Politically Correct Politics: Gushee's Rules for Evangelical Politics

By Joe Carter
The Evangelical Outpost

Rev. Jim Wallis, a liberal evangelical advisor to the DNC, often reminds anyone who will listen that, "God is not a Republican…or a Democrat." This is almost certainly true, for as Biola professor John Mark Reynolds notes, "He's probably a monarchist."

From this truism, though, some people derive the false assumption that since God does not provide his imprimatur for a particular party platform that the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican is morally neutral. This is almost certainly false. Political choices are almost always moral choices. Such decisions are fraught with moral danger and each Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must determine for themselves how best to follow their conscience.

Obviously some decisions are easier than others. Despite the excuses we may make for our historical-cultural setting, no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as "outrages against human dignity" (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). Other times the options may force a choice among the lesser of two or more evils (pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton, pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani, or a pro-life third party candidate?). In each case, though, the choice should be to follow one's conscience in applying Biblical principles to political decisions.

Unfortunately, some Christians wish to maintain the illusion of political neutrality even when it conflicts with our moral obligations. Dr. David Gushee, distinguished professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, provides a prime example in his recent post on "Rules for evangelical politics".

...

1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.

Endorse means to "approve, support, or sustain." Gushee is saying that a Christian leader should never speak approvingly or in a way that might be supportive of a political candidate or political party. This legalistic rule could lead to results that are absurd and or un-Christian. For instance, should ministers in 1930s-era Germany have avoided showing approval or support of the republican political parties that were running against the Nazis?

2. Christian leaders must not distribute essentially partisan or single-issue voter guides that purport to be apolitical or nonpartisan.

One of the qualities I admire most about Dr. Gushee is his commitment to the sanctity of life. So it seems odd that he thinks that National Right to Life shouldn’t be able to distribute voter guides on this "single-issue." Shouldn't Christian choose to support candidates who will uphold what Gushee considers to be a "moral conviction?" What would be the reason for such a prohibition? Because it might impede the electoral efforts of a political party that is committed to the absolute denial of this principle?

3. Christian leaders must not publicly handicap or comment upon the political horse race.

Conversation between a congregant and her pastor (c. 1932):

Congregant: "Herr Bonhoffer, what do you think about the Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party."
Pastor: "I cannot speak of such matters, for it would be imprudent for a minister of the Gospel to comment on this particular political horse race."

4. Christian leaders must not provide private or public advice to particular politicians, parties, or campaigns concerning how they can strategize in order to win evangelical or Christian votes.

If this rule is a prohibition against providing Machiavellian advice, I'm in agreement. But I see nothing out of line with providing prudent counsel on politicians, parties, or campaigns on how best to appeal to a group of their constituents. I see nothing untoward, in saying, "If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate a pro-choice candidate in '08, then they should expect evangelicals to abandon their support for the party."

5. Christian leaders must not calibrate their public teachings or writings in order to affect the outcome of political elections or to gain and hold the support of politicians.

Again, this rule would be dependent on context. For example, if the Sunday before an election a Catholic priest were to remind his congregation that to vote supporter of abortion would be a sin, he should be commended -- even if it might prevent the pro-abortion candidate from gaining office.

6. Christian leaders must not attend political rallies or campaign events of one candidate or party unless they are prepared to attend rallies and events of all candidates and parties.

Should Abraham Kuyper, founder of the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, have attended the rallies of the Socialist parties, groups that he considered a threat to the Christian worldview? Why should Kuyper--or any other Christian--attend a rally for a group whose views are antithetical to their beliefs?

And how far do we carry this principle? Should Republicans attend Green Party debates? Should Democrats sit in on Communist rallies?

7. Christian leaders must not invite political candidates to speak in church pulpits or on church grounds unless they are prepared to invite all political candidates of all parties to do so.

Legally speaking, this is already a requirement. Morally speaking, there is no reason why a church should be required to give "equal time" to political candidates who hold positions that they find repugnant.

8. Christian leaders must not identify the potential or actual victory of any politician as a victory for God or God’s kingdom.

Admittedly, it might be presumptuous for a Christian leader to claim to know whether an electoral victory is a victory for God's kingdom. But it is also presumptuous for a Christian leader (in this case, Dr. Gushee) to make a blanket prohibition about what others might know about God or his kingdom.

9. Christian leaders must limit their direct contact with politicians or staff in order to avoid even the appearance of undue loyalty or involvement.

This presumes that loyalty and involvement are things that must always be avoided. Last year Dr. Gushee wrote:

President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of any change in his stem cell research policy was derided by many as a sop to his conservative base. But the price that the president and his party are sure to pay for this decision leads me to the conclusion that, whatever the politics of the move, the president actually has been persuaded by the moral argument against embryonic stem cell harvesting.

What if it was a "Christian leader" that had provided the persuasive moral argument that had convinced Bush of this grievous harm? Would they have been acting unethically since that level of familiarity and contact could have been construed as "undue involvement?"

10. Christian leaders must not engage in voter registration campaigns or get out the vote efforts aimed at mobilizing the voters of one political party rather than another.

Why not? Should abolitionists not have mobilized voters in an effort to end the great sin of slavery? Should '50s-era civil rights leaders not have engaged in voter registration campaigns since it might have led people to vote against pro-segregation candidates?

11. Christian leaders must not direct the funds of their churches or organizations toward direct or indirect support for a particular political candidate or party.

In practice, I would tend to agree, though I wouldn't make this a moral absolute. While following this rule would certainly be wise here in America, there might be instances where it would be more prudent to directly fund a candidate who faced a corrupt or evil party organization.

12. Christian leaders may not sidestep these rules by drawing a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” over against their service in their public role.

Let's combine #1 and #12:

1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.
2. Christian leaders may not make a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” and their public role.
3. Voting in an election is a form of official endorsement of a political candidate.
4. Therefore, Christian leaders must not vote in elections.

If applied consistently, the logical conclusion would be the Christian leaders should not vote or do anything else that they would be prohibited to do in their "official" capacity.

13. Christian leaders must offer Christian proclamation related to that large number of public issues that are clearly addressed by biblical principles or direct biblical teaching.

Here is where Dr. Gushee's reasoning goes completely off the rails. For example, biblical principles would warrant the protection of innocent life, the prohibition of abortion, and the denial of the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, including the manufacturing of "gay rights." To offer Christian proclamations on these issues, however, would directly conflict with the official position of the DNC and/or specific Democratic candidates.

Following rule #13, therefore, could conflict with injunctions #1, 2, 3, 5, and 12 (and possibly others).

14. Christian leaders must encourage Christian people toward active citizenship, including studying the issues and the candidates and testing policy stances and candidates according to biblical criteria.

Again, this rule could directly conflict with many of the others on this list.

15. Christian leaders must model and encourage respectful and civil discourse related to significant public issues as well as political candidates.

Finally, a point on which we can completely agree.

16. Christian leaders must model and encourage prayer for God-ordained government, its leaders, and their policies.

Amen.

17. Christian leaders must teach and model respect for the constitutional relationship between religion and the state as these are spelled out in the First Amendment.

Based on whose understanding of the First Amendment? My interpretation differs from Christian leaders of various stripes, including David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, and the Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Whose interpretation should we teach and model?

While Dr. Gushee's intentions are noble, the last thing we need in the electoral process is legalistic rules that transform conscience-driven politics into political correctness. (more)

If We Don't Call Them Names, the Terrorists Win

By Carlin Romano
The Chronicle Review

Should Ayman al-Zawahri, deputy head of Al Qaeda, be the only "leader" quoted making moral judgments — that Arab regimes are "corrupt" — in a week of terrorist incidents? Why do media parrot this moral irresponsibility, as in The Boston Globe's post-Glasgow editorial that the terrorist threat can "be countered by means of sound intelligence, conventional police work, legal adaptations that do not create a law-free zone, and leadership that distinguishes law-abiding communities from the crazed Islamist ideologues that prey upon them"?
...
The first rationale amounts to political correctness, however odd that may ring in regard to terrorism, the most political of all matters on the government's plate. It's the reflexive unwillingness of officials to express moral and political beliefs for fear they'll insult and offend others. Remember Fowler's classic definition of euphemism: "mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth."
...

But if the admirable part of political correctness is that one shouldn't utter unsupportable, reactionary ethnic, gender, or other generalizations, that principle is misapplied in the case of terrorists, who are picked out for condemnation by their acts alone. Aren't "bastards," "scum," and so on precisely the right terms for people who seek to maim and kill presumably innocent others to make a political point?

A second reason for muted language is the notion that not using emotional, judgmental words means one is acting more rationally and efficiently. Here, too, current clichés of proper official behavior encourage word-mincing. New Home Secretary Jacqui Smith won applause for the "calmness and dignity" of her remarks to Parliament after the failed car bombings.

...

A third reason, construable as a corollary of the second, is that citizens don't want to see their leaders act emotionally. Hitler's histrionics and Khrushchev's shoe-pounding remain quintessential Bigfoot examples of the political equation that emotional language signals demagoguery. On a different scale, famous moments in American political history, such as Sen. Edmund Muskie's alleged crying over attacks on his wife, reinforced a perceived equation between emotion and weakness.

...

A fourth reason for morally neutral language about terrorism is fear that emotional, insulting language might make terrorists angrier and more dangerous. An old anecdote about former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir figures on the other side. Once, at an Israeli cabinet meeting, someone reportedly warned that the action contemplated would anger the Palestinians. Shamir supposedly replied, "Are they going to hate us more?" — implying that enemies of Israel had already hit their max in that department, freeing Israel from such consequentialist calculations. A similar logic appears more applicable to terrorists than fear of inciting them to greater ferocity. That aside, fear that insulting or strongly judging terrorists will cause greater terrorism appears to contradict the logic behind emotionless security talk itself — that violence is prevented by tough tactical measures rather than rhetoric. So long as rigorous tactics remain in place during rhetorical upgradings, things should not get worse.

Finally, there is the reason, intuited even by nonexperts on rhetoric, that repeating such language weakens its power. Listening to President Bush denounce terrorists every day as cowards would grow old fast, this thinking goes, as did hearing the mantra that "terrorists hate our freedom." Here, one might nonetheless ask, for what would we be trying to hold language's power in reserve? For another 9/11? A dirty bomb exploded in an American city? Is anything short of slaughtering thousands at a time insufficient for moral outrage? Nonuse of morally strong language arguably saps it of power more than repeated use, making it seem quaint and archaic.

...

Let's mention just one key goal: the education of the world's Muslim youth. Instead of hearing moral praise and encouragement for terrorism from jihadists, which then gets mixed in their minds with the nonjudgmental, tactical talk of Western officials and media, they'd have to absorb a steady stream of insults of terrorists' intelligence, morality, decency, and reasoning. Young Muslims would have to get used to hearing jihadist heroes described as savages, scum, and uncivilized losers, along with the reasons why. It would intellectually force them, far more than they are forced today, to choose between two visions of the world.

We should not minimize the thirst for respect among terrorists and their potential sympathizers. When we treat terrorists only as tactical foes, as though we're too jaded for moral talk, we raise the self-respect of terrorists and their appeal to young people. Christopher Hitchens's surprise best seller, God Is Not Great, employs wry understatement in its title, then sarcastically drills home why "not being great" is the least of God's problems and sins. Perhaps officials around the free world, under a portfolio titled "Terrorism Is Not Great," could start stockpiling verbal weapons that penetrate the enemy more sharply than, "They're dangerous and we must fight them." (more)

How Did Jesus Argue? Jesus & Logic

By J. P. Moreland
Scriptorium Daily

Today there is widespread indifference to, even downright hostility towards logic and the fundamental laws that govern it. We are sometimes told that logic is a Western construction invented by DWEM’s (Dead White European Males such as Aristotle), that in a postmodern world, story and narrative have replaced a cold-hearted, logical approach to life, and that Jesus was a prophet for the common man, not a logician for the “wise and intelligent.”

I could not disagree more. Logic comes from the very nature of God Himself, its employment need not be cold and impersonal, it can be expressed through story and narrative as C. S. Lewis’s works of fiction nicely illustrate, and Jesus used logic with “the common man” every bit as much as he did with the “wise and intelligent.” In what follows, I shall unpack these assertions by doing two things: present a primer on logic and God, and explain and illustrate Jesus’ skill in using logic.

A Primer on God and Logic

(1) The universal validity of the laws of logic: These fundamental laws are true principles governing reality and thought, and are assumed by scripture. As noted above, some claim they are arbitrary Western constructions, but this is false. The basic laws of logic govern all of reality and thought and are known to be true for at least two reasons: (1) They are intuitively obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic (see below) one can simply see that it is true. (2) Those who deny them use these principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable and it is self-refuting to deny them. I will support and illustrate this claim below when we look at the three fundamental laws of logic.

(2) God and the laws of logic: The basic laws of logic are neither arbitrary inventions of God nor principles that exist completely outside God’s being. Obviously, the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature. God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the former. Those laws are rooted in God’s own nature and govern His own mind. Indeed, some scholars think that the passage “In the beginning was the Word (logos)” (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated “In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind)”. For example, even God cannot exist and not exist at the same time; He cannot both love and hate Jesus Christ; there cannot be one God, no God and many Gods. And even God cannot validly believe that red is a color and red is not a color or that 2+2=73. Divine omniscience is defined as the idea that for all truths, God knows and believes each one, and for all falsehoods, God knows each is false and does not believe it.

When someone correctly says that God need not behave “logically” they are using the term in a loose sense to mean “the sensible thing from my point of view.” Often, God does not act in ways that people understand or judge to be what they would do in the circumstances. But God never behaves illogically in the proper sense. He does not violate in his being or thought the fundamental laws of logic.

(3) The three “laws of thought”: There are three fundamental laws of logic. Suppose P is any indicative sentence, say, “It is raining.”
The law of identity: P is P.
The law of non-contradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

The law of identity says that if a statement such as “It is raining” is true then the statement is true. More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and is different from everything else. Applied to all of reality, the law of identity says that everything is itself and not something else.

The law of non-contradiction says that a statement such as “It is raining” cannot be both true and false in the same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the same place.

The law of excluded middle says that a statement such as “It is raining” is either true or false. There is no other alternative. Let’s apply our understanding of these laws of logic to the issue of their unavoidability (even for those who deny them) and the self-refuting nature of their rejection. For example, consider someone who says, ”The laws of logic are arbitrary imperialistic Western constructions that should be rejected.” For ease of exposition, let’s call this statement “P.” If someone asserts P, they assert P and not some other assertion, say Q. And they want their listeners/readers to grasp P as their assertion. Otherwise, why would they take the time to assert P? (more)

Ten Tips for College Students Getting Ready for Fall

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium Daily

First, ignore advice to “remake” yourself the first day you get to college. You have eighteen years (or more!) being you and have to account for it. Your family history and heritage matter, even if they were not so great. Socrates was right to urge the examined life, but also be wary of making big changes quickly.

Second, do something each week that puts you in contact with people older and younger than your peer group. Spending time only with people your own age can distort perspective. If you are religious, go to service each week. Get involved beyond the main service.

Third, if you have a decent relationship with your parents keep it up. Remember that they are going through a tough transition too. Thinking only about self is never very appealing. Cut them some slack and do to them what you hope future children will do to you. Don’t be foolish enough to claim total autonomy if you are also taking money from the folks.

Fourth, if you are going to college, then go. You are in college to learn. In America, education often includes getting a job skill, but should also be about becoming a good, civilized citizen.

...

Fifth, find a faculty mentor during your first year. If you cannot, then your college is charging you for an education it cannot deliver. Spend quality time with that mentor. You could hang out with dorm-types at home for free.

Sixth, take classes that are hard from full-time professors that love to teach. Try to pick your profs by researching their writing and career. Ask good students for advice.

...

Seventh, secretaries and support staff are overworked, underpaid, and very powerful. You should be good to them out of virtue, but you must do it to thrive. The friendship you make with the department secretary now will pay dividends over the years. (One way I judge the character of a student is by how they treat the support staff.)

Eighth, books are not yet antiques. Go to the library. Talk to librarians. They are faculty members that are often under-utilized.

...

Ninth, don’t be too quick to pick a major, but try to do so by the end of the first year.

...

Finally, live like an adult in college which includes moderating your passions. (more)

Dollars to Doughnuts

By Jay Bhattacharya
Hoover Institution

Lots of Americans are overweight, but obesity is not a public health crisis. (more)

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work

By David Gratzer
IBD Editorials

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. As a Canadian, I had soaked up the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. (more)

Star Parker and Michael Moore on Jesus’ View of Healthcare

By J. P. Moreland
Scriptorium Daily

Recently on ABC’s The View, Star Parker and Michael Moore had an instructive exchange. To justify state-regulated universal healthcare, Moore sought to marshal support from Jesus: Jesus claimed that if you care for the poorest among us, you do this to Him. According to Moore, this proves that Jesus would be for universal healthcare. Star Parker’s response was stunningly accurate: Jesus never intended such action to be forced on people by the state. Such acts were to be voluntary and from a freely given heart of compassion.

Parker, not Moore, was right. Two central features of Jesus’ ethical views imply that Jesus urged compassionate care for the poor but not by the state. In short, he would never have supported universal healthcare.

(1) Jesus and his apostles taught that the state and church have separate spheres of authority, each with its own job to do. The state exists to guard negative rights, not provide positive ones. A negative right is a right to be protected from discrimination in trying to secure some good. It places a duty on others and the state to make sure one is not being unjustly hindered. A positive right is a right to be provided with some good. It places a duty on others and the state to give something to someone. A careful study of Jesus and New Testament teaching proves beyond reasonable doubt that he took the state to be the guardian of negative rights, not the provider of positive ones.

(2) Jesus was angered at moral teaching that emphasized outward conformity to rules without moral action flowing from a heart of compassion and virtue, even if such conformity produced good results. Now the state cannot show compassion in the arena of economic justice, because a necessary condition for compassion is that it is freely given and not coerced. The state forces people to conform to rules. It takes their money and gives it to others. But this is not the sort of compassion of which Jesus taught. Star Parker was right: To count as pleasing to God, an act of caring from the poor must be voluntary not coerced. The church can show compassion regarding the needy, but not the state. Moore’s Jesus looks more like Ted Kennedy than the Jesus who actually lived.