Alex Forrest

Christian. Worldview. Thinking.

You are here: Home / Archives for politics

Pastor-in-Chief?

by Leave a Comment

Politician Fingers CrossedLast week I had an opportunity to participate in a small panel of Evangelical voters for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 ahead of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary. It was a cool experience.

In my only comment that made it into the segment, I said that Evangelicals are not looking for a Pastor-in-Chief. There’s an idea out there that an Evangelical will vote for someone simply because that person professes faith in Jesus and quotes the Bible in his commercials.

But the premise is reductionistic. [Read more…]

Newbigin via Keller on the the Church and politics

by Leave a Comment

I read this tonight and found it quite interesting:

“Those who call for a Christian assault on the worlds of politcis and economics often make it clear… that the aim of the attack is to seize the levers of power and take control. We have seen many such successful revolutions, and we know that in most cases what has happened is simply that the oppressor and the oppressed have exchanged roles… The throne is unshaken, on there is a different person occupying it. How is the throne itself to be shaken?… Only by the power of the gospel itself, announced in word and embodied in deed… The victory of the Church over the demonic power which was embodied in the Roman imperial system was not won by seizing the levers of power: it was won when the victims knelt down in the Colosseum and prayed in the name of Jesus for the Emperor.” 

— Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, as quoted by Tim Keller, Gospel in Life, 200. 

These are thought provoking comments that bear on a number of issues regarding the church in culture, including American politics, the concept of “culture war” and how to engage in divisive moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, and all sorts of other things.

The primary role of the Church is not to endorse, campaign, and elect the right candidates with the right views. These things are not unimportant, but I think many in the Church overemphasize them. Frankly I’m not sure that churches should endorse candidates.

I do believe that churches can certainly speak to moral issues – abortion comes to mind first – in a prophetic way. But speaking in a prophetic way is, it seems to me by definition, to speak of them biblically. And I think it’s hard to speak in a biblically consistent and helpful manner in the kind of cynical, ad hominem manner and tone that is so common in (post)modern politics.

The role of the church (and the role of individual Christians) is primarily to serve as a beacon of the gospel message. And sometimes our dalliances in politics (and the allure of the power, money, and influence that go with it) causes us to be distracted and to throw up roadblocks to the message. The gospel itself is a stumbling block, so we ought to strive not to create additional stumbling blocks for people.

I don’t claim to have the answers here because these are sometimes muddy waters. But it’s worth considering. What do you think?

Exploring the Evangelical Approach to Gay Marriage

by Leave a Comment

North Carolina voters approved an amendment yesterday that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and Barack Obama today announced he was in favor of gay marriage. So here we’ve got a nice political wedge issue in a big election year that really strikes me as mostly an attempt to stir up “the base” in the respective political parties.

I listened to some radio commentary on the subject today and have read a few articles and blogs here and there, and I have to make this confession:

I’ve never understood why this is such a huge issue… for either side.

On the one side… Are there really that many gay and lesbian people that are itching to get married? If so, why? Why do they feel like they need a state-sanctioned blessing of sorts on their relationships?

I really don’t mean this to be patronizing. It’s an honest question. Is the issue really all about equality  – as if a marriage license and contract can legitimize them in a way that they don’t yet sense legitimacy? Or is there something deeper going on?

On the other side of the divide… does enacting a state (or federal) law against gay marriage really bring about some kind of meaningful victory in a culture war? Does that mean anything when the culture seems to largely accepts homosexuality? Does the Church really have a vested interest in what the state decides constitutes a marriage contract?

Again, I’m not trying to stir controversy – just asking honest questions.

Let me be clear about a couple of things. I believe that marriage, as defined in the Scripture, is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman, and that any kind of sexual relationship outside of that covenant is sinful. I think I have a high view of marriage that is derived from biblical authority.

So in raising these questions I’m not the kind of wishy-washy Christian who wants to compromise on biblical authority in the face of the rising tide of cultural objections. I am wondering about the wisdom of the Church becoming the vocal political epicenter of these political debates.

Is the Gospel really advanced when churches get waist-deep in this kind of political activism? 

I know there’s a school of thought out there that views the church’s role in politics as part of its mandate to be “salt and light” in a society, and I guess to some extent that’s warranted (abortion comes to mind).

But do we really want to become known primarily as just another political activist group? Shouldn’t we be more than a voting block?

Let’s really think about this issue: Is this really a hill worth dying on? To be clear, I’m talking about how the state defines marriage, not how the church defines it, which I see as two very different matters (perhaps this is a key to what I’m thinking here).

How should we approach this issue?

I believe we need to see LGBT people as sinners in need of the Gospel (just like everyone else) rather than as political opposition out to destroy us. And that’s more a call for compassion than fear or anger, which too often characterize our response.

We can approach them with compassion without compromising biblical teaching. In fact, it seems to me that Jesus approached sinful people (“others”) with this kind of compassionate engagement, and obviously this happened without compromising biblical teaching. I’m not sure that political rallies and “get out the vote” campaigns are really anywhere near the core of a biblical agenda for this culture.

(And this is absolutely NOT a capitulation to the idea that “spiritual” beliefs have no business in the public arena. I reject that kind of false dichotomy wholeheartedly. This is more a question of the wisdom of approaching this issue this way).

I’m still thinking through this stuff so am open to engagement and dialogue. I know many will disagree. For what it’s worth, I’d prefer  a system where marriage is left alone, but I don’t have a problem with the idea of a civil union where some of the legal rights of marriage (not all) are provided (I’m thinking here of things like hospital visitation, tax or probate-type issues, that sort of thing). Surely the Church would not have to acknowledge or participate in these kinds of civil contracts anymore than the Church participates in, say, “common law” marriage.

Let’s remember a key point we could easily miss:

Christian marriage can (and should) be held to a different, higher standard than state marriage contracts.

In that vein, I’d suggest that the passionate opposition to gay marriage is inconsistent with tacit acceptance of no-fault divorce… but I suppose that’s another subject for another time.

But I’m genuinely interested: What do you think?

 

Addendum: For further reading, here are two thought-provoking articles on each side of the issue:

Kevin DeYoung: Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Rachel Held Evans: How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation

My Experience of the 2012 South Carolina Primary

by Leave a Comment

Living in an early primary state comes with certain opportunities and certain annoyances.

Among the latter are incessant advertising through every form of media which leads one to eventually missing low budget ads from auto dealerships and sleazy local attorneys. But it also leads to unique opportunities to get a little closer to these campaigns and their candidates.

This year, I decided to immerse myself in it for a few days.

It’s been more than a week now since the Republican primary here in South Carolina, so I thought I’d briefly describe my experience of it. I attended campaign events and rallies for three major candidates:

Rick Santorum

My view of Rick Santorum

The first visit to a campaign stop was not planned in advance at all. I had said that I really wanted to hit a campaign event (didn’t care who) just for the experience.

What originally caused us to head to Spartanburg on Wednesday morning, however, was not Rick Santorum, but the Duggar family (you know, “20 Kids and Counting”). A bunch of them were scheduled to make an appearance at a Christian bookstore.

Sometimes we watch their show, and Keri just thought it would be fun to go see them. Unfortunately, only two of them were at the bookstore event. So we decided to head a mile up the road to the Beacon, a local hole in the wall that is famous for… I’m not sure. It’s a poor man’s Varsity, if you’re familiar with that iconic Atlanta establishment.

JimBob Duggar

And once there, we were, in fact, in the middle of a genuine presidential campaign event. Santorum gave a nice version of his stump speech, and it was actually interesting to hear the whole thing instead of 30-60 second soundbites you get in a debate.

There was a warm crowd, a large media contingent (including a rather surly Carl Cameron from FoxNews), and all that stuff. And, yes, there were a bunch more Duggars present as well, so mission accomplished.

We left feeling glad we had experienced a slice of a real Presidential campaign. We thought that would be it, but as it turned out, several other opportunities emerged.

Ron Paul

My view of Ron Paul

I’ve always been intrigued by Ron Paul and his outside-the-box message, style, and campaign. His strict adherence to the Constitution and libertarian approach to most domestic issues is very attractive and sensible to me. His much-maligned foreign policy is not perfect, but overall I like him very much. (In fact, I think he’s the most likable guy in the campaign). I recently wrote a longer take on Ron Paul here.

So I decided to catch Ron Paul in a hangar near the downtown Greenville airport as he was barnstorming the state on the eve of the primary.

That crowd was dramatically different than the Santorum crowd – younger, much more raucous, and fervently devoted to their guy. They’re generally convinced that they are the vanguard of a real revolution, and who knows – perhaps they are. In fact, I wouldn’t be disappointed if they’re right.

For his part, Paul was exactly what you’d expect. He was like a nice, sincere grandfather enjoying a chance to see the family. He is who he is all the time, I guess, which is pretty refreshing in a politician. Though I was soaked from rain, the experience was worth it.

Mitt Romney

Enthusiastically awaiting their guy
Less enthusiastically waiting

Our family expedition to see Mitt Romney was almost completely spontaneous. We were talking about it at dinner with my in-laws, and the next thing you know, we’re all heading downtown after dinner to catch the last pre-election rally for Mitt Romney, which would also feature SC governor Nikki Haley and VA governor Bob McDonnell.

Not the best photo of Romney!
Nikki Haley with Ann Romney
& Bob McDonnell

Now this was a top-end political event, staged by an experienced crew. The room was stuffed with enthusiastic, made-for-TV sign-waving supporters. There was music thumping (the kind of classic rock Americana style you expect at these things). There was an oversized American flag and a huge contingency of local and national media.

The room was hot and the boys (age 6 and 4) were pretty miserable (after all, they could see nothing and the crowd was thick). We learned that my in-laws were in an overflow room and that the stars of the show would be coming by to greet those in the overflow room, so we decided to head that way.

Ann Romney seems to be the
most popular person in the room

The next thing you know, I’m with the boys and their grandparents right in the front/center of a small stage in the overflow room. After a nearly insufferable wait, we found ourselves a couple feet from the Romneys, Haleys, and McDonnells.

Somehow I made eye contact with Romney and he came over to shake hands with the boys and I, as did his wife and, a couple minutes later, Governor Haley.

Everyone thought that the experience was pretty cool, and I think my oldest son, age 6, will likely remember it. He didn’t want to leave, actually, wanting to head back to the main room to hear the speech (which is ironic, because he was quite vocal in not wanting to go at first).

Conclusion
Before you ask, yes I voted in the Republican primary. I could not decide on a candidate until I was walking into a booth to vote. And I remain conflicted about my choice. Suffice to say that, from my perspective, each of the candidates has pronounced strengths and pronounced weaknesses, and I could have given my vote to any of the three I saw on the trail.

I’m glad that we took some time to experience the campaigns this way, though. It was honestly pretty cool.

Thinking About Ron Paul

by Leave a Comment

I’m one of those undecided South Carolina GOP primary voters being targeted by all these (very) aggressive campaigns. I’m not particularly enamored with any of these five remaining candidates. All have strengths (though in one case you have to look awfully hard), and all have significant weaknesses. So I’ve come to grips with the fact that I’ll be voting for someone I don’t totally agree with. I’m also fairly convinced that Mitt Romney will win here on Saturday and will wind up the GOP nominee.

So let’s talk about the curious case of Ron Paul. Now, to be clear, I don’t think he really has a chance to win this nomination and I bet that, in his heart of hearts, he doesn’t think so either. His campaign is about promoting his ideas/ideology, and that is generally a very good thing. He’s honestly quite brilliant on economic issues and admirable in sticking to his guns on the Constitution, limited government, fiscal conservatism, and liberty. He seems to be alone in his commitment to making real substantive changes in the area of federal spending by cutting a trillion bucks from the budget, eliminating entire departments of the bureaucracy, and that sort of thing. He’s also the only candidate I am completely confident is not beholden to or in the pocket of big corporate interests (like Big Pharma, for example) as well.

Now, there is that whole foreign policy issue. In an ideal sense, Paul’s foreign policy ideals make sense. I don’t know why America is the policeman of the world, why our troops get scattered all over the place, etc. But, alas, we don’t live in a vacuum. We are where we are and some of his positions (on Iran, for example), seem a bit reckless, to be honest. But, here again, I remind you that Ron Paul isn’t going to win… and a little more circumspection in our foreign policy would be a positive development.


Will I vote for Ron Paul? I don’t know yet. I thought about it in 2008 and didn’t pull the trigger. But I’m encouraged that people are taking him and, more importantly, his ideas more seriously. The GOP should take seriously his ability to ignite and create a significant movement of impassioned, if occasionally annoyingly exuberant voters, many of whom were previously unengaged politically. Those followers should not be ignored. The GOP needs their energy and enthusiasm. (I personally have high hopes that his movement will come to some fruition in Rand Paul, but that’s another post for another time.) 


I do want to bring attention to a very thorough article that thoughtfully builds a case for Ron Paul based on biblical and constitutional concerns, written by Vodddie Baucham. 

Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, and Why Profits Aren’t Evil

by Leave a Comment

I find it aggravating when people get all hot and bothered about corporations getting tax breaks or incentives and whining about how they “don’t pay their fair share.” Let’s make one thing very clear: Corporations don’t pay taxes. Period.

Oh they may write the checks (of course, some corporations like GE somehow manage to avoid paying any taxes). But taxes are simply factored into the cost of doing business, and therefore they are passed on to… the consumer.

Yes, consumers pay corporate taxes, primarily in the form of higher prices for the products or services they buy. In my present business, this is crystal clear: Government imposes mandates and increases taxes on insurance companies. The predictable result is that premiums go up.

If your power company experiences a tax increase, your power bill will go up. If your grocery store of choice gets a tax increase, you’ll pay more for food. You get the idea. (For that matter, if corporations keep getting hit with higher taxes – not to mention ridiculous regulations from the EPA, threats from the NLRB, and demands from countless other governmental agencies – they just decide to pack up and move some operations overseas.)

So I don’t have a problem with corporations getting tax breaks. I don’t have a problem with Amazon getting tax breaks to open a facility in South Carolina that will employ a bunch of people. I think we should all get tax breaks because when people have more money in their pockets, they tend to spend it, and that, friends, is the path to economic recovery.

When corporations have more money, they can hire more people or innovate. When people have more money, they put it into the economy. All of these things generate revenue (a view which stands in contrast to the standard media fare that tax increases = revenue increases).

Corporations are, after all, generally in business to make a profit. In the worldview of the liberal elite and the current administration, “profits” = “how much you screwed the consumer.” But in the real world, the profit is what motivates innovation, improvement, and giving a crap about the customer, among other things.

Consider the difference between a visit to the DMV and a visit to an Apple store. Put another way: Both the DMV and the Apple store exist to get your money — one does it by coercion and one by persuasion; one works by fiat and one by desire. You tell me which is better. Or consider the economies of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European satellite states it dominated compared with those of the West.

Now, I don’t at all believe that corporations are innocent Pollyannas. There are plenty that are horrible (Monsanto comes to mind, as do various tobacco companies.) But all else being equal, I have more trust in the free markets of capitalism where consumers are ultimately empowered than I do economies dominated by governmental intervention.

Garbage Capitalism

by 1 Comment

We recently moved from inside the city limits of a suburban town to a house that is not within the limits of any municipality. One of the things that changed for us was the way we procure garbage and recycling pickup. Our previous homes (and there have been six that we’ve rented or owned) have all been within city limits and have always had municipal trash service. For the first time, I had to find a private company and pay them to pick up our garbage.

Sound like a bummer, right? Of course not. In fact, the more I think about it, the better it is this way. Here’s why:

First, city trash disposal is NEVER free – you just don’t think about it when you pay your property taxes, especially if they’re paid through an escrow account in your mortgage. But it’s not free.

With city trash, you have no choice. This can be very significant. The suburban town we formerly lived in recently debated a scheme that would have required residents to purchase a particular type of trash bag if they wanted their trash picked up. This would have amounted to a tax hike or a fee increase, depending on the semantics, and we would have had to swallow it because there was no other option other than hauling it to a dump somewhere in my minivan.

If a private disposal company came up with a half-brained scheme like that, I’d just fire them and go elsewhere… which is why they’d never do something like that. You see, the private company has to aim to please me in order to keep my business. They have to keep their price competitive and, therefore, their operation must be efficient… something a government operation will never be accused of. They also have to treat me well. Throw my trash container in the flowers or neglect to pick up my recycling? No way – that’s not how you treat a customer/client whose business you want to retain. The city we lived in did that kind of thing on occasion. I bet the private company won’t.

It’s a small and mundane example of why the free market is so much better than government intervention.

Newsletter

Categories