February 2008 Archives

I'm the first to claim that the Christian Right is an aberration on the history of Christianity. The role of Christians in politics has not always been as it is today.

All the columnists and Christian talking heads now talk about how Christians emphasize different issues, such as the environment, poverty, social justice, and torture. People like Rick Warren and Jim Wallis lead the charge to "take back" Christianity from the clutches of the religious right. The rest of the world welcomes this change with open arms.

While the evolution of Christian political emphasis is laudible, I'm worried that Christianity will still get yoked to a few issues, as it did before with abortion and homosexuality. Even more, the mass media is noticing how people of all different faiths unite in solidarity on these issues. It's a sign of God's common grace that we can bridge our differences and fight injustice in this world, but I'm worried that, as a result, Christians will lose a sense of the transformative power of the Gospel and how it touches every area of our lives. Our faith cannot be reduced to our reactions to a few, albeit very important, issues.

I was inspired to comment on this when I read a Metro column about Jim Wallis' visit to Park Street Church last week. Several of my friends attended this event. While I can't say much about Wallis himself since I've read and seen only snippets of him, I noticed that he talked almost exclusively about poverty. This troubled me because, although Christians absolutely have to be involved in eradicating poverty, it strikes me as reductionistic. Jesus himself cannot be reduced to these issues, so neither should our faith.

I disagree with Wallis' political philosophy (which is shared by many Christians) that we shouldn't want to hear what a political candidate believes, just that he or she has a good "moral compass." While this sounds good, and indeed gets cheers from a secular crowd, it's not quite in line with true religious freedom. I believe that political candidates, whether Christian or not, should feel free to talk about what they believe in (and they do). Additionally, as Jim Skillen points out in his essay Faith and the Presidency, we need an altogether new, holistic Christian political philosophy, one that is driven by Kuyper's idea of sphere sovereignty.

Am I way off base?

Never in my life have I attempted to see most of the best picture nominees just before Oscars. Now I have Atonement, There Will be Blood, and No Country for Old Men on the docket for the next three days. Any Bostoners who want to join on this venture, give me a ring.

A friend told me about the atmosphere at an Oscars party they attend every year: the whole evening is spent taking jabs at evangelicals and Republicans. I don't understand. What material do they have to play with? The whole point of the evening is to make fun of Hollywood celebrities, most of whom aren't in either category, in fact quite the opposite. Those who focus their critiques elsewhere are really missing out. Of course I also like to criticize/admire the fashion.

Speaking of best pictures, Heidi and I watched Lawrence of Arabia last night while babysitting. I hadn't seen it since I was a wee pup, and the only scenes I remembered were the kid drowning in quicksand and Lawrence getting flogged. Yes, I must have been traumatized. I noticed there are no women in the movie, besides a couple nurses and some Muslim wives. None of them speak. Appropriate considering both the military and Muslim cultures of the time. But my modern movie senses kept expecting a belly dancer to emerge who would steal Lawrence's heart because she was "different" from all the rest, free and loose and brave, but of course that didn't happen, and thankfully not, because that didn't happen in real life. Not only did Lawrence not have a relationship, he was also rumored to be a homosexual - also extremely taboo at the time.