jonathan stegall

I believe passionately that the church loses its power and its prophetic nature when it baptizes and blindly endorses a political party, or a political candidate, or even a political idea. We have seen this occur in the United States over and over, and every time it does it blows up in our faces.

This makes it all the more wonderful to see the changes, however slow they may be, that are beginning to happen in American evangelicalism. People are beginning to realize that following Jesus does not coincide with following a party line of any kind. People that follow Jesus, ultimately, should not altogether be on any one’s side, because no one is altogether on our side (if you catch the Tolkien reference there, good for you).

In the last few weeks, I have been encouraged, annoyed, and angered by various ways that Christian engagement in politics, and the view that the rest of culture has of Christian engagement in politics, has played itself out. The Washington Post had a great interview with Brian McLaren the other day, where he simultaneously accepted and rejected the labels of conservative and liberal in favor of the message of Jesus, and it was a beautiful thing. Also, An Evangelical Manifesto was recently released, and stood firmly against aligning evangelicalism with partisan politics. While I don’t think the variety of voices within evangelicalism was given fair treatment, I appreciate many of the stances that were taken and hope that it will lay groundwork for further developments.

But the beauty of the Manifesto and of McLaren’s interview, with regard to politics, is that they retained their power to be a prophetic voice to politics without getting bogged down in blind allegiance on the one side, or in divisive statements on the other side. I don’t expect McLaren, or the signers of An Evangelical Manifesto, to publicly endorse a candidate. This is an incredibly wise decision for them, and will help to keep their voices as free from political garbage as possible.

Then, though, there is the continuation of Barack Obama’s struggles with his faith community. I hear the things that Jeremiah Wright has said, and I agree with many of them. I hear the things other ministers associated with Obama have said, and here is the issue: by continuing to speak about Obama specifically, or to speak in other politically charged ways at the same time that they are trying to speak in potentially divisive ways, they could be contributing to the end of Obama’s chances at the White House.

Obviously, if these ministers help Obama lose the White House they have missed the practicality of supporting a cause by helping to bring about its defeat. Obama took Jeremiah Wright’s comments from before the campaign (surrounding 9/11 and so on), and was able to talk to Americans about race as though they are adults, while still embracing his faith community and the core of what it stands for. I was incredibly pleased by this.

But as the saga has continued, these ministers have continued to talk in ways that 1) make it seem like Obama does, in fact, agree with what they are saying, and 2) are incredibly divisive to large numbers of Americans who otherwise might be united against many of the problems that these ministers are against. My gut feeling is that Obama agrees with some of what these ministers say, but is no longer free to speak in this way because he knows that he would then be associated with all of it, which obviously would hurt him.

Currently, there are negotiations in place concerning an international treaty that would ban the use of cluster bombs. The reasoning is that these bombs kill an inordinate number of civilians, and they can explode months or years after they are dropped (similar to land mines).

The three biggest producers of cluster bombs are the United States, Russia, and China. All three of them oppose banning cluster bombs, and all three have veto power on the U.N. Security Council. Worse, none of them have representatives present at the current negotiations.

From the AP:

A senior U.S. official [an assistant secretary of state] said Wednesday that a proposed treaty banning cluster bombs would hurt world security and endanger U.S. military cooperation on humanitarian work with countries that sign the accord.

Imagine that! Humanitarian work is used as the excuse to justify cluster bombs, which children mistake for toys!

In this election, I’ve observed that Americans don’t like honesty in politics. I feel pretty confident that we like it more than we did four years ago, but we still don’t like it. Especially if it challenges our feeling of optimism, or worse our global supremacy.

I’m often reminded of the episode of Family Guy where Lois runs for Mayor. She tries to be honest with the people, talking about issues and problems the city is facing, and no one cares what she has to say. Then, she simplifies. Every time someone asks a question, the answer is “911.” Or something to do with terrorism, or Jesus.

I feel like this business over Obama’s comments about some blue-collar voters is like that. From Obama:

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

From Hillary:

“I think it’s very critical that the Democrats really focus in on this and make it clear that we are not (elitist). We are going to stand up and fight for all Americans.”

Obama’s trying to deal with a real issue. Hillary realizes that Americans don’t like to deal with that kind of issue, so she is trying to bring things back to easy sound bites that won’t offend anyone, but don’t really say anything either. All politicians use those sound bites, including Obama. But he has consistently tried to get past them.

The problem with trying to get past them will be that they are a dangerous test of the openness of Americans. We’re not known for being open, especially to criticism. I’m interested to see if people will realize what he’s trying to say and offer on complex issues like this, or if they will just brand him as elitist and give up (whether it happens in the primary, or in the general election).

On a side note, Hillary referred to John Kerry’s 2004 campaign as elitist. I think this is the way some people perceived it, but I don’t think that’s the reason he lost. I think he lost because he didn’t really have a strong message. He changed a lot. His consistent message was that he wasn’t Bush (it’s significant that without any other strong message, he still got close to 50% of the country to vote for him). In lacking that strong message, he fell victim to a trap that has bothered evangelicals in recent years: we are known more (or only) for what we are against, and no one knows what we are for.

For some time, it has been clear to me that business is the future of activism. I want to say that again: business is the future of activism. It’s a shocking statement, if you really think about it.

Many people throughout the 20th century (and before) on all sides of the political spectrum believed, and still believe, that governments are the drive behind large scale activism. It has been a common belief that large-scale societal change cannot happen without government intervention.

We can see evidence of this in the rise of the Moral Majority, in which fundamentalist Christianity tried to achieve its various goals through achieving influence in government. Essentially, it failed in this. Lasting change that reaches beyond superficiality (and meets their goals) did not occur in society, and instead of influencing the Republican Party, conservative Christianity has spent the last several decades in blind acceptance of the Republican Party.

The political left also shows examples of this kind of thinking. Movements have tried to influence government for a great number of things in recent years, from nuclear disarmament to climate change. Essentially, it also has failed.

The interesting question that should arise from my statement is why business would want to be a catalyst for large-scale social change. The goal of business, at its core, is to make money. Business doesn’t exist to make the world a better place. Governments certainly don’t either, but it can be argued that they should do so better than businesses do.

I’m not entirely sure how to answer the question about why business would want to do this, but there is significant evidence that it does. Businesses of all sizes are finding it very desirable to put their resources behind causes that will not, at least in the immediate future, bring them a financial return. Issues from poverty to the environment to fair trade are being drastically changed by businesses.

Businesses are devoting their resources to causes from Kiva, where they can help other businesses in developing countries, to the Millenium Promise, where they can help end extreme poverty in the poorest of poor countries. Businesses of all sizes have the skills to achieve these goals. They know how to organize, they know how to get people behind something, and they know how to get passionate about an idea. Once these things happen, there isn’t a government on earth that will choose to accomplish the same things that are possible with these businesses.

I say all these things to mark a shift that has occurred, especially in the last decade or so. The business world endured a shock with scandals like Enron, and it was unclear if there could be a fast recovery of any kind. Businesses of all kinds, though, have begun to cause that recovery. Google has google.org, Steve Jobs wrote about a greener Apple, Microsoft has, among other things, made possible the Gates Foundation, and all kinds of companies have launched endeavors like Coke’s Corporate Responsibility strategy. I have no interest in white-washing large business. Certainly there are horrible things that continue to go on, and many businesses that don’t care at all about social responsibility, but the fact is that it is becoming a part of the business world to an extent that it never has. It’s a great thing to watch.

Along with much of the country, I have been aware of the issues surrounding Barack Obama’s former pastor, and his church. Through my education, I have at least a decent understanding of liberation theology (in various forms). I resonate very strongly with a lot of the beliefs that are common to this kind of theology.

However, I do feel that many of its proponents have missed out on actually encountering the risen Christ, through only emphasizing the solidarity that God has with the poor and suffering. Of course, as I have said before, evangelicals are at least as guilty on the other side, often only emphasizing personal spirituality.

In any case, liberation theology grasps powerful truths, and it can have a powerful voice in speaking to those who are in power. I’ll go ahead and say this: I don’t believe Jeremiah Wright was wrong in the statements we’ve all been hearing. Certainly, God stands against the many injustices that stain the hands of the United States, just like he was against the many injustices that stained the hands of ancient Israel. Certainly, the injustices he mentions are very real, and there are other injustices that could be added.

Even though I agree with many of the things Wright says, I have a vast amount of respect for the way Barack Obama addressed the issue and his disagreements with Wright in his speech yesterday.

While the speech is over 30 minutes long, it is entirely worth watching, as it is easily the most significant speech addressing issues of race and racism that a public figure of his caliber has made in my lifetime in the United States. In stating his disagreement with the statements of his former pastor, and yet also stating his strong support of his ministry, he was able to involve and challenge all of us to really examine the issues that are at hand.

From the AP, posted on Yahoo:

On the Republican side in Ohio, John McCain — poised to claim his party’s nomination — was leading easily among loyal Republicans and conservatives. He and his chief remaining rival, Mike Huckabee, were splitting white evangelical and born-again voters roughly evenly.

It’s really annoying to me that, in spite of significant shifts that are occurring in the evangelical world, the media still does not try to find out how evangelicals vote on the Democratic side. The media still assumes that all evangelicals and “born-again” voters will vote for Republican candidates.

The detriment that this notion causes to the perception of evangelicals is well-documented, especially in recent books and the blogosphere. While it is true enough that Republicans are still wrongly perceived as the “Christian” party, it clearly is not as widely held a perception as it was four years ago.

Jim Walls, who wrote God’s Politics, recently released The Great Awakening. Along with the book’s release, he is traveling around the country on The Great Awakening Tour.
The event is described like this:

“What would it take to end extreme poverty, to address climate change, to create peace?

For too long, a narrow religious agenda has been used like a wedge to divide people. But a wider and deeper vision of faith and values is emerging. It’s a renewal of faith – a great awakening – that combines personal faith with social justice. A new social movement is on the rise. The Great Awakening is upon us. “

From time to time, Sojourners, Jim Wallis’ organization, seems a bit naive with the way it wants faith to impact politics. Some of this is the language that is used to describe things, and some of it is probably what is actually being expressed.

But with things like this book, and the tour accompanying it, they really perceive something that is happening, and the potential for growth to happen, in the way that faith relates to politics in the United States. A recent blog post from Jim Wallis says this:

This doesn’t mean young evangelicals are automatically becoming Democrats (and I don’t think they should). It does mean that their agenda is broader and deeper, no longer beholden to a single partisan ideology – more concerned with 30,000 children dying daily of poverty and disease than with gay marriage amendments in Ohio.

Theologically, these 20-somethings are abandoning a worldview that reduces the gospel of Jesus Christ to an afterlife-oriented, fire-insurance, salvation pitch. These are Matthew 25, Luke 4, and “Sermon on the Mount” Christians. They really believe that the kingdom of God represents God’s best hopes and dreams for this present age, not only for the life to come.

This goes alongside any number of other things that God is doing in the United States, specifically. He’s doing amazing things in the rest of the world, and it is easy to be discouraged by the situation here in the States. He is asking us to begin to see past our attempts to box in the ways we expect and want him to interact with us. For many years, there have been people at the forefront of new things that he is doing, and I believe that things like this indicate that their message can have an impact.

So. Today is Georgia’s primary. In case it isn’t obvious, I’m voting for Barack Obama. I want to examine some of the reasons for my vote. I don’t agree with everything he says, or everything he stands for. I don’t expect to ever agree with everything that anyone says or stands for. I expect to be able to trust people, and to believe that they have passion and drive for things that line up with my passion and drive. And he does.

My thoughts

I believe, first of all, that Obama offers a chance at change. He comes without the baggage of Washington. He comes with a freshness that makes him willing to dialogue in ways, and with people, that don’t make sense to those who have spent many years dealing with our policies and their consequences.

In light of this, he seeks to change mindsets. And that, I believe, is where his power for positive influence and change lies. There is a certain mindset that believes America is the police of the world, and that democracy is the highest goal that we should seek. Every other candidate remaining in this election, with the exception of Ron Paul, has that mindset. Obama apparently does not. This relates, of course, to the Iraq war, but it also relates to every other current and potential issue of foreign policy from whether it is acceptable to torture to whether it is acceptable to consider the use of nuclear weapons.

There are significant other foreign policy issues where his views can improve the worldwide perception, and actual ethical practices and positions, of the United States. They relate to AIDs, the economy, the environment, international poverty, and any number of other things where we are entirely lost in our own mess. I believe he offers the best chance of getting us out of it in a way that will bring people in Washington and out of it along with him.

There are significant domestic issues where his views will offer positive change. Immigration, economics, domestic poverty, governmental ethics, and technology are all in extreme danger from various things. I think he offers ways of uniting and strengthening the country in these and other areas without isolating ourselves from those who need something positive from us.

Overall, I believe there is a significant ethic of life that Obama represents. From abortion, which I don’t believe is the most significant pro-life issue, to war, poverty, justice for enemies and those who hurt us, he offers the most significant opportunity to address issues of treating humans like humans. To address the causes of the suffering of humanity rather than hide behind political smokescreens. Do I think he is perfect in all of these areas? No. Is anyone perfect in all of these areas? No. But I can believe in him.

Outside articles and resources

Here are a few things around the web that express the kind of thoughts that have accompanied my personal decision process. Whether I agree with all of them is irrelevant; they have been part of my thoughts.

• Barack Obama’s website
• Barack Obama on various issues
• Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters - Andrew Sullivan
• Why Obama? - Tony Jones
• ONE Vote ‘08 - The One Campaign

I want to look at a scenario that is fairly common in the American church. A church has a member of the military return from duty, wherever that may be, and said member of the military gets a big recognition. Maybe he gets a standing ovation, or maybe she gets to come to the front of the church and say a few words, or maybe he gets to talk about the miracles of God that protect America in a foreign land.

Maybe, especially if it’s a holiday, the church will praise the soldier for his sacrifice. She has sacrificed for her country just like Jesus sacrificed for his people.

Setting aside political rhetoric and opinion from the right or the left, this last scenario, especially, is a biblical and theological heresy of the worst kind. Death in a war of any kind, by its very nature, goes against the heart of Jesus. Regardless of whether one believes it is possible to be called by Jesus to be a soldier and fight in a war, the fact that it involves killing one’s enemies instead of praying for them dictates that it cannot be compared to the sacrifice of Jesus, which of course is forgiving and praying for his enemies to the extent of dying for them.

Greg Boyd writes The Myth of a Christian Nation, which relates to many of these issues. In it, he explores the idea that the kingdom of the Cross is and must be entirely separate from the kingdom of the world. A New York Times article from 2006 gives some of this information:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing all of these kind of requests, Dr. Boyd preached a series of sermons entitled, “The Cross and the Sword,” before the 2004 presidential election. In it, he stated that the church should stop seeking political power, stop moralizing sexuality, stop claiming the United States as a Christian nation, and stop glorifying American military campaigns. After the series, 1,000 of 5,000 members left the church.

When the church glorifies military personnel, it is giving a message. That message, whether it is spoken or not, is that the church should support whatever the soldier is doing, and thus whatever the military is doing. This message is given because, among other reasons, you will probably never see a garbageman recognized and prayed for in the front of a traditional church, or given the opportunity to talk about the miracles of God that happen in his job. You will probably never see a traditional church recognize the businesswoman who returns from a trip to China and give her the opportunity to talk about the miracles that occur in peaceful dealings with a culture that is not a democracy.

There are churches that, given the presence of military personnel, will pray for them in their situations and recognize them when they come home without giving this message. They can do this because they do recognize those of all the other professions. They pray for the random church member who is having medical issues at the same time they pray for the soldier who may be deployed to Iraq.

No one is given special treatment because everyone is given special treatment. They are prayed for, recognized, and loved because they are people, not because of their professions.

Here is a nice article examining the typefaces used by the various presidential campaigns, and what those typefaces communicate. I love good typography. The web is plagued by abysmal typography, but there is a lot of evidence that many people, especially standards-aware designers, have really begun to care about this kind of thing.

Anyway. I think the article analyzes the various typefaces and what they represent very accurately. Worth a read.