Uncategorized

There’s an article in last week’s Newsweek on America’s Branding in light of the recent financial crisis that I read in a doctor’s waiting room yesterday. The article itself isn’t necessarily relevant to this blog, but a statement caught my attention that I want to spend some time on.

“Many commentators have noted that the Wall Street meltdown marks the end of the Reagan era. In this they are doubtless right, even if McCain manages to get elected president in November. Big ideas are born in the context of a particular historical era. Few survive when the context changes dramatically, which is why politics tends to shift from left to right and back again in generation-long cycles.” (emphasis mine)

The article then goes on to describe how the Reagan era came about in response to ballooning governments and economies that grew out of Roosevelt’s New Deal and were beginning to collapse under their own weight, as evidenced by the fall of the Soviet Union and the widespread economic failures in Latin America in the 80’s.

I’m not an economist or a political scientist, but the idea of political and social paradigms being shaped by historical context that endures over a generation gets my wheels turning. As a Christian who is only old enough to have voted in the last three presidential elections, it seems to me that we’re at a unique point in our history that I believe could result in a new Christian political movement or at least a revitalization of the Church.

First, some historical perspective. The permeation of nationalism and patriotism in our churches dates back to the Second World War. At that time, faith-based politics were in the middle of the political spectrum, leaning left supporting the social programs that rose out of the New Deal as well as right supporting post-war patriotism and nationalism. Faith-based politics took a left turn in the era of the Kennedys and the Civil Rights Movement, steered more sharply left with the Jesus Movement and Vietnam, but then took a sharp right turn with the rise of the Moral Majority in the Reagan years. I think it’s interesting that this cycle follows the economic-policy cycle noted in the Newsweek article. Faith-based politics then took another sharp right turn with the election of George W Bush and the poorly coined “value voter”.

But backlash from the 2000 and 2004 elections saw a different faith-based politics forming on the Left in the form of Campolos and Wallises to counter the Dobsons and Robertsons on the Right. Over the last couple of years, even before the release of “An Inconvenient Truth”, Evangelicalism began to embrace a form of environmentalism based on being good stewards to God’s creation (Barna has an update on this movement here) . Political and religious headlines were dominated a year ago by the issue of illegal immigration, bringing the so-called Social Gospel to the fore. The “homosexual agenda” is also forcing a political fight in our churches with marriage on the front line. All of this puts faith again in a front-row seat in our presidential debate. And now, we’re seeing the collapse of our greed-driven, debt-based economy that is responsible for much of the worldliness we see in our churches today. (See this post from OnFaith that breaks down this false deity.)

Combine all these factors, and I see an end to the Religious Right, just as Newsweek notes this is the end of Reaganomics. Honestly, I could care less about the political consequence of all the above, but I care deeply about the state of the Church. While all these social, economic, and political issues collide, the American Christian Church ™ suffers from lukewarm conviction and commitment as heretical teachings such as the Prosperity Gospel and Black Liberation Theology rise in strength. So I see all of this converging to a paradigm shift in our churches. I only pray that it leads to a revitalization of the Church, de-emphasizing politics and instead “fixing [our] eyes on Jesus”. If so, this could lead to another Great Awakening of sorts, where God will truly be glorified in our churches and in our culture. And prayerfully this influence will last past a generation.

It’s been a few weeks and I’m still not sold on Governor Palin. Nothing personal, but she hasn’t given me anything substantive enough to support her. I’m still dismayed at her ascendancy in light of her infant with special needs. If she wants to see the consequence of pursuing a high-profile/high-demand career with a special needs child, she should look no further than Sharon Stone. But I digress.

What she has given us, is an odd paradox as a conservative Christian woman, in a position of authority, who by the opinion of many is pretty hot. What, you were expecting me to break down her policies? Nah, you give me too much credit. But I’m not going to analyze her physical features either. Why this interests me is because it exposes a paradox (or hypocrisy in some cases) in the conservative christian (intentional little-c) church.

On the one hand, you have the stance of the Southern Baptist Convention (and many others) that a woman can’t hold a position of authority in a church. This stance made headlines recently when the cover of Gospel Today featured several woman pastors and as a result was pulled from the shelves of Christian bookstores across the Bible-belt. A couple weekends ago, I watched a feature on ABC news that called attention to this while noting the irony that the same Christians who oppose women in ministry support Gov. Palin as Vice President, one heartbeat away from being the Leader of the Free World.

On the other hand, you have Gov. Palin’s feminine, ahem, assets being praised. An article in Slate goes so far as to say her publicity shatters the stereotype of the prudish Christian woman. (Consider a preemptive warning if you click the link, the language and imagery is pretty crude.) The media had the opposite response to the mothers involved in the Texas polygamy case. I guess the expectation continues to be that a devoted Christian woman should look like Maude Flanders.

Meanwhile, there are many caught the middle who wonder how the same conservative christians (little-c) that back Palin were the same who loudly criticized the portrayal of Murphy Brown as a professional single mother.

Both extremes unfortunately fail to capture the Biblical view of femininity. I’m not going to try and stir up a doctrinal debate on perceived misogyny throughout the Bible. Rather I want to point out that women of Godly character are praised by having their own books (Ruth and Esther), chapters (Judges 4), and sections (Proverbs 31) in the Bible. A lot of people focus solely on a single statement from the Apostle Paul and call him sexist, yet forget that women deaconesses (regrettably often translated as “servant” even though the original Greek is the feminine form of what elsewhere is translated as Deacon) are the first to be praised by Paul in Romans and Corinthians for their ministry. In fact I know a few people who opposed getting married in a church based entirely on Paul’s teaching that a wife should be submissive to her husband. Never mind that the context is an analogy to the Church’s relationship with Jesus and is preceded with the command for the husband to love his wife (and elsewhere is instructed specifically not to “lord over” her).

Not to say sexism in the Church doesn’t exist. It certainly does. The praise of the “Proverbs 31 woman” has evolved into an expectation no woman can meet, but wives and mothers are expected to slave over their homes to achieve that perfect standard.

At the same time, many churches elevate the “trophy wife” as standards of beauty and femininity. In the name of being “sharp”, young men pursuing ministry are encouraged to date the prettiest (and most chaste) sisters. At one point at a church I used to attend, the wives of the ministry staff all looked alike—above average height, thin, blonde, and bubbly. All the while the demands of women’s ministry drove women across my denomination to the ground. I can’t count how many Women’s Ministry leaders I know are now burdened with chronic illnesses. All in the name of being that perfect picture of a Biblical woman.

I don’t want to go as far as the feminist movement has in America, but there needs to be a culture change in the American Church with regard to the role of women in the Church and the value (and measure) of beauty and femininity. John Eldriege, in his book Wild at Heart, puts this well.

Walk into most churches in America, have a look around, and ask yourself
this question: What is a Christian woman? Again, don’t listen to
what is said, look at what you find there. There is no doubt about
it. You’d have to admit a Christian woman is. . . tired. All we’ve
offered the feminine soul is pressure to “be a good servant.”

In fact his wife spun off her own book aiming to change the status quo and together they have built up an entire ministry with the goal of redefining masculinity and femininity in the church. Amen for that!

While I may have a hard time backing Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate, I can at least hope that the publicity she’s receiving sheds light on these issues and empowers women in the Church. After all, women too are made in God’s image and in the Church there is “neither… male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

Following up on the largest single day point loss in Dow Jones history (ironically mostly recouped today) it’s important to keep things in perspective. When it comes to religion and politics, all we seem to hear is how one party wants to turn the United States in to a theocracy. Of course, the argument is narrowly focused only on a couple issues. No one wants to apply it to a bigger picture.

But say we apply a theocracy across the board. Would we be in this financial mess? Proverbs is full of wisdom related to money and finances. One proverb in particular predicted this. “Rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” (Pr 22:7) But let’s glorify in God and turn to the Psalms. “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” (Ps 37:12) Does that sound familiar? Would we be in this mess if our government or our banking industry was actually righteous? Instead we borrow and borrow and borrow, but we do not repay. But in our theocracy, “good will come to him who is generous and lends freely, who conducts his affairs with justice.” (Ps 112:5) The key here of course is generosity and justice. Two things that lack in our materialistic world but God possesses in abundance.

You could argue that Psalms and Proverbs are just fluff without authority. But a majority of Jesus’ parables relate to money. And Deuteronomy is full of specific instructions on how to run “the financial sector”. Deuteronomy 15 gives instructions for the “year of cancelling debts.” Imagine that, every seven years all of our debts being cancelled. Not a big deal for my 5-year car loan. But my 30 year mortgage or those student loans that never go away no matter how many years pass? Of course banks would be wise to not give loans for longer than six years. Do you think the markets would be as volatile if loans were handled this way?

Deuteronomy 15:6 gives further insight into our current mess. “For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.” The parallel passage (p.p. in the margin of your Bible) takes us to Dt 28 where the same statement is followed with “The LORD will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the LORD your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom.” (Dt 28:13) But God’s blessings always come with a warning. “However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you” (Dt 28:15) And the corresponding curse reverses the roles above. “The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.” (Dt 28:43-44)

One of the biggest fears in this economic crisis, besides Wall Street collapsing, is foreign nations buying up most of our debt. Will we one day be ruled over by China? It is a possibility and we honestly have it coming since America is far from paying attention to the commands of the LORD our God. But this is a covenant between God and the Nation of Israel, it doesn’t apply to us today under the New Covenant, right? Well, that may be true, but God’s nature doesn’t change and his wisdom makes foolish the wise. I think it would do us well to heed these instructions. We may not be in positions of authority and have no real say how loans are given or repaid. But we can use scriptural wisdom to keep our own financial house in order. We can be righteous in our spending (borrowing, really, since we spend so much with our credit cards). We can give generously, conduct our affairs with justice and in doing so bring glory to God.

it’s adios reality (with apologies to Brad Paisley)

First off, Lindsay Lohan weighed in earlier this week on John McCain’s vice presidential choice saying, “Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?..Is our country so divided that the Republicans’ best hope is a narrow-minded, media-obsessed homophobe?”

I appreciate her theological musings on morality and the nature of sin. One of my biggest beefs with the “gay agenda” is labeling anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin as a “homophobe.” Now I define homophobia as bigotry related to one’s sexual orientation like anti-semitism is bigotry based on religion and racism is bigotry related to race. But what does one’s personal, spiritual, religious beliefs have to do with bigotry? Can one lead to the other? Absolutely. Can religious beliefs be used to justify bigotry? Sure, look no further than the KKK, or the white-supremacist notion than blacks are descended from Cain. But the Bible doesn’t say that. The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. Does that mean that I should treat someone differently based on their sin? Of course not (with the exception of “With such a man do not even eat” (1 Cor 5:11) or “Do not be yoked with unbelievers” (1 Cor 6:14) which are different in context).

On the other side of the debate is the elevation of homosexuality above any other sin, despite “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23) and “you used to walk in these ways” (Col 3:7). The Christian response to homosexuality should be to treat it as any and all other sin, just like I would expect to be treated with my own sin. And that is hoping that someone would be so filled with the love of Jesus to reach out to me to free me from my sin. Unfortunately, most American churches don’t deal with sin, but that’s a different debate.

As for the rest of her theology, yes bearing a child out of wedlock is a sin as is pre-marital sex, while birth control is (and has been for generations) debated. Again, the “gay agenda” tries to shift the debate to invalidate moral codes that have existed for millennia by trying to tell me that what I believe is wrong. Both sides need to respect Socrates’ conclusion in Plato’s Protagoras that “all things are true to he who believes them.” The argument goes that you can’t believe in something you know is false. If I believe homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t automatically make me a homophobe. At the same time, I need to respect the belief that homosexuality is a trait one is born with, even if I don’t agree.

Which brings us to the gay-marriage debate. The other celebrity news I want to link is Brad Pitt donating $100,000 to defeat a measure in California aimed at defining marriage as between a man and a woman. “Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.” His rationale defines “slippery slope”. Everyone has a right to live the life they desire as long as it doesn’t harm another? Well first, the Supreme Court disagrees as evidenced by the fiasco in Texas earlier this year despite the state courts finally deciding that no harm was being done others (fitting Pitt’s criteria). At the same time, if I wanted to marry my dog, I’m not harming another so should that be allowed?

Now that last one would be considered silly. But in my opinion, so is the marriage debate. I’m all for civil unions. And if a minister or public official wants to perform a “wedding” for a civil union, I think that’s ok too. But to me, calling the name “marriage” a right, and not the rights the name carries (which are provided by civil unions, although only where available), is an argument over semantics. I think the proposition, and other attempts to pass a Constitutional Amendment, should be reworded to define marriage as not between a “man and a woman” (which by nature is discriminatory) but as between a “husband and wife”. This stays consistent with traditional nomenclature and shoots down the semantic debate. If a gay couple wants to be “married” then one of them needs to be the wife, and the other the husband. Why is it I don’t hear gay men fighting for the right to be called “wife” or “mom” if they have children? What is the difference between that and calling their civil union a “marriage”?

Thanks to Brad Pitt and Lindsay Lohan I can now better define sin and morality and choose which laws I want to follow. Who needs to debate McCain/Palin vs Obama/Biden? I say, Pitt/Lohan ’08!

It’s been a couple of weeks since Sarah Palin was picked as John McCain’s running mate and I still don’t know what to make of it. I keep having this feeling that this is Harriet Miers all over again. If you don’t remember her, she was the White House Council with no bench experience that was nominated for the Supreme Court. The far-right wing and conservative christians (intentional little c) were ecstatic. So was the media, as she gave them plenty to write and blabber on about- her lack of credentials and her far-right stances on the usual christian wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage. After getting crucified by the media and inflaming Democrats against her, the nomination was withdrawn. But not before the religious right made President Bush their hero by nominating someone with no chance of getting approved.

And here we are, with a Vice Presidential candidate with little experience and far-right stances on the expected wedge issues. And now Sen. McCain is the hero of the religious right, the part of the Republican base everyone says he needs but can’t get. Even James Dobson is now backing that ticket, after earlier pledging to stay home. It doesn’t help that the move was telegraphed by Richard Land, or that her church is sponsoring a “pray away the gay” conference, or that she’s been quoted as saying in her church that the war in Iraq is “God’s mission” (quote at the end of this article)

Other than the above, what does she bring to the ticket? Can she stand toe-to-toe with Sen Joe Biden when debating foreign policy on national television? Can Sen McCain campaign against Sen Obama’s lack of experience with a straight face? And how can she stand against criticism that she should be playing a more active role in raising her children, especially her infant with Downs Syndrome? Or can her unmarried pregnant teen daughter withstand the media onslaught coming her way?

I can’t help but think the McCain campaign is pulling a fast one to invigorate the base, grab the headlines, and get the bump in the polls. I really wouldn’t be surprised to see her family life be used as an easy excuse to pull her name at the last minute so that McCain can do what he really wants, nominate a moderate. Which I would have been ok with had he done it to begin with. But I can’t help but think, as a Christian, that I’m being taken advantage of.

Romans 13 encourages us that all authorities in this world are established by God, but I have a feeling he’s rolling his eyes right now.

And I feel fine.

I’m behind my posting, but I had to get something up because today is the end of the world. What, you didn’t hear? No I didn’t get this information from someone locked away in a commune in Idaho or from a guy on a street corner holding a sign and asking for change. In fact, I don’t have any religious reason for saying this at all, rather purely scientific. You see, today scientists turned on the Large Hadron Collider, a super-collider in Europe that is intended to create subatomic particles and replicate the big bang.

So what does that have to do with the end of the world? Well some are so afraid of the science behind it that they believe small black holes will be created that could eventually swallow the Earth. They’re so afraid in fact, that they’ve tried to sue to keep it from operating. Not exactly how my Bible describes the end of the world. On the other hand, if they can create a singularity, and wormhole theories hold true, then maybe after the Earth is swallowed up our promised “new Earth” will emerge on the other side. Of course, that would require Jesus to have already come back and depending on which-millennialist doctrine you subscribe, another 1000 years or so to pass. So maybe today’s not the day. But I’ll be keeping oil in my lamp.

Today we celebrate Labor Day, the unofficial end of summer, but the official celebration of America’s work force. Originally, Labor Day was celebrated to honor workers’ unions through speeches and parades. Today, the typical Labor Day celebration consists of sleeping in, barbecues, and ironically work. In fact, as soon as I finish posting this, I’m going to tackle a couple of outdoor projects I’ve been putting off.

Despite how widely celebrated this holiday is (even I have it off, and that says something) God’s labor day is more widely, or at least frequently observed. I’m talking of course, about the Sabbath. Even though different Christian churches have various doctrines surrounding the Sabbath (Seventh Day Adventists for example) and debate whether we’re still compelled to observe the Sabbath Laws under the New Covenant, there’s still a perfectly good reason God instituted this day.

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex 20:8-11)

I’m not going to debate creation in six literal days here, but rather stress that even God took a break and there’s no reason we shouldn’t too. For this reason, we have in America the traditional 40 hour work-week (but who really works only 40 hours?) with “weekends” off. Even the term weekend is to intentionally set aside Saturday and Sunday on the calendar to respect the Judeo-Christian roots of this country.

I heard during a sermon, that even though we may not be commanded to observe the Sabbath under the New Covenant, if we don’t take the Sabbath off, the Sabbath will take us. Each one of the Ten Commandments, besides honoring God, protects us. Like most laws, the intent isn’t just that of justice, but also to protect the general welfare of the populace. The Sabbath is no different. Think about your last big project at work, or finals week in college, or hell week in high school football, or the last week of planning and organizing before your wedding. Anytime you’ve dedicated yourself to something so thoroughly, there’s usually a “let-down” once you’re done. Why? You didn’t take a break as the Lord commanded. Just recently I returning from helping my mom move. What happened a few days after I got back? I got sick.

Unfortunately, we don’t observe the Sabbath the way God intends. We fool ourselves into thinking we’re honoring God by filling the day with church-related activities- morning worship, afternoon meetings, evening Bible study, you know the drill. I asked one of my co-workers if he had any big plans and he replied, “well the first two days are already shot.” His wife was hosting a bridal shower at their house on Saturday and Sunday was church. So on the usual Monday he, myself, and many other co-workers are more tired than we were on Friday. Why? Because we never really rested as God intended.

So here I am today, with a long list of “honey do’s”. Why such the long list? Because I didn’t do a dog-gone thing yesterday. And I feel great.

There’s a fascinating article at Slate about popular megachurches/televangelists opening “branch” churches and instead of being ministered to personally, parishioners instead are preached to by a “hologram” or video of the televangelist from his home congregation. One pastor is even quoted as comparing it to franchising a fast food chain. His quote is especially telling, “I believe in my product and what they are trying to sell.” But I have to ask, is the product that particular preacher, the brand-name of the ministry, the best-selling book series? Or is the product Jesus? If the latter, then it doesn’t really matter who is delivering the message (“unschooled, ordinary men” Acts 4:13). If any of the former, then they fall under the criticism of Paul when he wrote to the Corinthian church, “One of you says ‘I follow Paul,’ another, ‘I follow Apollos’… ” (1 Cor 1:12) And considering the cult of personality this creates, the article compares this to church planting by noting, “church-planting, as it’s known, can be arduous and time-consuming, and there’s no guarantee it will reproduce the home church’s success, especially without the same charismatic leader at the top.” (emphasis added)

What’s even scarier is what the article calls these “churches”: gigachurches.

Now I understand what they’re trying to do here. It’s a natural extension of the televangelist reaching out via the airwaves. So it begs the question, when you’re watching a church service on TV, are you at church? To answer that question, we need to define what “church” is. I’m not going to get deep into polity or bring up the importance of participating in the sacraments, but I fail to see how you can have a church without ministry. And you can’t have ministry without someone ministering. And you can’t have someone ministering through a television set. Just what am I supposed to do if I’m having trouble with my marriage, my purity, an addiction? Email a pastor a thousand miles away?

And you have the same problem with the numbers game. How can a megachurch, or gigachurch for that matter, meet a particular individual’s spiritual needs? The “small group” has been revolutionary on this front and there have been many books written on what makes a successful small group/house church/etc. But really, if you’re in a crowd of thousands when you hear the Gospel, how well can your spiritual needs be met?

I bring this up as last weekend was the annual Harvest Crusade in Anaheim. Name recognition is a big draw here. Not just Pastor Greg Laurie through his radio program, but also the set list of supporting bands such as POD, Kutless, Michael W Smith, and Randy Travis. Personally, if I was invited I’d be just as interested in the entertainment as the Gospel. Again, “you say you follow Apollos…” I wonder how many in attendance were in the same boat. So what does it take to draw someone to the Gospel, a strong headlining act? A stadium-filling, multi-day, multi-media event?

A coworker was proud to comment that 2800 people accepted Christ on the first night. That’s great, I guess. But how sincere can that really be when every other person around you is crying their eyes out and everyone else is encouraging you to make an Altar Call? Yet, when Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost, those in attendance were obviously moved emotionally (“cut to the heart” Acts 2:37), but do we question their sincerity? Of course not. So I’m left to wonder, is this the best way to market the Gospel?

Personally, on this subject I hold to these scriptural truths and trust God to deal with the rest. “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.” (John 8:31) “You are the light of the world…” (Matthew 5:14) “As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18) “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit… There is one Lord, one faith…” (Ephesians 4:3-6) “The important thing is that in every way… Christ is preached” (Philippians 1:18) “Live such good lives among the pagans…” (1 Peter 1:12) bookended by, “whatever you did for one of the least of these…you did for me” (Matthew 25:40) and “therefore, go an make disciples of all nations… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…” (Matthew 28:19-20)

I wrestle every day in prayer with what this is meant to look like in my life. And that’s where the name of this blog comes in, “Public Christianity”. I can’t tell you how to do it, I don’t even know myself. But I know that we have to be public in our faith. Bold in our convictions. And above all, we cannot allow the world define our faith for us. If it takes a crusade or a bring your neighbor day, a small group or Bible talk, a video evangelist or an in the flesh minister to bring the Gospel to the public, to God be the glory!

(no, not the pro wrestler)

So over the weekend Sen John Edwards admitted to having an affair and has been beaten to a pulp by the media. I know, I know, I’m trying to post less about politics, I really am. But the media coverage this story has received makes me wonder what it is that we want from our political leaders? This article from Slate, questions why Americans expect their political leaders to be so virtuous. At the same time I find it amusing to read criticisms on message boards of the current administration that call the president a “crack head” or “alcoholic” but would be quick to defend the president before him despite his adultery and previous marijuana use. So is there a difference between lying to the public (“I did not inhale”) and admitting to past wrongs (“I do not have a perfect record as a youth”)?

And why do we expect our political leaders to be paragons of virtue anyway? Isn’t David, “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14) and considered to be Israel’s greatest king a really bad example of how to run a country (and family)? So don’t we set our standards a little high? And does it really matter how “Christian” a candidate is when God is sovereign and establishes all authorities (Romans 13:1)? After all, it wasn’t an Israelite king who allowed Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem while Kings and Chronicles are not shy in describing just how bad the kings of Judah and Israel were. So God is certainly capable of using whoever is in a position of authority, no matter his or her beliefs.

At the same time, we should have some expectation of values. This is why I find the moniker “value voter” funny. We all vote our values. We should. If you value personal freedom above all else you’d vote differently than one who values security and safety more. In America, we live in a representative democracy. What that means is that our political leaders represent the people that voted for them. So it shouldn’t surprise us that leaders have faults, because we do ourselves. The struggle is over what values represent the majority of the people. Once upon a time those values were clearly Judeo-Christian. That is becoming less and less so. Some christians (intentional little c) fight this trend by focusing all their attention and effort on supporting christian candidates or christian platforms. I argue that instead we need to fight this trend by focusing our attention and effort on those whom our leaders represent. Not by telling them who to vote for, but instead encouraging them to truly live the Gospel, to be Public Christians. A lot of our social ills can more effectively be addressed by the lives we live than by the laws our leaders pass. If the 85% of us who claim to be Christian are truly living Christ-like lives, then it doesn’t really matter who sits in the Oval Office or which party controls Congress.

So our response to political scandal should be to question our expectations, trust God, be humble and forgive. But if we did that, this election cycle would be pretty boring wouldn’t it?