Archive for the ‘Politics and Culture’ Category

Feb
02
2012

Dalrymple on Capitalism and the Poor

I’ve often lamented the inability of conservatives and Republicans to articulate how capitalism is really the best system to help lift the poor out of poverty. Liberals rightly raise the issue of the poor, but their solutions seem to keep poor entrapped. Conservatives often rightly decry these programs but don’t often articulately explain why capitalism and free markets (combined with robust social institutions) are the best vehicle (in an imperfect, fallen world) to more permanently raise the poor from poverty.

My friend Timothy Dalrymple is a rare exception. A gifted wordsmith, he’s an eloquent defender of capitalism. In an article about Mitt Romney’s recent gaffe, he says:

But Mitt, like Republicans in general, needs to reclaim the language of compassion for the poor.  It’s not compassionate to leave the very poor tangled up in our social safety nets.  It’s not compassionate to promote dependency.  What is compassionate — what actually serves the interest of the very poor, as well as everyone else — is unleashing economic growth that brings greater opportunity, better values and better compensation for everyone.  The very poor are not doing fine.  They’re drowning in the unintended consequences of liberals’ good intentions — their families are falling apart, their spirits and creativity are languishing, and the economic virtues are withering from their communities because of the perverse mis-incentives of government largesse.

The entire article is worth reading: Philosophical Fragments » Mitt’s “Very Poor” Phrasing.

Jan
23
2012

When Partisanship Blinds

You don’t have to be a political junkie to know that GOP voters are in the midst of primary season, choosing whom they’d like to face off against President Obama in the fall. Many conservative Christians are tuning in and making choices. Politics in America is a necessary evil. We need good Christians in levels of government to help shape society. But politics often plays to our basest instincts, drawing even good people into silly partisan games and blinding them to reality.

Such is the case with Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, architect of the Contract with America and a brilliant man of ideas in the Republican Party. I’ve often admired Newt for his willingness to think outside of the same set of conservative talking points (low taxes, strong defense, limited government). But as is well known, Newt has significant weaknesses as a leader, not the least of which is a hubris that grates even on those who agree with him the most. Which is why he was tossed as speaker by his colleagues. Most troubling is Newt’s public moral failings, having admitted to serial infidelity.

By all accounts Newt is now a changed man. As a 68-year old grandfather, he seems to have found discipline and grace in his old age. We have no reason to doubt this. As Christians we believe in the power of redemption and life change.

And yet, what is troubling about Newt’s candidacy, in my view, may not be Newt himself, but his many conservative defenders. All of a sudden, its taboo now for the media to probe into Newts background and ask tough questions of him, questions raised by his 2nd wife’s interview in which she claims Newt wanted an “open marriage.” I’m not sure if Newt asked for that or not and yes, these issues are several years old. However, it is not journalistic malpractice for the media to ask these questions. We are, after all, picking a President. Don’t we have the right to inquire of his moral character?

What distresses me most, what prompted me to write this blog post in the first place, was the searing hypocrisy on the part of some on the Right. I distinctly remember when Bill Clinton was being publically and legally tried for his moral failures while in the White House. I remember his chief defender, James Carville saying something like this, “Character doesn’t matter. Nobody cares about that. It’s the economy stupid.” Conservative Christians rightly denounced this. We do believe moral character matters.

And yet I’m hearing this same convoluted defense of Newt Gingrich’s indescretions. Again, I’m not throwing stones at Newt, nor am I saying he couldn’t serve as President. But it seems politics has blinded us to what we really believe. Suddenly the character about which we were so excercised in Clinton’s day no longer matters. All we seem to care about is getting rid of Obamacare. I’m hearing comparisons to King David, comparisons which we ridiculed when Democrats used him in defense of Bill Clinton. I’m also hearing conservatives justify Newt by saying things like, “the Democrats do it and are worse.” As if the only way to assess someone’s moral failure is through the lens of who is doing it worse. This is the kind of twisted moral logic I thought the Judeo Christian ethic rejects.

So, there are two conclusions to draw. Either politics has so blinded conservatives to the issues about which they once stood and they operate within a framework that defends their guy at all costs and repudiates the other side at all costs. Or, they’ve come a long way from their moralist past and are embracing more of the gospel’s tone of forgiveness and redemption. I’m cynical, but I believe the former.

I say all of this not to throw stones at Newt. He has very publicly repented. No man is perfect, least of all public figures for whom temptation is much greater. None of us is above the possibility of moral failure. For this, we fall on the grace of God. But what we must realize is that God’s grace extends to both Republican and Democrat, that moral failure is wrong no matter who is committing it. And while we should offer forgiveness to those who fall, let’s not bend so far backward that we actually defend the actual deed or minimize its importance in the life of our nation.

Maybe this will keep us from two equally wrong political postures: twisting the political knife when an ideological opponent stumbles and reflexively defending bad behavior among those whose policies we affirm.

Because if character does matter, it matters regardless of party. And if grace and redemption are offered in the gospel, they are available even to Democrats.

 

Jan
13
2012

Friday Five: Matthew Lee Anderson

 

Matthew Lee Anderson is the founder of the popular blog Mere Orthodoxy as well as the author of  Earthen Vessels, Why Our Body Matters to Our Faith   He was featured in Christianity Today’s Who’s Next column in December of 2009.  Matthew sits on the editorial board of The City, and has been quoted on FoxNews.com, in the Wall Street Journal, and by the Associated Press.  He is a frequent contributor to publications such as First Things, Christianity Today, and The Gospel Coalition. He is a Perpetual Member of the Torrey Honors Institute and a graduate from Biola University (2004).

You’re part of a wave of young evangelical intellectuals. Scholars like Mark Noll have lamented the lack of evangelical scholarship in the past, but do you sense a new renaissance in evangelical intellectual pursuits? 

I hope so, but it’s very difficult to tell these sorts of things with anything approaching accuracy.  I know we have made incredible advances in a number of disciplines, particularly philosophy, psychology and sociology.  And I keep running into really intelligent Ph.D. candidates in political philosophy, which gives me hope for the future.  But if we are experiencing a renaissance, it will only be because of the work of Noll and others in the generation previous.  They were the true trailblazers, and my generation is simply lucky to stand on their shoulders.

In your famous paper, “The New Evangelical Scandal“, published in The City, you cautioned young evangelicals who tend to dismiss everything they learned from their parent’s generation. Why is this tendency so dangerous? 

“Famous” is probably overstating it, but it was a fun piece to write!  I think when the default mode of cultural engagement is that our parents were wrong and we’re out to fix it, we risk inoculating ourselves against any form of self-criticism.  Myopia breeds only more myopia:  if we don’t have the vision to see both the good and the bad of what we’ve inherited, we’ll never learn to truly see both the good and the bad of what we’re contributing.  Chesterton once wrote something to the effect that love is blind–it’s bound, and because it’s bound, it sees more clearly than anything else.  I think the same sort of thing is true of our cultural engagement: if we recognize the ways in which our lives our bound up in our parents, for both good and ill, we’ll see ourselves and the world more clearly and act more effectively in it.

Earthen Vessels is a thorough treatment of the intersection of the human body and faith. What inspired you to write this book? 

A moment of insanity!  Seriously, I have been ruminating on issues related to the body for a decade.  I first realized that there were depths when I listened to a lecture on Plato by John Mark Reynolds.  I also happened to be binging on the Apostle Paul and reading Dallas Willard’s Spirit of the Disciplines  The result was the realization that the Incarnation changes everything, and that the problem that Christianity solved in the ancient world (which is pretty close to the problem it solves today) is the problem of the body.

Why do evangelicals need a more robust theology of the body? 

For lots of reasons, not least of which is that it will help chasten the tacit secularism that many evangelicals have unwittingly adopted.  Secularism isn’t always and everywhere bad, but it’s impossible to sift properly without pre-existing theological categories that will filter things out.  Seeing how the Gospel shapes (and doesn’t shape) bodies is imperative for living in a world that has reduced the body to a question, and evangelicals are currently woefully equipped to do that.  Developing a more robust theology of the body will help us know what shape our practices should take, see how those practices will affect our bodies, and help us resist and affirm the counter-practices of the world with greater wisdom and discernment.  If it’s not my book, it has to be someone else.  And I’ll sell their book as much (if not moreso) than I’ve tried to sell mine.

Lastly, I appreciate the lack of straw men in your writing. You really aim to present both sides of an argument fairly in a way I don’t often see even in people whose arguments I agre with. Has this always been a feature of your writing? 

Well, that’s very kind of you to say.  I don’t know if it’s always been a feature of my writing, but I’ve always tried to make it one.  It’s a practice I take very seriously.  My motivation has two sides to it.  On the one hand, I want to be charitable to people, to represent them at their best because that’s what I want for my own work.  But on the other hand, if we’re going to ultimately disagree on something, I want to really disagree–fairly, honestly, out in the open, and preferably over a good meal that you’re buying.  It’s no fun having arguments when one side has been misrepresented:  it’s a lot more fun when the disagreement’s over the substance of things, and that’s always the level to which I’m trying to reach.

Jan
07
2012

Some great advice for election season

Amy E. Black writes a terrific article for Christianity Today, encouraging believers to watch how they engage politics. Too often we check our Christianity at the door. She writes:

If we are to seek peaceful solutions and honor God in politics, we Christians of all people must avoid such hateful talk. James 4:11 commands us to “not slander one another,” an exhortation that should extend beyond how we treat other believers. Whether talking with friends or campaigning for our favorite candidate or cause, we should engage our political opponents and their ideas with respect, welcome the opportunity to learn from other perspectives, and find ways to disagree charitably as a natural part of the political process.

This is something I’ve written about before. We shouldn’t retreat from the public square and we should work to build a better society. But I’m convinced that God cares about the way we argue as much as He cares about  the issues we espouse. This is a worthy article to read. You can get the entire thing here: The Cure for Election Madness | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.

Jan
06
2012

Evangelicalism’s Changing Heart on Immigration – Patheos Column

Today Patheos is featuring a my column, cowritten with my friend Matthew Soerens of World Relief on the changing attitudes toward immigration among evangelicals:

The conventional wisdom among pundits and journalists holds that immigration is a key to winning over the evangelicals who dominate the Republican presidential nominating process in the early states. This is why the GOP candidates continue to jockey to see who sounds more restrictionist.

But this thinking fails to capture a growing sense in the larger evangelical world that the problem of illegal immigration must be handled with care, not because of electoral sympathies, but because of a changing sense of mission in the church.

You can read the entire column here: Evangelicalism’s Changing Heart on Immigration.

Jan
06
2012

Friday Five: Joe Carter


Joe Carter is one of the most articulate evangelical voices on the intersection of church, culture, and politics. Joe founded Evangelical Outpost in 2005. He is the web editor for First Things and an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. A fifteen-year Marine Corps veteran, he previously served as the managing editor for the online magazine Culture11 and The East Texas Tr

ibune. Joe has also served as the Director of Research and Rapid Response for the Mike Huckabee for President campaign and

as a director of communications for both the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Family Research Council. He is the co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communication.1) You’ve served in a variety of capacities in the conservative movement. What is your impression of the movement as it stands today? 
The first thing that should be said about the conservative movement is that there is no conservative “movement.” The term movement implies that a there is cohesive group that is in agreement about moving toward specific political goals. While individuals aligned with conservatism tend to agree on a general set of principles, they often have radically differing views on where those lead. For example, social conservatives and libertarians are generally lumped together under the rubric of the “conservative movement, yet both groups differ on issues such as same-sex marriage.

The reality is that conservatism is comprised of numerous small movements, some that are flourishing and others that are stagnating. This inevitably leads to internal tensions since established conservative groups, politicians, and media are all fighting for the same attention and donor funding. When specific grassroots sub-movements begins to gain popularity, activists of all stripes try to co-opt it for their own purposes.

A prime example is the Tea Party movement in 2008-2010. Despite the fact that polls and surveys showed that it was largely a subset of the “religious right” movement, libertarians tried to claim it as their own. The media latched onto that spurious impression and tried to create a narrative that conservatives were ready to abandon social issues. Of course that was never true. Most grassroots conservatives are full-spectrum conservatives who don’t make sharp distinction between economic, social, and national security conservatism. This is why I’m optimistic about the long-term prospects about conservatism, despite the problems within the “movement.”

Read More

Nov
14
2011

God Doesn’t Care if It Plays in Peoria

I’ve been watching some of the news reports regarding the accusations made against Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain. I have no idea if the charges against him or true. Only God, Herman Cain, and the accusers do. When the first accuser came out I thought perhaps it might be a political dirty trick, an opposing campaign or a media campaign against a conservative candidate. But now that there has been five women who have stepped forward, it’s a bit hard for me to believe that this is some coordinated attack. Perhaps there’s a pattern here.

What’s most distressing to me is the way that Mr. Cain, a man I admired and was actually considering voting for, has handled this whole situation. He’s shown no remorse. He’s blamed other candidates. Then he’s blamed the media. Now, to be fair, I think he has a right to defend himself and his honor, especially if the charges are not true. But Cain has swun wildly and has not appeared contrite or professional.

Furthermore, Mr. Cain has used his campaign to dig up dirt on the accusers and then spread that to the media. This is dirty politics. Smear the accuser and muddy the waters. It’s what Bill Clinton did when facing his own charges. I think this is reprehensible for a man who not only calls himself a lifelong follower of Christ, but is an ordained minister. Smearing the other person, even if the charges against Cain are false, is the lowest form of politics.

But perhaps the most distressing part of this whole sordid affair is how I’ve heard conservatives, many Christians, discuss this about Cain. Some have defended him and have blamed it on the “lamestream media” as if any negative reports against a conservative candidate are automatically an attack. Or they’ve given the whole, “if this was a Democrat . . . .” defense. This is lame. We all know that if a liberal had these problems, the conservative media would have no problem rushing to judgement against him or her.

Others have written off Mr. Cain. They say they are glad this was exposed in the primary because if it came out in the general election, it would sink the candidate and give President Obama a win. The discussion has all centered around, “How will this play among woman?”, “How will this play in a Republican primary in Iowa?” Those are valid discussions, but I hear no one saying, “Maybe what Mr. Cain did was wrong. Maybe he’s not a man of character. Maybe this should disqualify him from being President.” There is such an impulse to protect our own. Partisanship is so blind.

As followers of Christ, our first concern should not be “How will this play in Peoria?”, but “Is this right and good and does it please God?” Christians are supposed to be the people of character, right? Haven’t we hammered liberals for not having character?

I think there is a lesson here not simply about politics, but life. We live in a world seemingly run by PR and spin. So many of our decisions are based on “What will people think?” or “How does it poll?” or “How will this play?” There is some merit to knowing where people are so you can effectively lead. But our first impulse should be do what is good and right, not what will win affections.

Oct
24
2011

Cautions for Christians in a Political Season

In America, politics is all around us, whether you want it to be or not. But as we anticipate the election of 2012, it is reaching a fever pitch. Being a political junkie myself, I find myself being, at times, so consumed by it that it distracts me from my main calling as a follower of Christ. So I thought perhaps it would be good to consider a few guidelines that might govern our conversations, activism, and online discussions in this political season.

1) Don’t Convince Yourself that One Election Will Solve Everything. Elections do have consequences and good leadership can effect social change. Still, the root of our problems in America is as old as civilization itself: its the problem of sin. And the solution is not a politician or a platform. It’s not the tea party or the Republican party or the Democratic party or any party. The solution is the gospel. And as good as we try to make life on earth here, it will never be the utopia we desire. This longing will only be fulfilled when Jesus returns as King and establishes the New Heaven and Earth.

2) It’s Ok to Favor a Candidate, but Don’t Do it at the Expense of the Others. Politics is strange in that you not only line up behind a candidate you like, you have to do so by convincing yourself and others that the other candidates are inept, incompetent, dangerous, malicious, and the cousin of Hitler. It could be that good men and women are running on all sides, but you favor the polices, experience, and character of one in particular. Can you do that without tearing down the opponent? That may seem impossible in this environment, but I think its worth a try.

3) Remember There is More to Life Than Politics. I know some people (myself the chief), who can’t have a single conversation without it breaking into a political discussion. Every social ill is traced back to the ideology they oppose. But everything doesn’t have a political component and every single wrong thing in the world isn’t the fault of the politicians you despise. And remember that while politics is important, it’s not ultimate.

4) Remember You Are a Christian. Yes, even in your political discussions and activism, you’re a follower of Christ. Is your faith so intrinsically tied in with your politics that people think the gospel equals low taxes, less government, and ending Obamacare? And do you obey the Scripture’s commands to love, forgive, honor, respect,and pray while you’re discussing political leaders with whom you disagree? It doesn’t really matter that “the other side does it.” Christians don’t play by this calculus. We’re different. We’re followers of Jesus, called to a higher standard. In this, we demonstrate the gospel.

5) Reaffirm Your Belief in the Sovereignty of God Over All Things. Every year they tell me this is the most important election of my lifetime. And maybe this election is really that vital. We want to elect and appoint men of character and competence. But ultimately God holds all things in his hands. He’s not limited by voter turnout. He can work with rulers of all kinds and ultimately will use what happens to bring about his Kingdom. In other words, God won’t be in Heaven on Tuesday night, November 6th, nervously watching CNN. (And no, my conservative friends, he won’t be watching Fox either.)

6) Remember That the Most Important Thing Already Happened. Elections may be hugely important in America. But the most important and most consequential event in history already happened. Jesus rose from the dead. He’s alive. He’s coming back as King. And Christians live in light of this profound reality. So in spite of the decaying world around us, we have hope. So we can smile. We can shed cynicism. We don’t have to give in to the anger and despair of our age.