Jon Meacham and Tim Keller discuss "The End of Christian America"

From MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Good Friday

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Hat tip: Gideon Strauss



Related Posts:

• Which is it? “The End of Christian America” or the rise of “The New Calvinism?”
• Jon Meacham and Tim Keller discuss "The End of Christian America" on MSNBC
• Which is the new Calvinism? “Neo-Puritanism” or “Neo-Calvinism?”
• Neocalvinism: What is it? Is it different from the Calvinism of Albert Mohler?
  

• Deciphering the Nuanced Differences Between Neopuritanism and Neocalvinism
• John Piper and Tim Keller
• Jonathan Edwards and Abraham Kuyper
• Passion Conference and Jubilee Conference
• Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Calvin College
  
• Mark Driscoll and Gabe Lyons

Which is it? “The End of Christian America” or the rise of “The New Calvinism?”

Newsweek and Time give contrary versions of Calvinist influence in America

The cover story of the April 13, 2009 issue of Newsweek (The End of Christian America by the magazine’s editor, Jon Meacham), talks about the ramifications of a study that showed that the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen ten points in the last two decades. Meacham spotlighted Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an outspoken proponent of American Calvinism. Meacham quotes Mohler’s online column, where he wrote, “A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us. The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture.”

However, the cover story of the March 23, 2009 issue of Time Magazine was about “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.” The Number 3 idea: “The New Calvinism.” David Van Biema writes about “the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.” Collin Hansen’s book Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (following his cover story in Christianity Today) offers enough evidence to Time Magazine that Calvinism is making a comeback. And, of course, Albert Mohler is quoted in the Time article, boasting about the superiority of Calvinist Theology.

So, here we have a strange juxtaposition!

In the Newsweek article, Mohler (in his classic inflammatory fearful rhetoric) is rallying the Calvinist troops against the demise of Christian influence in American culture and the insidious godlessness that will destroy what many believe this to be: a “Christian Nation.” He told Meacham, “The post-Christian narrative is radically different; it offers spirituality, however defined, without binding authority. It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step.”

In the Time article, Mohler is triumphantly touting his movement as one of the 10 great ideas that are changing the world. The reason? Mohler says, “The moment someone begins to define God's [being or actions] biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist.”

Here’s what’s happening as I see it.

As the nation is becoming more turned off by the Religious Right and by Christians who have narrowly defined Christianity as a set of beliefs that one must affirm in order to be “saved,” those that have been in this camp are rallying their troops against the enemies, and tightening the screws on their theology. This creates zealousness among its adherents, and actually grows the numbers. It looks like the next big thing.

But is it?

Perhaps it is the last dying gasp of a movement that has seen its time come and go. Or perhaps it is a signal that a mediating position is about to come to fruition, one that embraces the best that Calvinism has to offer but with humility, gentleness, and respect. Perhaps it is a signpost to a better way, one that comes as the swinging pendulum slows down and level heads and hearts begin to prevail.

We’ll explore these possibilities next.
_

Related Posts:

• Which is it? “The End of Christian America” or the rise of “The New Calvinism?”
• Jon Meacham and Tim Keller discuss "The End of Christian America" on MSNBC
• Which is the new Calvinism? “Neo-Puritanism” or “Neo-Calvinism?”
• Neocalvinism: What is it? Is it different from the Calvinism of Albert Mohler?
  

• Deciphering the Nuanced Differences Between Neopuritanism and Neocalvinism
• John Piper and Tim Keller
• Jonathan Edwards and Abraham Kuyper
• Passion Conference and Jubilee Conference
• Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Calvin College
  
• Mark Driscoll and Gabe Lyons

Scot McKnight's Talkin' Blue Parakeets with Steve Brown

One of the podcasts to which I subscribe through iTunes is Steve Brown, Etc.

Yesterday's podcast was a nice surprise.

From the Steve Brown, Etc. Website:

Blue Parakeets & Homosexuals in the Church - Scot McKnight on SBE

If you're not careful, reading the Bible can make you weird.

Have you ever struggled with being a Bible-believing Christian without becoming an out-of-touch fundamentalist or wacky liberal? If so, don't miss Scot McKnight on this week's SBE. If not, listen anyway.

Scot McKnight is a biblical scholar, beliefnet blogger and author of The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. Join Steve and Scot as they discuss blue parakeets and how to handle the biblical view of homosexuality without being an uptight jerk.

For subscribing through iTunes click here.

McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

After each gave opening statements, Brian McLaren and Bryan Hollon replied to each other. Brian McLaren’s rebuttal of Hollon consisted of the standard McLarenism that goes something like this: “Yea, I’m not perfect, I don’t know a whole lot. If what Byran Hollon resonates with you and you don’t like what I’m saying then stick with that and don’t read my books.” Hollon called him out on it—that it was not a real defense of his position, and therefore undermines the reason for the debate. I agreed with him. The longer I've been listening to McLaren, the more tired I get of his hedging around answering his critics in this manner.

Once they started actually debating, however, some clarity began to emerge. McLaren affirmed that he is indeed seeking the apostolic faith, in that he wants to believe and live as Jesus would want him to. He is just not very confident that we’ve got it all right, and offered evidence by taking one of Hollon’s examples of how modern Christianity "got it right" (by being the instigators of the abolitionist movement) to point out that the majority of Christians at the time were actually in favor of slavery by pointing to passages in Scripture to support their views.

McLaren says that doctrine does indeed progress, and all one needs to do is look at the history of the church. Hollon did not agree with this, stating that McLaren was getting core dogma and developing doctrine confused - that doctrine certainly develops but there is still only one apostolic faith handed down through the centuries (see my previous post on Hollon's distinctions on Dogma, Doctrine, and Opinion).

When the forum was opened to the audience to ask questions, the crowd at the two microphones grew quickly. The questions were mixed between those sympathetic to McLaren and those clearly hostile toward him. More than once, people in the audience asked McLaren if he believed that Jesus Christ came to die as the substitutionary atonement for sin and to save us from a literal hell so that all who believe may have eternal life. The evening ended with a pastor that is known for being the local "John MacArthur" asking about justification by faith alone, and trying to get McLaren to admit he does not believe that righteousness comes only by faith in the death of Christ. McLaren didn't bite.

I enjoyed watching people ask their questions and then walk away shaking their heads in self-righteousness. No matter what answers they received to their questions, they had already determined not to listen or seek to understand. They were already in scoffing mode.

Interestingly, it was Bryan Hollon that provided the best answer to the questions concerning atonement. He stated that there have been many “theories of atonement,” and that penal substitution is one of the valid biblical ways to describe the atonement. However, it is not the only way that the New Testament describes what happened with the cross and resurrection. He said that just as prominent in the Bible and in church history has been the Christus Victor view of atonement.

McLaren jumped on this, stating that this is a prime example of how doctrine has developed over time. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a doctrine from the 16th Century Protestant Reformation, but it has not always been the way the church described atonement. This is why he is not so interested anymore in talking about how to get people out of hell and into heaven. He wants to proclaim other aspects of the atonement that have also been part of church history, ones that better match our culture today.

As I listened to this battle over the Atonement, it reminded me of three years ago, when Mark Dever wrote the cover story for Christianity Today on how he believed that Substitutionary Atonement is the only legitimate way to understand the gospel.

Back then I wrote

“for Dever to insist that [only] one of these stories of the Atonement is essential to Christianity is simply unbiblical. The Bible offers a full bouquet of Atonement stories, with differing colors, differing fragrances, differing textures, so that we can embrace the fullness of what Christ accomplished for us.

The Atonement is so big and spectacular that it takes all these stories to capture its beauty. People are so different in the various cultures in this world and in their assorted life-situations that these diverse stories speak to them wherever they are and whatever they believe and however they need the grace of God.

Dever pulls one rose from the bouquet and sets it alone as the single most significant story of the Atonement. It certainly is a beautiful rose, but we are missing so much more!”

And so the Atonement War of the Roses had another battle at Malone University this week. And, interestingly, the battle was won for those who want to embrace all that the Bible teaches about atonement, not just the one that has had the prominent place for the past 400 years.

other links in this series:
The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?
Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation
Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)

Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)

Last Monday at Malone University, the community of Canton, Ohio came out to see the slugfest that never was. Many were hoping that Bryan Hollon, a theology professor at Malone, would take Brian McLaren down to the mat by showing the apostasy of McLaren in all its WWE Rawness.

It was not to be. The debate between the two was gracious and kind. the crowd that came to nail McLaren as a heretic no doubt left disappointed.

Bryan Hollon did, however, step up to the microphone and offer a very insightful statement on how he thinks Brian McLaren and the Emerging Church are in danger of “going off the rails.”

First, Hollon said that McLaren misunderstands the nature of the Christian message as it pertains to history. Hollon is troubled by how McLaren states that the Christian church throughout the history has seen doctrinal development and change. McLaren encourages his readers to continue the necessary progression of doctrine in our day. Hollon counters this by stating that there is a core dogma—a central teaching—that has always been there, has not changed, and has been passed along through the church. This is what we affirm in the Nicene Creed when we say, “I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” The “Church” is “apostolic” because we hold to those core teachings handed down to us from the Apostles of Christ.

Hollon’s second point of contention with McLaren is that McLaren makes too radical a break between modern and postmodern Christianity. Hollon thinks that McLaren caricatures modern Christianity and then “tars and feathers it.” How does McLaren do this? By painting the difference between the modern age and postmodern age in too black-and-white contrasts—Modern Christianity was strictly concerned with rational epistemology, individuality, and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” while Postmodern Christianity (in McLaren’s words from his book, Generous Orthodoxy) does not claim “to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall.” Hollon refutes this caricature by stating that the Christian church has always seen the “Rule of Faith” to be the route to the “Rule of Prayer,” that sound doctrine is a prerequisite for sound practice. He took the time to read the Hymn “Joy to the World” as evidence that the music of Modern Church took “truth” but then allowed that truth to inform her worship.

The third criticism Hollon offered is that he believes that McLaren has an insufficient understanding of Dogma. Contrary to what Hollon sees in McLaren’s writings, Hollon stated that Dogma is not something to be condemned, but that it helps us to understand Scripture correctly. The “Rule of Faith,” as stated in the Creeds of the church, are the core of our beliefs. These do not change. Hollon thinks that the emerging church and Brian McLaren would benefit from making a clear distinction between “Dogma,” “Doctrine,” and “Opinion.” “Dogma” is the central teachings of the Christian faith – the unchanging truths stated in the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed and the first four ecumenical councils. “Doctrine” is a second order set of teachings, created by different Christian communities as they understand Scriptures in the milieu of their traditions, and “Opinions” are the theological discussions and debates among people that go beyond that. What Hollon thinks McLaren does is conflate these in a way that says that since “doctrines” and “opinions” change over time, “Dogma” does as well. McLaren and others in the Emerging Church conversation also mistakenly believe that if a Dogma is unchanging, this squelches theological discovery. Hollon stated that this is absolutely the opposite of what is the case: Dogma does not exhaust the doctrines of God, they are merely “the kindling for further exploration of God.”

Next: McLaren’s Rebuttal of Hollon’s Statement, the Debate, and then the Inquisition Begins

other posts in this series:
The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?
Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation
McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation

Brian McLaren started out the debate at Malone University by mapping out the progression of the emerging church conversation and his contribution to it.

STAGE ONE: He said it started out as a conversation among young, white, middle-class pastors (and him as the old guy at 42) about how to do church in order to reach 18-30 year olds outside of the church. McLaren’s book The Church on the Other Side reflects this conversation.

STAGE TWO: The emerging church conversation quickly shifted from church-focus to how to evangelize and disciple people, and McLaren’s books More Ready Than You Realize and Finding Faith reflect that stage of the conversation (Finding Faith has subsequently been repackaged as two separate books: A Search for What Makes Sense and A Search for What Is Real).

STAGE THREE: The conversation shifted from reaching 18-30 year olds to the realization that the issue is less about the age of people, but the cultural milieu in which we find ourselves. This interest in the cultural milieu of the 21st Century led the conversation into the deep topic of philosophy, especially explorations into how postmodernism has affected our thinking and our ways of knowing. McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian reflects this stage in the conversation.

STAGE FOUR: The next stage entailed the realization that the conversation was very white and male and middle classed. They began to expand the conversation into seeking to understand church history and other Christian traditions, while inviting women, mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics into the discussion. This led to McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy.

STAGE FIVE: With this desire to get beyond the particularity of American Christianity, the Emerging Church conversation began listening to those outside the United States, hearing how others see the gospel as focused on Justice and Civil Issues. They discovered that The Kingdom of God is much more the center of the gospel outside of the states. McLaren’s books The Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change reflect this stage.

STAGE SIX: McLaren said that the next stage he senses the conversation moving into is what he calls “Spirituality:” cultivating a deep awareness, love, and worship of God. This is reflected by his new book, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices.

As I listened to Brian map out these stages, I thought, “This explains a lot about Brian’s journey and that of others who have been involved in this emerging church thing.” For me personally, it brought to mind my early connections with Brian. As I led a new church plant in 2001, his The Church on the Other Side was very helpful. The first book I led our church leadership through was More Ready Than You Realize, and I gave away a case of Finding Faith to people that I was sharing my faith with. These three books were, and continue to be, three of my all-time favorites. I began this blog after attending the Emergent Conference in 2004, spending a weekend as part of Brian McLaren's Emergent Conference cohort, meeting with him several times during the conference to discuss with him the conference and processing it into my ministry.

From what Brian McLaren said at Malone, this much is certain: He is on a spiritual journey, a journey that is continuing to evolve as he engages in new conversations, exploring the implications of the Gospel on different aspects of life. This is why his books have become more and more controversial. People were fine with him exploring how to do church to reach a new postmodern, post-Christian generation. They are less comfortable with the McLaren that is becoming more and more political (now that he is no longer pastoring a local church, he calls himself an “activist”), and especially as he becomes more and more ready to question the standard theological assumptions of American evangelicalism. The church has always been uncomfortable with “activists,” especially if they perceive that the activist is thrying to change them!

However, this should inform how the church should interact and interpret Brian McLaren. He is just a person who thinks deeply about things, is in conversation with a lot of people about these things (both personally and through research), and writes about where he is on this journey. Where will Brian McLaren be in 10 years? Only God knows (I mean that literally, not with my eyes rolling and throwing my hands up, exclaiming, "God only knows!"). :-)

But it is certainly exciting that the stage he’s in now finds him exploring the ancient Christian spiritual disciplines, like fixed-hour prayer, fasting, and the observance of the Sabbath. This stage might bring many of his skeptics back into listening to him again.
_
other posts in this series:
The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?
Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)
McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?

Malone University, in a bold move that should be applauded, brought Brian McLaren to campus. He spoke in Chapel on Monday morning and then debated Bryan Hollon, a theology professor at Malone on the topic, Emerging or Diverging: In What Direction is the Emerging Church Movement Headed?

I talked some with Brian before his morning message in Malone’s Chapel. I was pretty impressed that he recognized me. I first met Brian back in 2003, and I spent a weekend with him back in 2004 as part of a learning cohort on how to reach an emerging generation of post-Christian people. Besides this blog which has been engaging in the issues of the emerging church since its inception, I have also been involved with the Emergent Cohort for Akron-Canton, where we talk about the issues of how the Christian faith needs to be lived and proclaimed in the 21st Century.

First, I’d like to make some general observations about McLaren's visit to Malone. Later this week, I'll go into detail about what McLaren said, what Hollon said in debate, and what the audience contributed.

McLaren’s morning chapel message was very good. He talked about the Kingdom of God and how that message was radical for its time in that it was in opposition to the Kingdom of Caesar. McLaren pointed out that while Caesar’s kingdom was one of peace through violence, Jesus’ kingdom was one of peace through sacrifice. Very moving and very biblical. One person I met that morning said she came expecting to hear heresy, and found nothing in the message that wasn’t solidly biblical and applicable.

The debate that evening was open to the public, free of charge. And many people came. There were protestors handing out print-outs in the parking lot listing quote after quote from McLaren that they felt proved that he is a heretic. The crowd inside felt very split. There were as many staunch proponents of McLaren as staunch antagonists. My hope was that there were just as many who were open-minded and discerning, seeking first to understand before coming to judgment.

At times the event felt like an inquisition - the questions from the floor were often inappropriately hostile. However, McLaren kept his cool and was always very gracious. He certainly has some controversial positions theologically, and I think that Bryan Hollon, the professor from Malone that debated him, did a very good job of pointing those out. He was gracious as well, saying that McLaren had a lot to offer the church in terms of understanding the theology of the Kingdom of God and very authentic ways of reaching young people in today's culture.

Next: What McLaren said

other post in this series
Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation
Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)
McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

March Madness All Academic Bracket

Inside Higher Ed has once again published the NCAA Men's tournament bracket, selecting winners based on the NCAA Academic Performance Rate.

This year's final four:
___BYU
___Kansas
___Villanova
___North Carolina

According to the nationally comparable academic scores, the Tar Heels would win it all!

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?

MSNBC is now conducting an on-line "Live Vote" on this question.

I don’t know. I have mixed feelings about this issue.

I certainly hope that Americans would embrace the idea of “In God We Trust.” In fact, this is my prayer – that each and every person would trust Jesus Christ as his or her savior. I also hope that society and government in the United States would be in line with the will of God. This is my prayer – that Christians would be so convincing in the public square that others would see the wisdom of our suggestions and decide to pass laws and structure society in such ways that are in accordance with the way God has created us to live.

But I also feel that the civil religion that we have had in America – the one that gives God a hat-tip here and there, that makes Christmas a civil holiday for the purpose of driving our economy and feeding our consumeristic greed, that makes Easter Bunnies more important than the empty tomb – does more harm than good to the cause of proclaiming Christ.

This latter concern of mine is confirmed, I think, by MSNBC’s way of wording the question:

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?
_Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
_No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

If the motto “does nothing to establish a state religion,” then why are so many Christians so eager to vote “No” for this? It is because we know instinctively that the separation of church and state is an important foundation to the United States. We know that faith cannot be established by the state. We do not want the government to tell us what church we must attend, what religious beliefs we must affirm. In other words, we really like the First Amendment.

But why, then, would so many Christians not vote “Yes” for this? It is because they want some affirmation of Christianity in the government. They want this to be a Christian nation, honoring God with all we do, seeking his will in our government and our society.

But, this brings us to yet another question. Why do so many Christians want to thrust our personal religious belief onto the rest of the American public? Shouldn’t “In God We Trust” be more significant to us than just some nebulous “historical and patriotic significance?”

Don't get me wrong. I personally trust in God. I definitely want my nation to operate its government and its society in accordance to the will of the God I trust.

But this is certain: The Christian faith can never be a coercive religion. We must not ever think that we can force others to affirm a trust in God. This is a personal choice, one that a person should take seriously. It should not be relegated to a simple motto that anyone can shrug their shoulders at when they see it on the money with which they buy things they do not need as their debt continues to soar and as they continue to indulge in the American way of consumerism.

Christianity is bigger than America. And Faith is bigger than a motto.

The Economics of the Kingdom

Here’s a good definition of Capitalism (courtesy Wikipedia): “An economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.”

Here are a couple issues that arise from believing in strict “free-market,” “laissez-faire” or "pure” capitalism.

The first comes from thinking that everything needs to be “privately owned and controlled.” There is no room for common resources, common capital, and common services. Everything, including our natural resources like water and air, as well as our common services such as fire fighting and the military (think of Private Military Companies like Blackwater in Iraq) must be privatized. Is there a danger with this?

Another issue that arises from believing in purely private ownership is that we begin to believe that the goal in life is to own stuff. That what I have is mine, and not somebody else’s. The top priority in a capitalistic worldview becomes our personal material well-being (for each individual, as well as for our nation).

However, this runs contrary to the biblical teaching of Stewardship. Certainly, we “own things,” but what this actually means is that God has entrusted to us these possessions – that they are actually his. Everything we have is actually entrusted to our care, including nature, our fellow human beings, our health and our time.

One of the great Christian economists of our generation, Bob Goudzwaard, wrote these helpful words. As I read them again this week, I was struck about how incredibly insightful they are in light of the current economic crisis.

Is our society characterized by this kind of stewardship? This has become a rhetorical question. Christians no less than nonchristians have frequently acted as if economic means and technology are ends in themselves. We take a steady annual growth in material welfare for granted as if it were a right we are entitled to. We also convince ourselves that our own ever increasing wealth will enable us to preserve nature more carefully as well as provide some aid to the poor nations. But our thinking presupposes that our own material well-being, personally as well as nationally, must receive priority.

I am inclined to state that in this framework of thought things have been turned upside down. Mind you, the question is not whether economic growth in itself is good or bad. Our concern here is with the sequence of things. Stewardship means: first take care of the earth for which God has made you responsible, first see to it that others have enough, and then you will discover that there is plenty left for you and your own society. This is what I would call the economics of God's Kingdom. First seek that Kingdom and all things will come to you as a matter of course.

How can capitalism help or hinder our calling to seek first the Kingdom?

Market Economy vs. Market Society

As we said in our last post, capitalism, as a system, is neither moral nor immoral—it is just one economic system, one that seems to us fallen creatures to be the best that humanity has created thus far. Christians can, and probably should, support free market capitalism.

But I want to quote Gideon Strauss of CARDUS (formerly the Work Research Foundation), who makes a very important distinction. I think that those Christians on the two extremes of the economics debate (those who believe that markets need to be completely unfettered with no intervention and those who are wary of free market capitalism because of the abuses and vices that occur in the system) can learn from this very balanced assessment of the reality of where we are and what we should do.

We believe markets to be the best way—no, the only sane way—to structure interactions in economic life. We don't only believe this because of the historical evidence from the complete failure and ghastly horror of socialism and fascism, but even more because we consider markets to be built into the very design of economic life. Markets as the proper setting for economic interaction, for buying and selling, are in our view a feature of the structure of reality. So we flagrantly support the idea and the reality of a market economy.

But this does not mean we support the idea of a market society. Human life is not all about economics. Contrary to rational choice theory, we human beings do not make all of our decisions simply in terms of cost/benefit analyses.

While economic life needs room to flourish, and needs protection from the encroachment of excessive government intrusion, it also needs limits. The sphere of economic life does not only provide businesses with a space for their wealth-generating manufacture of products and provision of services, and labor unions with a space for negotiating fair participation in these activities—it also sets the outer limits for business and labor.

There are many spheres of human life where economic considerations appropriately play a role but do not dictate decision-making. Families, schools and hospitals all have to balance their books—but they don't exist to balance their books. In each of their cases, love, learning, and care, respectively, trumps the bottom line.

One of the great challenges facing us is cultivating a society in which economic markets can flourish, but without overwhelming other spheres of human life.

What do you think?
_

Is Capitalism God’s Ordained Economic System?

There is a lot being bandied about (especially in conservative Christian circles) that President Barack Obama is ushering in a new age of socialism into the United States of America. It reminds me of when it was godly America versus the godless Communists – the arguments given were in black and white terms—capitalism and free markets are God’s moral system, socialism is a godless system.

What should we say? Well, I believe that history as shown that we should embrace markets. Markets have proven to be the best way to structure interactions in economic life. Marxist Socialism failed because it had major flaws inherent in the system. But, is capitalism God’s ordained economic system?

Michael Kruse is helpful here when he writes,

If the question is whether or not free market capitalism is the biblically prescribed model for the economic life, then the answer is an emphatic “No.” There is no culturally transcendent economic model given in the bible. Therefore, no economic model is Christian. Those that would take capitalism (or any other economic system) down to the river and baptize it as THE Christian model engage in idolatry.

If the question is whether or not free market capitalism emerged from a society with a distinctively Christian ethos, then the answer would clearly be “Yes.” The ideas of human beings created in the image of God, linear time, progress, future orientation, and vision oriented ethics, were the soil from which capitalism grew. This is NOT to say that free market capitalism is the best of all economic systems that can, or ever will be, conceived. It is merely to acknowledge the roots from which it sprang.

The third way of interpreting this question is to evaluate the degree to which free market capitalism moves us in the direction of the coming age of shalom. It is this evaluation that has to be asked about every human construction, always with an eye to the fallen state of humanity and the inability to achieve utopia in our present age.

NEXT:
Market Economy vs. Market Society
Kingdom Economics vs The American Dream
Should We Want a Completely "Free Market?"

Are you going to send a Red Envelope? Read this first.

Have you received this email or been recruited on Facebook to join this cause?
___

Dear Friends and Intercessors:
_This afternoon I was praying about a number of things, and my mind began to wander. I was deeply distressed at the symbolic actions that President Obama took as he began his presidency. Namely, that he signed executive orders releasing funds to pay for abortions, permission to fund human stem cell research, and federal funding for contraception. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for nearly 20 years, and it pained my heart to see a man and a political party committed to the shedding of innocent blood. This man, and this party lead our country, but they do not represent me or the 54% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong and should no longer be legal.
_As I was praying, I believe that God gave me an interesting idea. Out in the garage I have a box of red envelopes. Like the powerful image of the red LIFE tape, an empty red envelope will send a message to Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue. It will be quiet, but clear.
_Here is what I would like you to do:
_Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party supply stores. On the front, address it to:
___President Barack Obama
___The White House
___1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
___Washington , D.C. 20500
_On the back, write the following message:
_This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.
_Put it in the mail on March 31st, and send it. Then send this website to every one of your friends who you think would send one too. I wish we could send 50 million red envelopes, one for every child who died before having a a chance to live. Maybe it will change the heart of the president.
_Warmly, Christ Otto
_Let's Send 50 Million red envelopes (and Counting) to the President!
___

I sure wish that Christian campaigns like this didn’t say that our president and the Democratic Party are “committed to the shedding of innocent blood.”

As I've said before, I definitely believe that the center of the “Pro-Life” issue is a strong opposition to abortion. However, a consistent “Pro-Life” policy also includes such issues as war, poverty, hunger, disease, an unjust legal system, and the environment. All these issues are a part of a holistic and consistent “Pro-Life” agenda. Therefore, many Christians who see “Life” issues beyond the core issue of abortion law (i.e., Roe v. Wade) voted for Barack Obama, believing that these many issues also weigh heavily in this issue. For these Christians, of which I am one, President Barack Obama not only is the leader of our country, he also “represents me.”

At the same time, it deeply troubles us that President Obama is a proponent of abortion-on-demand. We understand that he wants to honor a woman’s right to choose, because women have had their rights terribly trampled on for so very long. But we insist that women’s rights do not trump the unborns’ right to life. This is a difficult issue, but Christians, at our best, are a people who stand up for the needs of the oppressed and for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. We are to act for justice as we walk humbly with our God. The unborn are the most oppressed people in our society – their very lives are in danger due to an extremely unjust law in our land.

Therefore, I signed the petition sent to the president on the day he was inaugurated to urge him not to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)”. Find the petition at fightfoca.com.

So far, I feel that President Obama has been very careful in his actions in regard to the pro-life/pro-choice issue. He did not take any vocal or symbolic action on the 30th Anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Jan 22) – even though he had a lot of pressure from pro-choice advocates to do so. Instead, his executive orders (which were not unexpected, especially his reversal of the Mexico City Policy) were done very quietly and away from the anniversary date so as to not make huge symbolic statements. Obama has sought to use rhetoric that does not inflame or contribute to the heat of the debate.

He certainly is pro-choice – he has made that clear. But he is a different kind of pro-choice president, one that can be reasoned with -- one that, I believe, we can make headway with. I hope that the Red Envelope campaign does not inflame the debate. I believe that Christians must realize that abortion is an economic issue. President Obama recognizes abortion for what it is: a tragic moral choice often confronted by a woman in adverse economic and social circumstances (struggling as a single mother, without a steady income, without good employment prospects, without health-care guarantees, and a stigmatic and cumbersome adoption procedure). While President Obama can be properly labeled “pro-choice, he has proposed to reduce the incidence of abortion by helping pregnant women overcome the ill effects of poverty that block a choice of life.

It’s not perfect, granted. Would I rather have a staunch pro-life president? Certainly! But what does that mean? Politicians can claim to be “pro-life” by saying they oppose Roe v. Wade, but many of their policies actually are more harmful to life than a politician that does not make that superficial claim. Much of the Republican talk about being “pro-life” has been very empty rhetoric. They have had the White House and the Congress for years, but we saw very little movement on the issue – only at election time do we hear about it. They have never offered a realistic plan to lower abortion rates. More and more evangelicals are walking away from the Republicans – perhaps they will stop giving lip-service to this important issue and quit thinking they have our vote in their pockets just because they say they are “pro-life.”

What we need is for Republicans and Democrats to work together in order to make progress with legislation that is realistic. The Democrats have proposed comprehensive legislation called the 95/10 Initiative that aims to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country by 95% within 10 years. Now get this: Barack Obama actually supports this and similar legislation!

While Red Envelopes are being mailed and people are saying things like, “Barack Obama doesn’t represent me!” there are Democrats offering a realistic plan that can move us around the difficult cultural impasse that has bogged us down for far too long.

While I am not necessarily opposed to the Red Envelope campaign, I wonder if the rhetoric of "Christ Otto" (if that's a real person) is more derogatory and inflammatory than it needs to be.

What do you think?

Sabbath Rest for the Christian

A Christian Perspective on Work, Part 5

Work is a good thing. Work is a major part of who we are as human beings and is part of the created order, not a result of the Fall. We should find satisfaction in our work. It is good that God provides through our work. Also, work is the means by which we cooperate with others for the good of society (the biblical idea of “Shalom”).

There are two extreme positions in our culture as it relates to work.

The first is echoed in what the rock band Loverboy used to sing, “Everybody’s working for the weekend.” Work is a necessary evil – it provides the paycheck that allows us to enjoy what life’s really about: Leisure! Those who declare “T.G.I.F.!” would find the idea of “thanking God for work” a strange notion. Work is only the means to the end: Friday, the weekend, fun, vacations, etc.

Another extreme is echoed in how we ask people to introduce themselves: “So, tell me, Bill, what do you do for a living?” Our society has allowed our work to be the major way we identify ourselves. If we are not working in a prestigious position, we may feel less of ourselves. If we feel that we are not accomplishing incredible things on a daily basis in our work, our identity as a human being is somehow lessened. This leads to what we call “workaholics.” But unlike other “-aholics,” a workaholic is often admired. He or she is driven to succeed, is seen as a leader, and is often offered the promotions.

How do we guard against these two extremes? The answer is found (can you guess?) in the Bible. The Fifth Commandment was, “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God” (Exodus 20:8-10). Following the example of God found in the Creation Week of Genesis 1, the people of God were to rest on the seventh day. But why were they to rest? To remember that God is their deliverer. They had been in slavery in Egypt, but were saved from that bondage and brought into the Promised Land of Rest. “Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15)

The Sabbath rest not only reminded the Old Testament people of God who their creator is, but also who their savior is. Honoring the Sabbath was essential to remembering that God had delivered the Israelites from bondage. They were to take one day each week and rest, meditating on the freedom that God had provided for them. Honoring the Sabbath also meant that they ceased working in order to show their trust in Yahweh’s provision. The promise God gave to the Israelites was that in honoring the Sabbath they were to not find their identity in their work alone, but that they would “find their joy in the LORD” (Isaiah 58:14).

That’s fine for the ancient Israelites, but what about today’s Christians? How do we move beyond the two extremes of either working for the weekends or finding our whole identity in our careers?

Jesus offers this wonderful promise:
“Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

The new kind of sabbath rest is offered in Christ, and it is not limited to the weekends. The New Testament paints the picture that since Jesus did all the work of salvation on the cross, we are able to enter God’s rest, the work has been accomplished.
“Now we who have believed enter that rest… There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also rest from their own work, just as God did from his.” (Hebrews 4:3, 9-10)

Jesus Christ delivered us from our bondage, he did all the work on the cross. Therefore, for the Christian, the sabbath is not just limited to a Saturday off of work. It is an attitude that flows from the grace of Christ’s work on our behalf. Because we have already entered into the "rest" of being in a relationship with Jesus, our perspective is different. We not only take time each week to stop from our work, but we see all of life with the orientation of what Mark Buchanan (in his book, The Rest of God) calls a “Sabbath heart.” He writes, “A Sabbath heart is restful even in the midst of unrest and upheaval. It is attentive to the presence of God and others even in the welter of much coming and going, rising and falling. It is still and knows God even when mountains fall into the sea.”

But even with this beautiful gift of rest, we still struggle in a fallen world. We must find balance in our lives that reflects the rest that we have in Christ. Establishing a rhythm of work with rest is a wise practice in order to find this balance.

In order to find a sabbatical balance in life, consider these ideas:
1. Sabbath means ceasing from work. In Christ, we cease from works-righteousness, but we also must train ourselves to cease from our frantic focus on productivity. Taking a time away from work tells God (and yourself!) that God is actually the provider, no matter how hard you work. Since the Sabbath is truly fulfilled in Jesus, I can cease from trying to prove myself to myself, to others, and even to God! Since Jesus frees me from the burden of good works, I can enjoy doing good work – without trying to win God’s approval in doing so.

2. Sabbath means resting. The rhythm of work with rest is set in all of us. As we need to sleep each night, we also need to rest from bread-winning each week – so that we can rejuvenate our bodies, our minds, and our emotions. Not only that, we need to be refreshed and reinvigorated spiritually, so that we can be ready once again to do our work in a fallen world, because it is often very hard work to be creative and/or redemptive in our tasks for the glory of God.

3. Sabbath means worship. We need to take time out to purposely recalibrate our lives onto the person of Jesus Christ. We need to deliberately reconnect with other believers as we worship together the Lord of our lives. As we celebrate who God is and what he has accomplished in Christ on Sunday, the effects are felt throughout the rest of the week. As Gideon Strauss wrote, “If we give corporate worship its proper place, we have done perhaps the most important needful thing in the process of putting work in its proper place.”

4. Sabbath means celebration of life. Yes, we need to enjoy the goodness of all that God has given us. Rest is not only taking a lazy Sunday nap, but also playing a fun game of tag with the kids. It’s going for a hike in the state park. It’s enjoying your favorite hobby. It’s enjoying music. It’s having a wonderful meal with friends and family.

_