A More Excellent Way

Here are a couple of interesting articles: one titled "A More Excellent Way" in ChristianityToday by Charles Colson and another by Tony Campolo titled "Is Christianity a Casualty of War?" in The Huffington Post. They both draw attention to some of the down sides of the strong association between faith and politics. I've observed that many (most?) Christians are glad to have a president who wears his faith on his sleeve. I guess I have a different perspective. I'm glad to live in a secular society. I have no desire to force my faith on anyone else nor to have anyone force theres on me. I'm glad president Bush is a man of faith, just like I would be for anyone, but not so much in his role as a head of state. Sometimes countries have to do things in their own interest, perhaps, that aren't the best P.R. for the faiths of their citizens. Frankly, I'm not eager for the rich white guy who drops bombs to be the face of Christianity that the rest of the world sees. From Colson's article:

I shudder every time I hear triumphalistic statements by Christian leaders, because they feed such fears - and understandably so, when a Christian leader predicts God's wrath on the people of Dover, Pennsylvania, for rejecting alternatives to evolution in their school curriculum. If we are honest, we must admit that we often act as if we're powerful because we have - or say we have - big constituencies. For example, after President Bush's 2004 reelection, Christian leaders argued they deserved payback for delivering the votes for his victory. Some even warned the President that if he didn't support a ban on gay marriage, they wouldn't support his Social Security reforms. These leaders may have been well intentioned, but this was pure power brokering - the kind that allows our critics to say we're equating the Christian faith with a political agenda. We have to remember that we owe whatever influence we have to the moral authority we derive from serving God, not from the number of names on our mailing list. To seek political victories in this heavy-handed way is not only a bad witness; it's also unwise. Ultimately, we need both political victories and cultural support. Even if President Bush's judicial appointees tip the Court into reversing Roe v. Wade (as I pray will happen), would there be fewer abortions? Not immediately. The issue would then return to the 50 states, and we'd have 50 battles instead of one. Of course, the law is a moral teacher, but changing the law is an empty victory unless we also change the moral consensus. To change the culture, therefore, we must learn how to engage the political process more winsomely. It will require a different mindset. We'll need to recognize that we're appealing to hearts and minds, not twisting arms. In fact as well as in appearance, we are not seeking to impose, but rather to propose. We're not demanding something for ourselves; we are inviting a hungry and needy world to come to Christ and find goodness and fullness of life. The Christian church makes a Great Proposal, inviting everyone to the table - regardless of ethnic origin, background, or economic status. We're inviting people to consider a worldview that's livable, that makes sense, in which people can discover shalom and human flourishing. This means, first, loving those we contend against in the political process. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Whom you would change, you must first love." Some Christian leaders do get this. Jerry Falwell, whatever else he has done, has gone out of his way to engage the gay community protesting against him. James Dobson set a similar example when protestors surrounded the Focus headquarters. Second, we offer our strongest witness when we demonstrate that we do love others by fighting AIDS in Africa or the worldwide sex-trafficking trade, or by reforming prisons and prisoners, loving the most unlovable. One New York Times columnist who vehemently opposes our political efforts has nonetheless praised Christians for the work he's seen us perform around the world. When the world sees us working for human rights, we earn moral authority that blunts the "imposing your morality" attacks in the public square. Our cultural mandate requires us to work for justice and righteousness so that God's creation reflects his majesty and goodness. That includes engaging in politics. But we must remember as we do this that we are proposing a more excellent way to a needy society, and that we do so in love, no matter how much abuse is heaped upon us.

From Campolo's article:

Recently, I sat in dismay as I watched a television show that featured a prominent Christian author defending the use of torture in the war against terrorism. I was outraged that this man could try to make a case for followers of Jesus condoning such an immoral practice. I shared my feelings with a group of fellow Evangelicals and was stunned when the consensus that emerged from this group of Christians was in agreement with this author. One of those in the group was wearing one of those WWJD bracelets that proposes that when facing any decision and in every circumstance, the question should be asked, "What would Jesus do?" He evaded the question as to whether or not Jesus would torture a terrorist. The question is would Jesus ask, "What doth it profit if you gain information from a tortured terrorist and lose your own soul?" I came away from that discussion with a sense that many of us Evangelicals have given up our moral compasses and wandered into an ethical wasteland where we are not only losing our souls, but also losing our testimonies as good people. Checking around, I found very little condemnation of America's use of torture from those pundits of Christian Fundamentalism who usually can be counted on to speak out with righteous indignation whenever our government provides even the appearance of evil. Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Beware when you fight a dragon, lest you become a dragon," and I wonder if we are becoming as despicable as those evil terrorists who are our declared enemies. Secondly, I am asking if we evangelicals are not only losing any moral authority we once had, but also are losing our opportunity to carry out what we believe is our Biblical imperative to preach the whole Gospel to the whole world. One of the distinguishing traits of we Evangelicals has been our zeal to carry the good news of Christ's salvation to every nation--even as our Lord directed us to do. Sadly, one of the consequences of our support of our nation's foreign policies is that the doors for missionary work are being shut. Because Christianity, throughout the Muslim world, is associated with America, anti-Americanism has heated up anger against Christians in many parts of the Islamic world. In Iraq, Christians, who even during the evil days of the Hussein regime had the privilege of boldly worshipping and evangelizing, are now being threatened. There have been churches in Baghdad that have been burned down, and tens of thousands of Christians have been fleeing the country in fear of persecution. Undoubtedly, missionary endeavors are losing ground in Iraq. Furthermore, if democracy comes to Iraq it is not likely to bode well for Christians there. The new government probably will be Shiite and, if history is to be trusted, Christians will not fare well under Shia law. More than 300 missionaries who had been serving in Pakistan have lost their visas. Christianity is so identified with American power and politics that in some places missionaries are being sent home, not only because they are thought to be people who denigrate Islam, but also because of suspicion that they might even be CIA agents. Again the question must be raised as to whether or not Christianity is becoming a casualty of the war on terrorism.