I discovered a new blog to enjoy

I recognize that my readers come from three categories: 1) friends and loved ones who are trying to figure me out, 2) those from the Aspie community (especially the relatively small number of Christian Aspies), and 3) those who are interested in my political, social, and religious perspectives.

Well, today's post is for those of you in the third group who have been griping that I've catered too much to those in the second group.  (By the way, if I ever get my act together, I will try splitting this blog into two or more blogs to cater to the individual audiences.  I wouldn't hold my breath until at least May, though.)  Thanks to a recent column from one of my favorite columnists, David Brooks, I discovered a new blogger whose work I really appreciate.  Rod Dreher writes for the American Conservative and comes down more on the Communitarian side of conservativism (which is closer to my position as well).  But not only is his political commentary insightful, but his writing about his life I find very interesting.  He recently moved from a major city to a small town in Louisiana to be near family and re-connect with a community.  His discussion of community life is both heart-warming and interesting for someone like me who has never personally experienced that kind of community outside of college.  So, for my readers of a more Communitarian bent, I encourage you to check Rod Dreher out.

Online quiz to help you decide who to support in the GOP primary

My friend over at Trying to Explain Politics just posted a link to a really good online quiz for those trying to figure out who to support in the Republican primary.  (For those of you not interested, feel free to disregard this post.)  You can find it at Real World Machine.

Should Christians only vote for other Christians?

As an openly Christian political scholar, I get asked this question a lot.  People want to know if it is somehow morally acceptable to vote for someone of a different faith.  To try to answer the question, the Bible does not deal with this question directly (seeing as how there wasn't a lot of voting going on back then).  I tend to hear two different arguments on this issue.  Those who argue that we should only vote for Christians claim that voting for non-Christians is equivalent to being "unequally yoked".  Those who say that voting for non-Christians is acceptable cite the passages that tell us to be good citizens, no matter who is in charge.

Personally, I don't find either argument particularly persuasive.   I don't see how voting for someone is being yoked to them.  One might argue that choosing someone as your leader is being yoked to them, but then the command would have to be interpreted as saying, "If the leader of your government is not a Christian, then you have to move because you can't be unequally yoked."  Back in the days when none of the government leaders were Christian, this reading of the command would have been problematic.

Regarding the second argument, the commands are to be submissive to governmental leaders, even if they are non-Christian.  This does not necessarily condone actively participating in the selection of a non-Christian to lead you.

Since we don't seem to have any specific Biblical guidance in relation to voting, what are we to do?  There is a book I read back in college that I think provides a good, biblical, understanding of what to do in these situations.  It is Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and Robin Maxson.  Their central argument (for purposes of this discussion) is that Christians are given broad principles of guidance through the Scriptures and, when specific situations come up that aren't directly addressed, we use wisdom to make a decision based on the broad principles.

So, on this view, we should look at broad principles in the Bible, pray about them, and use wisdom to decide who to vote for.  My personal view on this (and feel free to disagree with me) is that it is perfectly justifiable to vote for a non-Christian if the non-Christian will do a better job of advancing the principles found in the Bible. 

I have a slight advantage in saying this.  I've personally met a lot of these "Christian" politicians, and I can safely say that there frequently isn't a substantial difference between the Christian and non-Christian in how they live their lives or how their faith influences their political activities.  All other things being equal, I would rather vote for a non-Christian who is at least open about the fact than vote for a "Christian" who is only professes faith for appearances.  

When did "social justice" become a bad term?

When I am on long drives, I frequently listen to political talk radio. In most of the country, this means conservative talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc. Over the last couple weeks, I probably spent 30 hours in the car, and a significant amount of that time I spent listening to these conservative talkers.

While listening, I heard an unusual theme. Far more often than I would have expected, they ripped on the concepts of "social justice" and "economic justice". Unfortunately I did not get enough context to find out why this was the target of particular wrath, but it was clear that most of them were talking about it and warning about its "dangers".

Glen Beck was particularly interesting to me in this regard, because he was spelling out the dangers as if they were theological heresy. He was opposing it on religious grounds. Although I am not an expert on all the theological positions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka, the Mormons) to which Beck belongs, I am fairly certain they do not have any official theological objections to social justice, as they frequently practice it as a church. But Beck was ranting on it the way I have heard some ministers rant on dangerous theological heresies (ironically, such as the LDS).

Beck, while being the most explicit, was not alone. All of the hosts I heard talk about it, with the exceptions of Limbaugh and Neal Boortz, spoke of it as antithetical to their faiths. This included two professed Roman Catholics and two professed Evangelicals.

My guess is that these conservative talkers were conflating two very different concepts: "social justice" and "social gospel". Adherents of the "social gospel" might argue that "sharing the good news" means helping the poor, and does not deal with personal salvation from sins. "Social justice", however, does not necessarily do this at all. In fact, many evangelical leaders today argue that helping the poor and disenfranchised goes hand-in-hand with sharing the Good News of salvation from sin and restored relationship with God.

So, what happened? My guess is this is a legacy of "Fox News Channel Christians", people who conflate the teachings of the Bible with American conservative ideology. (See my previous post if you want to read more about that concept.)

This has not been my first post on social justice, and I'm sure it won't be my last. If you are interested in my thoughts on this, please browse around the blog.

Fox News Channel Christians

I started using the term "Fox News Channel Christians" back in the late 1990s. I'm not sure if I came up with it or if I heard it from someone else. While it is admittedly a derogatory term, it is not intended to be derogatory toward Fox News, people who watch Fox News, or conservative ideology in general.

When I speak of "Fox News Channel Christians", I speak of those professed Christians who have somehow come to believe that the most important features of their faith are those expressed by contemporary conservative American ideology. They act as if lower taxes is more important than salvation by grace through faith.

I wish I could say that I was making this up--that people like this don't actually exist. Unfortunately, I encounter this all too often. I remember leading a Bible study where the husband of a woman who was a regular attender would occasionally drop in. We would be discussing sin in Romans, and he would talk about how those Democrats are going to face eternal damnation because they were pushing sinful big government. And, yes, according to his wife, he was serious. Granted, this is a really severe case, but more nuanced versions are common throughout predominantly White Evangelical churches. I know because as soon as a Fox News Channel Christian learns that I am an evangelical with a PhD in government, I start hearing everything.

This, I believe, is dangerous. It is not dangerous because conservative ideology is inherently dangerous (in my opinion), but rather because it is placing something besides the Word of God as the final say in theological purity. Which should take precedence--God's words, or Fox News?

Even if you are of the belief that American conservative ideology does contain proper Christian principles as applied to government, does that mean that the application of principles to government (about which the New Testament is very vague) trumps in importance the principles the Bible speaks on a lot?

Don't get me wrong. I am a political junkie. However, my fascination with politics should not shape my interpretation of the Bible, or even what parts of the Bible I emphasize in my study. If anything, it should be the other way around. I should be a Christian first, and and adherent to my political ideology second (or much further down that ladder).

A friend's new political blog

A friend of mine who also teaches political science at a small liberal arts college just started a new blog. He's attempting to explain politics in a way that makes sense to "normal intelligent people (not just political junkies)". I thought I would help him out in his early days for search engine optimization. From everything I've heard, he is a really good teacher, so it should translate well to blogging. Honestly, I expect him to be better at this than I am.

Here's the link:
Trying to Explain Politics

I believe he takes requests, so if you want to know something specific about politics, he will do his best to answer.

Political News Can Be Ridiculous

Even though I am a blogger and I study politics for a living, I don't really read political blogs. To be honest, I find most of them to be ridiculous. Political blogging is very agenda driven, so what the most popular bloggers have to say tend to be very predictable and somewhat laughable to people who really understand what is going on.

One of the few political bloggers I respect is Jay Cost over at the Weekly Standard. While it is true that, like most of his colleagues at the Weekly Standard, he does have a conservative bent, but he does it at least from a unique perspective. You see, Mr. Cost is literally a student of politics and history. Last I heard, he was a doctoral candidate at a top-10 political science department specializing in American Political Development (i.e., the history of American politics). He approaches things as an academic, but communicates them in a way that normal intelligent readers can understand.

His most recent blog demonstrates why I generally like him. He basically ridicules all the hype regarding recent Republican primary polls. As he notes, at this time in 2007, Obama was severely trailing both Clinton and Edwards in Iowa. Obama won. On the Republican side, Romney was in first and Giuliani was in second. Who won Iowa? Mike Huckabee.

Putting too much emphasis on the polls this early might be a way to attract readers (especially readers who fear and/or despise Michelle Bachmann), but it is not at all informative. To keep from getting wrapped up in too much hype, I generally don't read very much of the day-to-day political commentary. It saves me from having to spend a lot of time debunking the nonsense I let into my brain when asked for "expert analysis".

Evangelical Christians and Justice

Late last year a book came out that has the Christian circles in which I interact buzzing. This was particularly surprising because these circles don’t tend to interact with each other very much. I currently attend an inner-city church. My previous church was a heavy theological church—very concerned with doctrinal purity. Due to the nature of my profession, I interact with other Christian academics. I don’t recall a single book ever getting this much positive attention from all three circles.

The book is Tim Keller’s Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes us Just. I think one of the main reasons this book (which I have not read yet, but intend to) is getting such widespread positive attention is that it comes from Tim Keller. Based on my conversations with others who have read this book and read other Christian books on justice by the likes of Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, or Tony Evans; the content isn’t all that different. But, in many Evangelical circles, the three latter authors are thought to have misplaced priorities. Some are concerned that they have watered down their theology for the sake of politics. Some accuse them of being advocates of the “social gospel”—that the Gospel is about improving the lives of others, not salvation from sin. They are sometimes just denigrated as being “liberal” (a bad word in American Evangelical circles, whether the implication is political or theological). [By the way, based on what I have read by these authors, I don’t think these statements are fair characterizations of their views.]

Tim Keller is different. He is known for starting a large church in New York City called Redeemer Presbyterian. He doesn’t shy away from theology. The theological purists (at least from the Reformed perspective) love him because he embraces the doctrines and uses them to give an authentic message, drawing (mostly) young people to the church. His message is that Christianity should infuse all of a person’s life and can/should be reflected in art, literature, vocation, etc. Tim Keller is liked by a wide variety of Christian circles, circles that don’t normally interact.

What seems to be interesting about this book, then, is that Keller uses his earned reputation to spread a message about justice that several other authors only managed to spread to a limited audience. He has done it in a way that does not turn off readers who might otherwise be suspicious of a book on justice, because “justice” is sometimes viewed in Christian circles as code indicating a “liberal troublemaker”. But Keller can pull it off because he isn’t viewed as a liberal troublemaker.

This doesn’t surprise me. Very often in the Evangelical Christian world one finds this pattern. Someone earns a positive reputation by towing the party line from perhaps a new perspective, and only then will be listened to when they say something that does not quite fit with normal Evangelical conversation. As an Evangelical Christian who would like some day to write books for an Evangelical audience, this worries me. How is someone like me ever supposed to build up the credibility necessary to be accepted when I start sharing hard truths?

In the meantime, I’ll read Keller’s book and probably have a blog entry on justice coming soon.

Illegal immigration: One Christian’s perspective

Let me just begin by saying that this is a complicated issue, both from a public policy and from a Christian perspective. I try to look at is as both a Christian and as someone who professionally analyzes public policy.

First, what are some Biblical perspectives on the issue? I see these falling into two main categories: 1) obey the laws, and 2) care for those in need.

In regard to obeying the laws, there are a few passages that are plain is saying that we should obey the earthly authority, such as Romans 13:1-5, I Timothy 2:1-3, and I Peter 2:13-15. The lesson, then, would be to not illegally immigrate (or emigrate, as the case more likely is) if you are a Christian.

The passages regarding helping those in need are too many to list here. I will note that this demand for Christian love extends to law breakers. This is why Christ exhorts his followers to visit those in prison (Matthew 25:31-40). So, we should not cease to love illegal immigrants just because they are here illegally.

I once had a conversation with a Latino pastor from San Antonio who has to deal with this issue regularly. He actually encourages his illegal congregants to turn themselves in and then has developed relationships with a number of immigration attorneys to help them work through the process. This is what I believe the Christian response should be.

From a policy perspective, I see an easy solution to the conflict felt by the Christian between respecting the law and loving those in need. Change the law. Make it easier for people to come here to work. This regulates the process and saves money on immigration enforcement. Otherwise law-abiding people who wish to come to the U.S. can do so (unlike is currently the case). This is both good policy and the right thing to do.

Thoughts on the Wisconsin protests

I haven’t commented on a current political event in a while (a year and a half?), and since this is one of my Aspie “special interests” I figured it was about time.

Just in case you haven’t been paying attention to what has been happening in Wisconsin’s state capitol, there have been mass protests the last few days about a proposed law that would, among other things, severely hamstring the ability of state employees to collectively bargain for anything besides wages. The new governor, Scott Walker, along with the Republicans, is trying to push this through in the name of balancing the budget. This triggered the aforementioned protests and, when it looked like the Republicans were going to force a vote on it in the state senate, the Democrats fled the state so there would not be a quorum.

Hearing the various arguments on both sides, I have come to the following conclusions:
1) This move would help the budget deficit, but the budget isn’t the real reason it is being done. Gov. Walker and the Republicans know that the largest campaign contributors to their political opponents come from labor unions. If you hamstring the power of the unions, then they will not retain as many due-paying members and the union would not be able to donate as much money to Democratic candidates.
2) The current benefits for state employees are really good. My friend, who is a graduate student employee at the University of Wisconsin, has the best health insurance plan I have ever seen. This is for a part-time employee who makes around $15,000 per year. It would actually save the government a fair amount of money if state employees had to pay more normal monthly premiums for health insurance. (I’ve heard that the pension plan is also really good, but do not know enough to speak to it.)

Basically, what you seem to have here is what often happens when labor disputes go political. Both sides take extreme positions and refuse to budge. I would think it would make more sense to legislatively cap the insurance and pension benefits for state employees but still allow collective bargaining on the issue. Neither side would be fully happy, but that might be the essence of a good political compromise. But, of course, that would involve the two sides talking to each other, not one side ramming through legislation and the other side fleeing the state to try to stop them.