… rather than have to repent and take the words back later?  In my post below regarding progressive evangelicals, I overstated my case.  My point was that, in my opinion, what is garnering such praise for them in the media is that many of these evangelicals are now starting to unhitch their wagon from the G.O.P. and they’re making a point of being seen doing so.  Fine.  That’s all good and well.  But don’t tell me that shopping our social justice concerns around with the Democrats is suddenly going to bring either party to repentance, culturally or politically.  We are, unfortunately, beyond that in the United States, at least in my admittedly cynical estimation.  Thus, I would stand by that aspect of what I wrote below.

Where I went a bit too far was in my characterization of certain individuals.  This week I went back and listened to the podcasts of Jim Wallis and Rick and Kay Warren being interviewed on NPR’s Speaking of Faith by Krista Tippett under the label of the “New Evangelicals.”  For anyone who’s acquainted with Sojourners and Jim Wallis, it’s not entirely clear what’s “new” about them, but whatever.  What’s new is that these individuals are now far more visible in the public square than they were previously.  They’ve been there quite some time, but now the big eye of the media has noticed them.

I’ve read Jim Wallis’ book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, and I’ve read the Sojourners newsletters, so I have a passing acquaintance with their agenda.  Personally, I find their style annoying, but hey, de gustibus non disputandum.  Wallis has been fairly visible over the past couple of years chasing after the Democratic presidential candidates, so my comments below were more or less directed at that mode of advocacy, especially from a guy hawking a book on why God isn’t a Republican or a Democrat.  If that’s the case, why isn’t there a nice photo of him standing next to George Bush, Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul on the SoF website instead of one of him with John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

Where I overstepped my bounds was in dragging the Warrens into the same characterization.  When I listened to them on SoF, it became clear to me that while they may or may not press the same buttons I would push in the voting booth–who knows because they are not in the business of advocating for political parties–their overarching philosophy of how one approaches these matters is essentially indistinguishable from mine.  Oops.  Mea culpa maxima, and I apologize for running off without getting my stuff straight.

I make no bones about the fact that I am politically conservative, bordering on libertarian.  In my opinion, government is not the solution to anything that does not require a weapon.  I say that, not to advocate violence, but because of the Stephen L. Carter observation I’ve shared here before that law is violence.  The purpose of government is to restrain evil, and because there’s such a broad definition of what constitutes evil in our culture, there’s a broad disagreement over what are the bounds of what the government should do to restrain it.

However, a friend and work colleague recently helped me crystallize my thinking about this.  The government’s job is to minister justice; the church is in the world to minister grace and mercy.  I say this, not in the Roman Catholic “repository of grace” sense of the institution, but in terms of the calling of the Body of Christ, as individual  members and collectively, to love the Lord with all one’s heart, soul, mind and strength and to love the neighbor as oneself.

The government, as the locus of human power in its post-lapsarian state, has been more than happy to snatch at and exploit the opportunity to step into the Church’s bailiwick and try to wear both hats.  The Church, in its own demonstration of human weakness and folly, has been more than happy to yield the field in the interest of whoring after cultural influence and prestige.  This is the heart of the modernist-fundamentalist split that was born of the 19th century social gospel to which people really refer when they speak of Protestant “liberals.”

The fundamentalist objections were, unfortunately because they were right, ignored because they chose to defend their turf by 1) spiritualizing the gospel, i.e., making it a matter of personal redemption and salvation divorced at some level from the works that flow from redeemed faith and 2) hitching their theological roots to an Enlightenment philosophical framework that, good, bad or indifferent, ceased to be relevant to a culture that had already drunk the pomo Kool-Aid.  Talk about objective truth all you want, but if no one’s listening, you’re no better off that Paul in the Areopagus.

All of this to say, Republican or Democrat, if you think the answer to bringing in the Kingdom is to hitch your star to a political party, you will be sorely disappointed.  Rest assured that your new friends in the media will drop you like a hot rock as soon as you become yesterday’s news.

And to Rick and Kay Warren, sorry for speaking out of turn.  If any of you would like to look into this further, check out the Wallis interview here and the Warren interview here.  Here’s a chunk of the Warren interview that made me rethink him:

Mr. Warren: The Catholics never separated outreach and spiritual depth from social action. They never went through that split. But Protestants did. And the typically more liberal churches, theologically, said we’re going to care about social issues, social justice, racial justice, poverty, disease, economic issues. In fact, there were a number of theologians at the beginning of the 20th century who basically said, ‘We don’t need the atonement of Jesus Christ anymore. We don’t need personal salvation. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society, and the world will be a better place.’ Well, in reaction to that, of course, Evangelicals said, ‘We’re just going to care about personal morality…’
Ms. Tippett: Right, right.
Mr. Warren: ‘…and family morality,’ which is right. They’re both right. They are both right.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Mr. Warren: And so there are people like Kay and myself and a whole host of other younger Evangelical leaders who would say this is not an either or. It’s not a black or white. It’s a both and. Jesus cares about economic issues and racial equality and justice issues and things like that, and He cares about personal morality and family. And so what we’re doing is expanding the agenda. And as I’ve said publicly many times, for a long — for a few years now, we’ve been known for what we’re against more than what we’re for.
Ms. Tippett: You mean, we Evangelical Christians?
Mr. Warren: Yeah. And I intend to change that.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Mr. Warren: I’m tired of that. I’m for the poor. I’m for the sick. I’m for the things Jesus cared about.

 

Mr. Warren: What we found, though, is that the voice of reason gets attacked from the extremes on every side. And so we don’t — you know, if we were simply very conservative, we would only have one set of critics: liberals.
Ms. Tippett: Right.
Mr. Warren: If, on the other hand, we were liberal in our moral views, we would only have one set of critics, you know: very fundamental or conservative people. But the fact is when you try to stake out a middle road, which we believe is what Jesus did, Jesus had values, had rules, had commandments that He said, ‘This is the way to do it.’ But he also said, ‘I want to see mercy.’ And He also protected the dignity of people, and always defended their dignity…
Ms. Warren: Of all people.
Mr. Warren: …and actually, He was called the friend of sinners. I consider that to be a good reputation. So there…
Ms. Warren: I’d love to have that on my tombstone.
Mr. Warren: I would too.
Ms. Warren: Kay Warren, friend of sinners.

 

Ms. Tippett: You know, Rick, you are known as a friend to a lot of very powerful people now. Rupert Murdoch, who also is your publisher. He said that you’re his pastor. George W. Bush…
Mr. Warren: Well, a lot of people have said that who don’t even go to church.
Ms. Tippett: Oh, your — and Time magazine has said you’re America’s pastor.
Mr. Warren: Yeah.
Ms. Tippett: I want to ask you what spiritual temptations or compromises come with that new role that you have of being influential now?
Mr. Warren: Well, whenever people ask me, ‘What can I pray for you?’ I always tell them, pray three things. Pray for integrity, pray for humility and pray for generosity, because they are the opposite of the three temptations that affect not just every person, but particularly affect every leader. These are the three temptations that were in the Garden of Eden. They are the three temptations that Jesus handled. They are the three temptations Moses handled. The Bible calls them the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. The lust of the flesh is the temptation to feel. I deserve to feel good. And it’s more than sex. It could be food, it could be drugs. It’s anything I deserve to feel good. I’m going to use my power to make me feel good. Like, when they said, ‘Jesus, why don’t You turn these stones to bread?’ Use your ability, your talent to serve yourself. That’s the temptation to feel.
Then the lust of the eyes is the temptation to have. I see it and I want it. And that, that’s — it’s greed. And then the pride of life is the temptation to be. I want people to worship me. I want people to envy me. And this is passion, possession, and position. Well, the antidote to those three are humility, generosity, and integrity. And if you build your life on those three, then you’re not going to fall for the common things that cause people to stumble. I actually have a file that I’ve kept now for over 30 years of ministry, and every time a Christian leader stumbles in the area of money or sex or pride and there’s an article in them, I cut it out and I throw it in that file. And about every few months, I will go back and I read through that file just to put the fear of God in me.

 

Ms. Tippett: But you don’t accomplish great things, you don’t write the best-selling — one of the best-selling books in history without an ego, without ambition. You know, you have a personal power as well. I don’t know. What’s the kind of nuance struggle…
Mr. Warren: Well, the — when the book became such a big success and I start getting calls to speak at United Nations…
Ms. Tippett: Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Warren: …Congress, whatever…
Ms. Tippett: I see a Pentagon over there.
Mr. Warren: Yeah. Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and things like that. Well, all of a sudden, I began to say, ‘What am I supposed to do with the money, and what am I supposed to do with the fame?’ And based on two passages of scripture. First, Corinthians 9. We made some decisions on what to do with the money. Basically, it was to give it all away. I don’t take the salary from Saddleback. In fact, I added up all the church that paid me in 25 years and we gave it all back. That was actually the easy part. The hard part was what do I do with this notoriety? What do I do with these phone calls when, literally, world leaders are calling and…
Ms. Tippett: Right.
Mr. Warren: …on a regular basis? And I found a passage of scripture called Psalm 72. And Psalm 72 is Solomon’s prayer for more influence. Now, when he wrote this Psalm, he was the wisest man in the world, the wealthiest man in the world and the leader of Israel at its apex of power. And that in this Psalm, he says, ‘God, I want you to make me famous.’ It sounds completely self-centered. ‘I want you to bless me. I want you to spread the fame of my name to many countries. I want you to give me power, and bless me.’ Until you read the motivation behind it, and he says, ‘So that the king may support the widow and orphan, care for the defenseless, speak up for the oppressed, defend the immigrant, the foreigner, those in prison, assist the poor, and care for the sick.’ And basically, he mentions all the marginalized of society today. Today he’d talk about the elderly, the mentally handicapped…
Ms. Tippett: Right.
Mr. Warren: …those on the fringe. And to me, out of that passage it said, ‘The purpose of influence is to speak up for those who have no influence.’ Most people don’t have the spiritual maturity to handle power. They think it’s for their benefit. It is not. The purpose is to benefit others.
Ms. Tippett: But when you are being a friend or spiritual advisor to a Rupert Murdoch, to a George W. Bush, to several of the candidates who are running for president now, are you able to be an uncomfortable presence to them to challenge them the way you challenge your congregation?
Mr. Warren: I don’t have any problem speaking the truth to power. I’ve actually sat with presidents in Africa. And when we’re getting ready to come in and start the P.E.A.C.E. Plan and my first question is, ‘Are you going to rip me off?’ And they say, ‘What do you mean?’ I said, ‘Well, if you’re corrupt, you need to tell me, because you really don’t want me in your country, because I bring a lot of exposure. And if you are corrupt, I will expose it. And so it would be better for you if you’re going to just take the money and put in a Swiss bank account. You don’t want me in your country.’
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Mr. Warren: So I don’t have a problem. I can’t give you details. But I want to tell you, I have said some things that Kay said, ‘You said what…’
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Mr. Warren: ‘…to that world leader?’
Ms. Tippett: Yeah.
Mr. Warren: And I said, ‘Well, since I have you on the phone, I’d like to just tell you this.’ But my — I never ever talk about policy. That is not my role.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Mr. Warren: I am not a politician, and I am not a policy advisor. I’m a pastor. And so I’m going to deal with your character, your integrity, your family, your stress level, your honesty. I do not pretend that I am a consultant to power.
Ms. Tippett: OK.
Mr. Warren: I am a pastor to these people, only at their invitation.