Not that I’m a huge fan of Rick Warren (though I admire his reverse tithing and work against poverty and A.I.D.S.), but it seems kind of lame that so many are complaining (link link link link link link) about Obama inviting Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.  It reminds me of pro-life groups whining about Warren and Obama partnering to fight A.I.D.S.

Waldman explains why he respects Warren here: link

Update (17 Dec 08):

This firedoglake post (link) is exactly what I'm talking about.  To me, calling Warren a "warmongering torture apologist" is from the same playbook as saying that Obama ♥ infanticide.

Another update (17 Dec 08):

Raushenbush also doesn't have his knickers in a twist (link)

Update (18 Dec 08):

See what I mean: link

Like I said the other day, I’m feeling pretty good about Obama’s chances Tuesday but will be pleasantly surprised if he’s elected.  That said, it looks like there may be a fantastic opportunity upcoming for many Christians to demonstrate their submission to Christ and the teaching of his apostle Paul to pray for Obama and give him respect and honor.

1 Timothy 2:1-2

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Romans 13:1-7

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I doubt the average Christian had warm, fuzzy feelings for the emperor when Paul wrote those words to the Romans.

Bonus reading material:

• Political Slander
• Forgive Us, O Lord: A Prayer for American Politics
• “Christian” E-Mail About the Candidates?
• Why I think Christian leaders supporting a political candidate is a very bad idea
• NObama: Stop the Madness
• Obama's Historic "Call to Renewal" Speech
• Election night and God’s will

That’s a question I’ve seen people asking lately.  For example, here’s a conversation I had on Facebook:

Below are some links that might help for anyone else asking that same question, but first here are a few of my reasons…

• I desire a foreign policy that is less bellicose and more reliant on international cooperation and diplomacy
• I support generous treatment of immigrants
• I believe that the policies of the Democrats are more likely to reduce the abortion rate
• I believe that we need to protect the environment and can’t depend on “the market” to do it for us
• Though I realize this is a gross oversimplification, I feel more kinship with a party whose focus is on the poor and powerless rather than on the rich and powerful
• I am confident that Obama has a first-class intellect and temperament, qualities that are highly desirable for the job of president

How a Christian Can Vote for Obama (link)
Henry Neufeld

Frank! As A Former Pro-Life Leader How Dare You Support Pro-Choice Obama? (link)
Frank Schaeffer

I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obama (link)
Nicholas Cafardi

Pro Life – Pro Obama (link)

Interview with Donald Miller (link)

On the Campaign Trail in MI, IN, NC, VA and OH This Week (link)
Donald Miller

From Reagan to Obama, a brief Political History (link)
Donald Miller

Endorsing Obama (link)
Doug Kmiec

My Support for Obama (link)
Mark Love

Why I'm Voting for Obama, and Why I Hope You Will Too (link)
Brian McLaren

Why I’m Voting for Obama (link)
Ryan Bolger

If you're a Christian planning to vote for Obama, tell us why...

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a proponent of capitalism (in concert with a robust regulatory framework to limit its potential excesses).  However, I find it quite curious that the concepts of socialism and communism are so taboo.  Furthermore, it seems especially strange that Christians, of all people, seem to consider communism/socialism as the 8th deadly sin.  It’s as if they think that all that is necessary is to cry “SOCIALISM!” to reveal any tax proposal or social program funded by a progressive tax system as blatantly un-American.

In a recent blog post titled “Is Capitalism Christian?”, Pastor Bob Cornwall quotes Jose Miranda:

The notion of communism is in the New Testament, right down to the letter -- and so well put that in the twenty centuries since it was written no one has come up with a better definition of communism than Luke in Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35. In fact the definition Marx borrowed from Louis Blanc, "From each one according to his capacities, to each one according to his needs," is inspired by, if not directly copied from Luke's formulation eighteen centuries earlier. There is no clearer demonstration of the brainwashing to which the establishment keeps us subjected than the officially promulgated conception of Christianity as anticommunist (Jose Miranda, Communism in the Bible, Orbis Books, 1982, p. 7).

To refresh your memory about the passages Miranda cites:

Acts 2:44-45

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Acts 4:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Of course, I understand that the voluntary charitable acts of community described in Acts 2 and 4 are not equivalent to a political system, especially the totalitarian ones of the historical and present-day communist regimes, where such actions are coerced.  On the other hand, these principles of community and caring for one another and the least of us are clearly fundamental to the Christian worldview, yet most Christians, myself included, don’t routinely put these principles to practice in a way that is consistent with the example of Acts 2.  Ironically, it seems like some of the people who are most eager for the US of A to be an explicitly Christian nation are some of the same that are so strongly antagonistic to these particular Christian principles being implemented in our government.

The other thing that is funny is the way McCain and his supporters are so quick to brand Obama’s proposals as socialist and as radically different from the system we’ve had in place ever since the income tax was instituted…as if McCain himself wasn’t making many of the same arguments just a few years ago.  Here’s the video:

In small groups we’ve been studying spiritual formation.  Here’s my response to one of the exercises…

Recall the first time you sensed God’s presence and some of the ways God has revealed himself to you since then.  Close the letter by giving thanks for all that you know of God now and for what you would like to know in the future.

Dear God,

I don’t remember the first time I sensed your presence, but as a kid the times I felt closest to you were in worship settings, like at Bible camp or youth rallies.  I have felt your presence many times, for example, in school and at work when things have worked out well for me in ways that seemed to have little if any connection with what I had done or choices that I had made.  I could ascribe it to luck or chance, but I don’t believe that is what it is.  I know that all good things come from you, but I also understand that your servants also suffer.  Sometimes I wonder if my life has seen so little adversity because I wouldn’t be able to handle it if it came.  As a parent and in my relationship with my kids, I have learned to better understand your relationship with me and your other children. I wonder how much of what I think I know about you is based on what you have revealed in the Bible and on what I have experienced versus how much is based on my cultural setting or what makes me comfortable.  I trust that you’ll help me see through those deceptions as you continue to reveal your true self to me.  I am especially thankful for the faith that you have planted in me because I can also how easy it would be for me to not believe under other circumstances.  Thank you.

I’m sure many people who read today’s HuffPo piece by Christine Wicker titled “If You Love Jesus, Vote for Obama” (link) won’t appreciate it, won’t get it.  I do.  Though I wouldn’t tell anyone that a love of Jesus requires voting for any particular candidate (which, by the way, is what many on the religious right actually do), I’m in agreement with much of what Wicker writes in the article.  For example:

After more than 20 years during which the Religious Right has been the dominant ethical and moral voice in the public square, the reputation of American Christians is at an all time low, especially among young people. As the political ambitions of the most right wing Christians have soared, the influence of Christian teachings on popular culture has plummeted.

I recommend following the link above and reading the whole piece.  Personally, I like Wicker’s article because it expresses in a clever and provocative way (“If you love Jesus, vote for…” is certainly provocative language) something that I believe to be true: the strong association of the religious right with the political far right is a liability in accomplishing the mission of the church among about half of the population.

I think there is a real danger for the stink of politics to mask the beautiful aroma of the gospel.  Look at the way the current campaign has inevitably ended up in the gutter despite the initial promise of a different kind of campaign from these two candidates.  And the way people like Dobson wield political power is so distasteful to me. And the culture war? That's the way to engage outsiders? There's a reason why they like Jesus but not the church.

I don't think the answer is for the religious left to become the new religious right in the political realm, but I think it would be very healthy for it to be more obvious that Christianity and Republicanism are not synonymous.

Here are some videos I watched tonight.  The first two are of Palin as governor speaking in the church where she grew up.  I guess these are supposed to be to Palin what the Jeremiah Wright videos were to Obama?  I’ve seen the Jeremiah Wright videos.  These are no Jeremiah Wright videos.  There is some interesting stuff here though…references to the U.S. military being sent according to Bush’s plan that (hopefully) is God’s will too, God also willing some companies to get coordinated to build an oil pipeline, Alaska as a place were hundreds of thousands of us are going to take refuge in the last days, etc…

In that last video Palin makes a reference to not being freaked out by spirited worship assemblies after growing up at the Wasilla Assembly of God. Here is a brief clip of Wasilla that some folks find peculiar (link).  Even though the churches I grew up in are nothing like this, this hardly freaks me out…though I can understand how all of this must seem a bit strange to non-religious folk.

Finally, as part The Daily Show coverage the Repub convention this week, here is a clip of Jon Stewart letting the pundits skewer themselves with their own words. Of course, the Dems do this same stuff too (in relation to questions of experience, for example).

Steve Waldman, countering Jim Wallis's view that the Democratic Party has moved to a more pro-life position:

If you have to look for the change with a microscope, it's not going to have much effect on the public discourse.

(h/t Crunchy Con)

A friend recently wrote:

This election ignore all the lies about obama is a terrorist, or obama is anti christ, or obama will destroy the u.s. those things are ridiculous and they are gonna continue to go out of conrtol. but here's one thing that is true and is equally as disturbing:

In a failed abortion situation, when the baby survives, the question is what do you do with that baby? The united states congress voted on this and there was a general consensus that it was wrong to just let that baby die. However, Obama did not feel the same way. He voted for letting the baby die. Hillary Clinton voted to let the baby live. This is not propaganda, google this, I'll even give you what Obama said to defend his side:

“that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.”
-Obama

Its not a matter of religion, it's a matter of the right to life, the most important right in America. Some people will argue in the case where a baby will harm the health of the mother that the abortion is fair. But in a failed abortion the baby is outside of the mother and if everyone shared Obama's view they just let the baby lay out to die.

This is an extremely ugly and graphic topic, but I think its necessary to hear. Maybe McCain is old, pretty boring, and just kind of a weird guy, but he at least has never in his 200 years of congress life voted against life.

If you don't like either just do what I'm doing write in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul: Youtube him

As a HuffPo article (of course, sympathetic to Obama) points out (link), my friend’s summary gets some of the facts wrong (e.g., Obama’s vote was in the Illinois senate not the US senate and there are reasons other than a disregard for life that may have prompted Obama to vote against the Illinois bill).  That’s not to say that Obama’s position/votes related to abortion don’t bother me.

Regardless, I see in this appeal from my friend (and most conversation about abortion) a perpetuation of the focus on ideology rather than practicality.  The American public is pretty evenly divided between the view that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare and that it should be illegal and rare. Ideologically those two views are very different, but practically they are very similar. Both parties focus on ideology as a wedge issue, dig in to give no ground, and as a result do things that don't help.  Rather than focus on ideological differences, an approach that has led to stalemate with little hope for significant change in the foreseeable future, I'm more interested in both sides focusing on where they agree and can work together to do practical things to reduce the abortion rate.

Some examples are suggested in an article by Tony Campolo: Pro-Life Democrats Call for an Abortion Reduction Plank

Today a friend said:

If budgets are moral documents then Hell is going to be over-crowded with church folk.

and another replied:

also pretty much most families. Do you have a budget? Do you look to the interests of others before the interests of your own?

I have been thinking a bit about church budgets lately.  It started when I heard that the U.S. set a new record for charitable giving last year despite the economic downturn (from an article by Philip Rucker in the Washington Post):

Americans donated $306 billion to charities in 2007...most of the donations, about $229 billion, came from individuals...giving from private foundations increased 7 percent and through personal bequests 4 percent, adjusted for inflation...international aid agencies, environmental groups and human service charities saw the largest increases in charitable gifts. Gifts to international groups, which were so small 20 years ago that the category was nonexistent in the survey, have grown steadily, increasing by 13 percent last year to $13 billion.

I've mentioned before that Robert Reich has argued that most charitable donations are made by the rich to institutions that serve the rich:

This year's charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion, a record. But a big portion of this impressive sum -- especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate -- is going to culture palaces: to the operas, art museums, symphonies and theaters where the wealthy spend much of their leisure time. It's also being donated to the universities they attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the added inducement of knowing that these schools often practice a kind of affirmative action for "legacies."

It turns out that only an estimated 10% of all charitable deductions are directed at the poor.

I started thinking about churches as charitable institutions and how church-spending typically fits this pattern too.  What fraction of American's "charitable giving" to church actually goes to the poor and needy?  Churches have ministers to pay and facilities to maintain, so what fraction of a typical church's budget goes to benevolence?  For us, it's about 7 %.  I'm not saying that the other 93 % doesn't go to good things too, but much of it isn't charity as I would define it.

I'm glad Americans are setting giving records again this year, but I wonder if our priorities couldn't use some adjustment.