tea Party movement has gotten a lot of press recently, from being credited for Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts to CNN doing a week-long look into the movement prior to its first “national conference” to the recent article in the New York Times. The biggest questions being asked are will this amount to a third party and/or how much influence will this group have on the Republican Party?

Sounds a lot like what was being asked about the fledgling Christian Coalition thirty years ago. Like the Tea Party, the Christian Coalition was initially focused on local involvement from people with little or no prior involvement in politics (at the time conservative Christians). Eventually their influence grew to such an extent that they are now blamed for everything wrong with the Republican Party. Egos, internal politics, and the idol-worship of fame eventually led to this movement’s downfall.

Another similarity is the lack of unity or homogeneity among the grass-roots supporters. There is no definition of a “Christian voter” that applies to all Christians as Jim Wallis so accurately pointed out in his book, God’s Politics, Why the Right Gets it Wrong and Why the Left Doesn’t Get It (the subtitle sums this up the best). At the same time, the media has been unable to nail down a universal platform that applies to each Tea Party other than the expected discontent with the current administration. Some want a new party, some want an overhaul of the Republican Party. All want a smaller government, but there is disagreement how. Again, sounds a lot like the “value voter” broad-brush the media tried to invent after the 2000 election.

Tea Party organizers would be wise to study the history of this group as it appears they are going down the same road. We, as Christians, would also be wise to remember our folly with the Christian Coalition and not be enticed by the promise of any political Messiah as there is only one true Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. (2 Timothy 2:4)

Our commanding officer is God, not country nor political party. And our battle is not political but moral and the prizes are not votes but souls. We will never be the salt that Jesus calls us to be as long as we are only striving to score political points.