Apparently I’m voting for Huckabee.

If you read yesterday’s Times article, “The Evangelical Crackup”, you might enjoy this response to it by Richard John Neuhaus at First Things:

But an evangelical crackup? Don’t believe it. The Times is whistling in the self-induced dark. They scare themselves by creating the boogeyman of a monolithic theocratic assault and then console themselves that the advancing forces are in disarray. Both the monolith and the crackup are fictions of their overheated imagination.

He goes on:

Mr. Kirkpatrick spoke to a few disillusioned ministers. There are undoubtedly others. The well-documented fact, however, is that the great majority of evangelical clergy have never succumbed to the temptation to become politicians rather than pastors. Nor have they surrendered their right and obligation to point out the implications of Christian faith for public policy. Some call the exercise of that duty “mixing politics and religion.” Others call it Christian discipleship in the public square.

Ultimately his conclusion is that abortion is still the biggest issue for evangelical voters, and if the choice is between a pro-abortion Republican and a pro-abortion Democrat, many evangelicals may decide to sit this one out. But a crackup? Hardly.

Read Neuhaus’s full article here.

David Kirkpatrick just wrote an article for the New York Times entitled “The Evangelical Crackup.” (click here for the full article). The bottom line is that religious conservatives are getting fed up with Bush and the war in Iraq, and many of the big names within evangelicalism (like Rick Warren) are becoming suspiciously cozy with Democratic candidates like Obama. The big question is whether or not the Republican presidential candidate can count on the same kind of overwhelming support from evangelical Christians in 2008 that Bush enjoyed in 2004. Though Kirkpatrick doesn’t try to come out and answer that question in so many words, the evidence he cites, by way of personal conversations with pastors and other religious leaders, strongly implies that evangelicals may be looking outside the Republican party for their next President (especially if Giuliani gets the nomination).

That’s just fine with me, in principle. Christianity is a worldview shaped by the teachings of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible. Christianity existed long before there were Republicans or Democrats and it will exist long after those political parties are no more. It is not required of a Christian to be affiliated with any particular political party. I for one was starting to get aggravated by the fact that “Republican” and “Evangelical” were becoming practically synonymous terms in the media (not to mention polisci classrooms). In fact, there are aspects of modern political conservatism that, I believe, are antithetical to Christian teaching. For all these reasons and more, I’m 100% in favor of evangelical Christians abandoning party-loyalty and (gasp!) electing a candidate on the basis of well-reasoned analysis of the important issues.

What worries me ever so slightly, however, is some of the talk from evangelicals that Kirkpatrick quotes in his article. One pastor, Patrick Bergquist, said, “From a theological standpoint, I am an evangelical,…But I don’t mean that anyone who is gay is necessarily going to hell, or that anyone who has an abortion is going to hell.” Great, I don’t know many evangelicals that think that either, but I fail to see how that translates into a Democratic vote. Just because I don’t think every woman who gets an abortion is going to hell, that doesn’t make me any less pro-life. In fact, the statement is mostly irrelevant to the actual issue. I wonder if anyone else caught that?

Another pastor, Paul Hill, noted that “There are going to be a lot of evangelicals willing to vote for a Democrat because there are 40 million people without health insurance and a Democrat is going to do something about that.” This is a good point. And herein lies, at least from the standpoint of Kirkpatrick’s article, the main dilemma. Republicans have become the go-to candidates for those who oppose same-sex marriage and abortion. But Democrats are seen as the candidates who will fight for peace rather than war, fight for racial reconciliation, and help those in need. These are all very Christian ideals, just as much as traditional marriage and the protection of the unborn. So what’s an evangelical to do?

My worry is that, just as “evangelical” became wrongly associated with “Republican”, so now “pro-life” and “anti-gay-marriage” will become wrongly associated with “pro-war” and, even worse, “intolerant.” Many of the evangelical leaders, according to Kirkpatrick, no longer want to be defined by “what they are against.” This is in reference to being against abortion and against gay marriage. Rather, they wish to be defined by what they are for; helping the poor, ending racial discrimination and segregation (especially within the church), etc. On this point I couldn’t agree more. But I wonder, does wanting to end racial discrimination and help the poor mean that we no longer want to combat gay marriage and abortion?

It would be a mistake to react to our disappointment with the Bush presidency blindly, and simply vote Democrat with an “anything but Republican” mentality. Moreover, if we take the issues of gay marriage and abortion seriously, we can’t simply toss them aside because we’re tired of hearing about them. Again, Kirkpatrick’s article seems to suggest that many average evangelical churchgoers are tired of hearing about the evils of abortion every Sunday, especially when not much cultural change is actually happening. But what sense does it make to vote pro-choice simply because the pro-life movement hasn’t completely eradicated abortion yet?

The problem seems to be that evangelicals are now torn between the issues that they think are important, trying to decide which of these issues matters to them most. The 2008 election is shaping up to be another choice between the lesser of two evils. If only it didn’t have to be. Where is William Wilberforce when we need him?

Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian and a social conservative who worked toward the “Reformation of Manners” in England. He would have been the first to oppose gay marriage. And yet Wilberforce was the great champion of the slaves. He fought hard for thirty years before finally putting an end to the slave trade in England.

This is the type of candidate we need in 2008. We need someone who is not only conservative on social issues, but “liberal” in the areas of poverty, race, and even peace. Is there such a candidate? That remains to be seen. I haven’t done my homework yet, and I probably won’t until the Republican primary draws nearer, but at the moment things don’t look great.

I can tell you this: If it’s Giuliani vs Obama, I’m voting for Obama.  If it’s Giuliani vs Clinton, I’m moving to Mexico. 

I’m reading through J. P. Moreland’s Kingdom Triangle. In chapter four J. P. discusses, among other things, the transition in thought from a classic conception of tolerance to a modern conception of tolerance. He notes that tolerance is usually linked in some way with moral relativism, but then shows that idea to be self-refuting. Tolerance, by its very definition, depends upon moral objectivism. The following is a blog post I wrote almost two years ago on this very subject:

As it turns out, there is a crucial element to the idea of “Tolerance” that modern culture has failed to understand (or in some cases it has simply been ignored).

You see, there is a HUGE difference between being tolerant of a person and being tolerant of an idea. This means that I can disagree with your oppinion all I like, without disrespecting or degrading you as a person. Or look at it like this: If someone agrees with your stance on the war in Iraq, need you be tolerant of that person? Of course not. You don’t tolerate people who agree with you, you’re on the same side. So by its very definition you can only be tolerant of people who disagree with you. This idea seems to be missing in our modern understanding of tolerance. If I want to engage in civil discourse with someone who has an opposing view to my own (let’s say on abortion or Iraq) I can do so, all the while still being tolerant of the person himself.

The problem today is that as soon as I open my mouth and say something like, “I don’t believe abortion is morally right because…” I am immedately labeled as being intolerant. But just because I disagree with your opinion, that doesn’t mean I’m being intolerant of you as a person.

The sad truth is that this intolerance insult is really little more than a cover for moral cowerdice. People no longer wish to engage in any sort of conflict, even if it is the most civil of intelligent discourses, either because they are unable to defend their point of view or because they are simply unwilling. Thus we are left with a society where “progress” in the area of “tolerance” is ultimately inhibiting our progress everywhere else.

The bottom line is this: If we are to take the idea of “tolerance” to mean that we must be tolerant of all ideas, then no one is truly tolerant (especially the enlightened liberal, who hates everything that the Christian Right stands for, and is thus intolerant of their ideas) and the idea of tolerance becomes self-defeating. So the next time someone calls you intolerant, ask them to explain their definition of tolerance and then point out the self-defeating nature of their own definition.

(It’s also worth pointing out how often the moniker “intolerant” is linked with “bigot.” Without realizing it, many today are implicitly espousing the classical understanding of tolerance, that it is really only wrong to be intolerant of people themselves. Where they make a big mistake is in equating the intolerance of ideas with this intolerance of persons).

I may just kill myself trying to finish a paper on Plato’s psychology in book VII of Republic this weekend, so instead of blogging myself I’m just going to point you to an interesting post about the 2008 Republican hopefuls from the man who’s making me write it:

Rudy is a friend of the conservative movement . . . and an ally, but he should not lead that movement. The Romans were finished when they picked Germans to lead them . . . and the Republicans do not need a friendly foe to head their cause.

Romney, the social conservative convert, has the friends, traditional back ground, and pragmatic political will needed to stick to his new found positions. He is also a highly skilled communicator without Rudy’s temper . . . and has been a successful governor of a blue state

Read the full article at Scriptorium Daily.

Many people have a sneaking suspicion that what advocates of homosexuality are really after is not that their activity simply be tolerated, but that it be fully condoned. It is not enough that an evangelical Christian (along with most of Western society and almost all of history) tolerates homosexual activity, allowing it to go on while still thinking it immoral behavior, he must now fully endorse it and think it’s a wonderful practice.

Something else that is becoming clearer each day is that this issue will be a deciding one in the 2008 elections, and we’re already starting to get a glimpse of the position of the leading Democratic candidates (although their position is likely to change several times between now and November ‘08). Dr. John Mark Reynolds has some interesting thoughts on the candidates’ recent comments:

Democrats (as was predictable) are now demanding we condone and celebrate vice and not just tolerate it. We must think it moral to avoid public condemnation . . . or at least not say we think it immoral.

Instead, what the Pope thinks about homosexuality is called “divisive” by Senator Obama. So much for his outreach to Evangelical voters who evidently only support marriage because they want to divide the nation!

What Aquinas and Plato believed about these acts is dismissed by Obama and Clinton without an argument . . . in order to raise money from a Democrat special interest group.

Read the full article at Scriptorium Daily.

(Rest assured, this is not a repeat post. This post will contain my review of the quality and themes of the movie, now that I’ve actually seen it)

Amazing Grace was far and away one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time. All throughout it was reminiscent of one of the many A&E productions of classic English literature, only of superior quality. Unlike many “faith based” films that are produced far too quickly and lack a certain look and feel of professionalism (such as Fox Faith’s recent release, One Night with the King), this film was extremely well made at every level of production. The acting was top-notch (a predominately A-list cast), the directing was excellent (thanks to acclaimed director Michael Apted, an agnostic deeply interested in great men of faith) and the music was powerful (from accomplished British composer David Arnold, best know for the last four James Bond films). All this to say, “go see this movie!”

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this movie is not only its accurate portrayal of a great man doing great things in the name of Christ, but its striking similarity to modern day battles about personhood and human rights. As Jen Hardy has pointed out, the themes of this film don’t lead where some might expect. I entered the movie theater looking for something analogous to the current “struggle” of the homosexual community. There were no such analogous aspects. Instead what I saw was a nearly exact replica of the current fight against abortion.

Most striking of all were two scenes, neither of which involved philosophical arguments, but rather emotional appeals. In the first scene, Wilberforce is shown the chains that bind the feet, hands and neck of the slaves. He is told stories of the terrible conditions the slaves are forced to live and work in. Finally, he is shown a brand mark on the chest of a former slave, an outward sign of the denial of his personhood. In the second scene, Wilberforce shows a slave ship to a group of MP’s (Members of Parliament) and advises them to “breath deeply” the “smell of death.” Both of these scenes brought to mind the graphic pictures of aborted fetuses that induce the same sense of horror and disgust in everyone who views them as those MP’s felt as they drowned in the smell of dead slaves.

According to WORLD Magazine’s recent review of the film, Only 4% of Americans know who William Wilberforce is. This staggering ignorance may be a key to understanding the way faith and politics are seen to interact in our culture. I think it’s safe to assume that most people in this country, both Christians and non-Christians, have the notion that religious faith shouldn’t be a part of public politics. This may have something to do with the mostly misunderstood and often sensationalized notion of “separation of church and state”, but whatever the cause, we’ve reached a place where even Christians think that you can’t be explicitly Christian if you’re in politics. Combined with the incessant argument from the secular left that you can’t even think about religion if you’re involved in any way with public policy-making, we are left with a total bifurcation of faith and politics. William Wilberforce, and other great men like Dr. Marin Luther King after him, show us that it is only the synthesis of these two pillars of our society that will result in the championing of human rights. We need not be afraid of what will happen if we allow our faith to govern our politics, rather we must be afraid of what will happen if we don’t.

William Wilberforce was a political activist. He was an idealist. He fought a twenty-year fight to end the slave trade and emancipate the slaves of England. You might even say his passion was social justice. With a profile like this, he should be the hero of every modern liberal. Ah, but like every man William Wilberforce has a black spot on his record. He suffered from a serious character flaw, one so big I dare say it eclipses all his great humanitarian accomplishments: William Wilberforce was a devout Christian.

After having a powerful spiritual experience, which he considered his conversion to Christianity, Wilberforce considered for a time leaving public office to offer his life wholly to God. He was counseled by friends, including John Newton (Anglican minister, former slave trader, and writer and composer of the famous hymn Amazing Grace), to remain in politics. After being convinced to join the abolitionist movement as its voice in Parliament, Wilberforce turned his passionate faith into a political force that would ultimately see the end of slavery in the entire British Empire. A movie about his life and faith titled “Amazing Grace” hits theaters this Friday, February 23rd, 2007 (exactly 200 years, to the day, after Wilberforce’s bill to end the slave trade was finally passed).

This movie is quite an achievement for the “evangelical right” in America. It’s taboo to talk about Christianity in a Hollywood movie these days, unless you’re making fun of it or blaming it for the world’s problems. In this movie, distinguished, Academy Award nominated, Golden Globe winning actor, Albert Finney, utters the line, “I know two things; I am a great sinner…and Christ is a great savior.” Personally, that isn’t something I ever expected to hear in a movie theater ever in my life. William Wilberforce is played by Ioan Gruffudd (from the Horatio Hornblower series, King Arthur, and The Fantastic Four). The movie is directed by Michael Apted.

More importantly, however, this movie will, I hope, draw attention to a supreme example of a Christian ideal. Modern liberals are wont to blame religion for all the ills of the world, and then to try to pretend that some form of enlightened, all-tolerant atheism has always been the driving force behind progress throughout human history. It’s certainly a pleasant fiction for the secularist, but lucky for us Christians those pesky historical details keep getting in their way. All joking aside, Christians have come to be seen as mostly apathetic towards issues of social justice and poverty around the world, and frankly that’s unacceptable. Like Wilberforce, Christians should be the ones in the lead, taking a stand on issues that affect our society today. Abortion is an important issue, one that can even bring Catholics and Protestants together in a common cause, but we also have to realize that poverty and even slavery are still important issues today that need to be taken seriously. How should we deal with them? How should we treat social justice issues? I don’t know yet, but I do know that Christians should be the ones to figure out the answers to those questions and then take action. And when we do take action, when we step up to the plate for the innocent who suffer, when we clothe the naked, feed the hungry or free the slave, people will see that. They will see such noble, selfless deeds. They will ask us why we sacrifice our time and our lives to do such things. They will ask us what motivates us, what gives us the strength to go on. And then we can answer, joyfully, “God, with whom all things are possible, by His amazing grace.”

(Visit the official movie site to watch the trailer and learn more about how you can help put an end to the modern slave trade)

For those of you who think we ended slavery after the Civil War, think again. Slavery has actually reached a high point today, making it, quite possibly, the greatest tragedy of our time…and it’s being almost completely overlooked. Joe Carter draws it to our attention, realizing that it is Christians who should, above all, be leading this charge:

“In the 18th and 19th centuries, British and American evangelicals were the leaders of the abolition movement. It’s time that modern-day evangelicals once again take our place in the struggle against slavery. In order to do that, however, we must become better informed, we must lobby our government to act, and we must raise up leaders who will become the Harriet Tubmans and William Wilberforces of the twenty-first century. We must take up the task of leading the next great abolition movement.”

Read the full article here.

GodBlogCon 2006 has been a big success! “A Meeting of Christian Minds” scarcely does justice to what is going on here at Biola University this year. I have never been in a room with so many brilliant men and women at the same time! Being present during Hugh Hewitt’s live radio show was very exciting. I had the privilage of getting to know La Shawn Barber and Joe Carter, two thoughtful and intelligent bloggers whom I really admire. Mark D. Roberts, Dr. Andrew Jackson, Charmaine Yoest and many others had some really inspiring things to say. John Mark Reynolds was, well, John Mark Reynolds. Things will wrap-up fairly early tomorrow, so hopefully I can find the time to post a more detailed review of the conference as a whole sometime tomorrow night (though I should really be reading Aristotle).