"Seven Pounds"

Have you seen the movie "Seven Pounds?"

(If not, and you intend to see it, DON'T READ BELOW until you have. I don't want to spoil the outcome for you!)

I recently went to see it and it broke my heart. It made me stop and think about the many people living every day with guilt and regret wondering if there's any possible way to make it right.

This film is a classic example of the post-Christian culture admitting that the world is not the way it's supposed to be and that sin has consequences. Will Smith did such an amazing job of conveying the main character's sorrow, pain, and his desire to make things right. The crushing tragedy of the movie lies in the realization that his attempts to atone for his own sin were in vain. They did nothing for his guilt and pain and in the end cost him his life. Only Christ's blood can pay the price for sin.

The other question the movie leaves us with is whether or not Smith's character had the right to take his own life, especially if doing so would benefit another. Our post-Christian culture teaches that we belong to ourselves, that "man is the measure of all things." We can determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. ( This is also reflected in Smith's criteria for determining which of his prospective beneficiaries was "worthy.")

In contrast, Christians believe that we are "not our own" and that we were "bought with a price." We belong to God our creator. He alone is sovereign over life and death. Placing ourselves in the position of God is the pride of idolatry- the ultimate sin. The worst tragedy of "Seven Pounds" was that in trying to atone for his sins, the main character ends up committing the ultimate one.

If you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend it. It will provide many opportunities for serious discussions with your friends and family.

MSNBC: Africa IS in Fact a Continent

MSNBC and FOX News recently retracted the "news" story about Governor Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent. Apparently, it was an internet hoax. Good thing they caught that before the election. We wouldn't want people to get the impression that the woman is dumber than a box of rocks and totally unquallified to be president if God forbid something should happen to her elderly running-mate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

God's Politics, Part Two: The "A" Word

During an interview with Pastor Rick Warren on August 16, 2008, Senator Barack Obama was asked what he felt was America’s greatest moral failure. His response was,

“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

Obama went on to explain that by “least of these” he meant the poor, minorities, and women. However, the Senator conspicuously left out one important group- unborn children. If “least of these” does not include human life in its most fragile and vulnerable state, then the phrase is meaningless.

Much debate has taken place in the three decades since the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Catholics and Evangelical Christians have sought to keep the issue at the forefront. In fact, abortion may be responsible for the very invention of the term, “single-issue voter.” Nevertheless, the fact remains that there have been over 48 million legal abortions in the United States since 1973. Every year, nearly a million more are added to the list and unless there are major changes to the court, it will continue.

The candidates have made their positions clear. Compare their responses to the question posed to each of them by Rick Warren at the August 16th Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency…

Warren: “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?”

Obama: “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade…I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors, or their spouses, or their doctors [and] their family members. And, so for me, the goal right now should be- and this is where I think we can find common ground…is: how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

McCain: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, [and] in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President, and this Presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment; that’s my commitment to you.”

The difference is startling. McCain believes that unborn children are human beings and Obama believes that saying so is “above his paygrade.” He goes on to say that we should seek to reduce the number of abortions. I wonder if he would have applied this same logic to the Fugitive Slave Law or the Dred Scott decision? Would he have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it took "choice" out of the hands of the individual? I think not. To say that ending the life of an unborn child should be the decision of the mother is like saying the decision to own a slave should be left to the slaveowner.

A pro-Obama friend of mine recently said to me, “History has shown that neither a Republican nor Democratic president has solved it [abortion] yet so why should we base our vote on just one issue?” The reality is, Roe v. Wade DID solve the issue- in favor of abortion! If this ruling is ever going to be overturned, presidents must appoint pro-life judges. President Bush appointed two justices and experts are predicting that the next president will appoint two to three more. Read what the candidates said about judicial nominees…

Warren: “Which existing Supreme Court Justices would you not have nominated?”

Obama: I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he...I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker, at the time, for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.
I would not nominate Justice Scalia- although I don’t think there’s any doubt about his intellectual brilliance- because he and I just disagree…”

In other words, his objection to Scalia is not on grounds of qualification. It is strictly on the grounds that Scalia does not believe the constitution should be reinterpreted to suit our fancy. Incidentally, Scalia and Thomas are the two most pro-life justices on the court. Their “strict-constructionist” judicial philosophy finds no justification in the constitution for the Roe v. Wade decision. Which brings us to McCain’s response…

McCain: “With all due respect, [I would not have nominated] Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stevens…This nomination [to the Supreme Court] should be based on the criteria of [a] proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America, and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.”

McCain is saying that he will appoint “strict-constructionist” judges who would make possible the reevaluation of Roe v. Wade. The pro-abortion lobby understands this very well. Their radio ad campaign made it very clear how “dangerous” they believe a President McCain would be to their ideals. As Christians, this is not an issue we can debate. The belief that life is precious and that its origin and termination must both be left in God's hands is foundational to our faith.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Psalm 139:13-16

God's Politics, Part One: Economics (Cont.)

So, what bearing does my previous post have on the current election? The terms “socialist” and “Marxist” are being thrown around quite a bit. Regardless of what you choose to label it, Senator Obama’s tax plan proposes to raise the tax rate on people he deems “rich.” At the same time, the Earned Income Tax Credit allows millions of Americans who do not pay taxes to receive checks from the government. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 67 million adult Americans (33%) do not pay any federal income taxes. No matter how you slice it, this is government redistribution of wealth. As Christians, we may be tempted to believe that this is a just and compassionate approach. But, is that truly the case?

Here are some tax statistics from the bipartisan Tax Policy Center. Did you know that 70% of the tax burden is currently carried by the top 20% of taxpayers? Were you aware that the top 10% of American earners pay more than 55%? Senator Obama has stated repeatedly and unapologetically that he will raise taxes on the top 5%. He claims that these folks have had a “free ride” under President Bush. So, how much of the burden are they carrying? Would you believe 44%? Hardly seems like a free ride to me. It’s not about favoring “the rich.” It’s about not further punishing the people who are already paying the vast majority of the bill.

Senator McCain stated it best in a campaign speech he gave this morning. He said, “Senator Obama’s running to spread the wealth. I’m running to create more wealth.” Exactly. The Christian conception of the dignity of hard work and the rightness of enjoying its fruits have led to enormous wealth creation. It defies common sense and any reasonable conception of fairness and decency to punish individual wealth creation and financial success which has resulted in enormous benefits to society as a whole. Our standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world and it is a direct result of the exceptional political and economic freedom we enjoy. Regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status, he or she is far better off in the United States than almost any other place in the world.

Furthermore, how can the Body of Christ benefit from sending more dollars to Washington to be distributed by bureaucrats on programs that may or may not align with Christian principles? Wouldn’t the Lord be more pleased if His people were able to keep more of what they earn so they can use their resources as He directs them to expand the Kingdom of God? Admittedly, part of the church’s mission is to feed the poor and care for the needy, but that should not override the primary mission which is to share the gospel.

One last note. It has become fashionable in some Christian circles to characterize the rich as “greedy.” Indeed, many rich people may, in fact, be greedy. If that is the case, God will judge their hearts accordingly. However, it is important to note that greed is not defined merely by the possession of great wealth. Greed is the unhealthy and unquenchable desire for “more” at the expense of others. The tenth commandment says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." The desire of a person to keep what they have rightfully earned is not greed. The desire to get a piece of someone else’s wealth is.

God’s Politics, Part One: Economics

Many of you have written to ask me to be more specific in addressing the current political issues from a biblical point of view. It was always my intention to do so and today’s entry seeks to begin that endeavor. However, I must preface my thoughts by saying that I do NOT believe that I speak for God. I humbly acknowledge that I am a very imperfect human being who is still learning and growing. Having said that, I do want to share my perspective.

I begin with economics. It has been the major theme dominating the current campaign. With the economy on the brink of recession, it seems that capitalism itself is on trial. Does the bible have anything to say about it? Does it endorse any specific economic system? What about the government’s role in helping the poor?

The description of life in the first century church found in the book of Acts is of a community who “had everything in common” and “gave to anyone as he had need.” It is a beautiful picture of the body of Christ functioning rightly. Acts 4:32-35 says,

“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…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 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”

This passage is often used to support the Marxist idea of wealth redistribution. It is argued that the early church provides the most appropriate model for the Christian understanding of economic justice.

There are several flaws in this line of reasoning. First, the economic realities of the early church were quite different than twenty-first century America. They did not enjoy political and economic freedom as we do. These were Jews living under the harsh rule of the Romans. Most were not Roman citizens and as such did not enjoy equal political status nor did they enjoy equal economic opportunities. Additionally, these “Christian” Jews were under severe persecution by the Jewish authorities. Sharing, for them, was a matter of survival.

Second, the Acts 4 model describes a voluntary community sharing with one another out of their own goodwill and generosity. This was not the result of coercion or imposition by an authority. Their love for Christ and for one another compelled them to give. They did so not by sending everything they had to Rome so that the government could decide who needed it the most, but rather by judging for themselves how best to help one another. This is a mandate the church must never neglect.

Finally, this was not the permanent condition of the Christian community. As the church grew and survived early persecution, it rapidly moved away from this model. Later in Acts, the Apostle Paul mentions his own trade as a tentmaker. He specifically refers in multiple passages to both the Corinthian and Thessalonian churches that he worked night and day so that he would not be a financial burden to them. In II Thessalonians 3:7-9, Paul says,

“For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow.”

Paul here, endorsed the idea that individuals have the right to be compensated for providing goods and services. He also acknowledged his own responsibility to pay for the provision of his own needs. Clearly, the church had moved beyond the communal arrangement they had initially embraced.

It’s 1:30am. I’m going to bed. More to follow…

God's Politics

Following the re-election of George W. Bush in November 2004, media reports focused on the enormous support he received from evangelical Christians. While not all Christians voted for the President, the vast majority did. In fact, for the past thirty years, evangelical Christians have been voting fairly monolithically, influenced greatly by organizations like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.

Looking toward the election of 2008, liberals like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo recognized the growing unpopularity of President Bush and the war in Iraq as their opportunity to effectively challenge the traditional thinking about Christianity and politics. They sought to change the perception that it was “Christians vs. Democrats.” They began to court evangelicals with a new message that emphasized Jesus’ commands to feed the hungry, help the poor, as well as His call to be peacemakers.

Which brings us to the current presidential election. Evangelical Christians are deeply divided. Both candidates claim to be born-again Christians. Each candidate appeals to elements of Christ’s teaching to support their policies. No longer is it assumed that Christians must vote for the Republican. Our vision of Christian politics has been rightfully expanded beyond the narrow definitions of the Religious Right. So, how are we as Christians supposed to decide?

During the Civil War, President Lincoln overheard someone remark that he hoped that God was on the side of the Union. Lincoln's response was profound. He said,

"I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

I believe this is precisely the answer. Rather than asking whether God is for Barack Obama or John McCain, the question we should ask is, “Which candidate’s vision and policies line up best with God’s as outlined in His word?” When evaluated on that basis, I believe the choice is very clear.

To be continued…

Liberal Tolerance

Liberals believe all ideas must be tolerated and respected- except for conservative ones...