:: in.a.mirror.dimly :: A theology and culture blog with the Bible in one tab and a news feed in the other.

Would you believe me if I told you Christianity aims to make God as easy to access as possible?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, and I believe Christianity works out to be something like this. Christianity makes it incredibly easy to come to God, but once you’ve come to God, you have a lot of hard work to do. Grace is available in abundance, but obedience must follow grace.

I don’t know how exactly to compare Christianity with other religions, but for all the frustration people have with Christians who say their faith is the only way to God, I think this makes a decent case for such a “narrow” view. In other words, God wants to make himself as accessible as possible, so Jesus is sent down to earth. Jesus not only simplifies every command into one: “love,” he also dies and rises from the dead to clear a path to God so that we only need to accept the forgiveness he won by believing it is so. He even leaves the Holy Spirit to help us obey and to guarantee we’ll one day be in heaven.

No pilgrimages necessary.

No special prayers needed.

Meditating is good, but it’s more of a bonus.

Attending religious services will help, but they don’t replace meeting God.

In other words, all of the things we associate with religion are well and good, but Christianity offers a religion where God is reaching out, visiting us, and even dwelling among us. How much easier can God make it? If we start adding other religions to the mix it suddenly becomes more complicated, missing out on the simplicity God has in mind. Believe and love: these two verbs sum up so much of scripture. Why add anything else and muddy the waters?

While we can find many helpful practices along the way to help us believe and love, there is no substitute or mixing of anything else at rock bottom. God has made it simple for us to come and believe, even if we are asked to love one another, even our enemies, not to mention loving God above all else.

After taking a few weeks off from blogging due to our vacation at Lake George and some other summer projects, I’d like to begin my return by announcing the good news that my book Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life received a nice little review at Publisher’s Weekly. I count myself fortunate enough to have even been reviewed in the first place, but it’s a double blessing for the review to be not only an accurate summary of the book, but a generally positive evaluation of my work.

When you’ve invested lots of time on a project like this, on and off no doubt, for the past four years, it’s a wonderful relief to read this review. I’m particularly thankful that the reviewer caught on to my vision for greater Christian unity. Here’s the full review from the Publishers Weekly site:

Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life
Ed Cyzewski. NavPress, $14.99 paper (240p) ISBN 9781600062773
Freelance theologian Cyzewski enters into the Emergent conversation from the conservative end of the evangelical spectrum. He urges readers to explore theology while reassuring them that they don’t have to become postmodern philosophers: theology can be considered, as it were, in the coffeehouse. Arguing that “[o]ur local settings and cultural values—in other words, our context—influence how we read God’s Word,” Cyzewski approaches “contextual theology” by weaving together discussions of mission, culture, God, Scripture, tradition and the global church. Personal anecdotes of his own growth in faith are disarming in their honesty. While this accessible work is a useful introduction to aspects of Emergent theology, Cyzewski’s summary of modernism and postmodernism is sometimes too sketchy to be useful; however, each chapter includes valuable suggestions for further reading. Gently nudging his fellow Christians to listen to diverse points of view, Cyzewski doesn’t explain why he is committed to engaging in dialogue with some aspects of culture and not others (say, progressive theologians and secularists). This addition to books about emerging and missional forms of Christianity ends on a hopeful note for unity across denominations. (Sept.)

If that has you interested, the book and it’s study guides are available for pre-order with most book dealers such as Amazon.com.

NPR interviewed Evangelical pastor Rick Warren about his upcoming event with both John McCain and Barack Obama. Warren was a bit vague about what he hoped to accomplish with this event, but I liked the way he answered this question:

NPR: Do you see any sort of split or division between older evangelical voters and the younger generation coming up in the issues that are of concern to them?

Warren: I don’t see a split. I see an evolution. I’m spending almost all my time with the next generation of evangelicals. What I’ve seen is that they are broadening the agenda. But they’re not dropping the agenda. That is the biggest myth and wish that some people would like to see happen, but it isn’t happening.

In some quarters there is a reversal in thinking, but I like the way Warren is maintaining a sense of continuity with the Evangelical past, even if he wouldn’t align himself with it today. This is most evident in his statement, “I’m still pro-life, but I don’t call myself pro-life anymore. What I do is call myself “whole-life.” I’m not just in favor of the unborn baby. I’m in favor of her when she’s born. Is she a crack baby? Is she an AIDS baby? Is she a baby living in poverty? Is she going to get an education? It’s not just concern for protection of the unborn but for protection of the born, too.”

What I find most appealing about Warren’s approach is the way he’s trying to move the conversation beyond the price of oil, which is important, but a relatively soft issue for candidates to bat around. He could very easily jump behind McCain, as I’m sure the Evangelical establishment is generally thinking, but instead he’s letting his congregation decide for themselves after they’ve heard out the candidates. He seems to understand that each candidate has strengths and weaknesses and is willing to simply let them make their own arguments.

I think I’ll stop reading the news now while I’m still slightly encouraged…

I was recently asked this question by an acquaintance, and I believe it may in fact be one of the more important questions Evangelicals can answer today. With fundamentalist Islam looming as a supposed threat and fundamentalist Christians sometimes causing offense with their stringent separation from the world, Evangelicals will want to carefully parse out their differences and commonalities in comparison to the fundamentalist branch of Christianity.

Of course we can’t do all of this without a quick sweep through history.

I could start in any number of places, but I’ll pick up the story in England 1700’s. A group called the Pietists from Europe, mainly Germany, had a profound impact in the 1600’s and 1700’s, prompting Christians to seek out God in personal devotion in addition to public worship. As the Bible became available to people, lay preachers became more common, and the people took greater responsibility for their personal walks with the Lord. In this time a group began to coalesce under the banner of the simple Gospel message the Christ died for sins, rose from the dead, and we can be saved by believing he’s the Savior.

Preachers also spread this ecumenical message in America during the 1700’s, and revivals moved through a variety of congregations, though the ones with lay preachers spread rapidly such as the Methodists. Throughout the 1700 and 1800’s the Evangelical movement emerged as a Gospel-centered group, even certain denominations took up the “Evangelical” qualifier to their names (such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church).

In the late 1800’s theological liberalism took a strong hold in many denominations and removed the supernatural elements from the Bible in the wake of the scientific method. There was great anticipation about the progress of humanity under the Bible’s moral guidance and humanity’s reason until World War I broke out. In the 1920’s a group of theologically conservative Christians worked to hold on to five key fundamentals for Christianity such as the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, and the resurrection. This group set a course of withdrawing from the world as it tried to preserve the truths of scripture. Thus, the Fundamentalists of Christianity formed.

After twenty years of cultural retreat in the interest of preserving truth, a number of Christians, especially in the Northeast section of America in towns such as Boston, began to rediscover the importance of an Evangelical consensus on the truth of the Gospel, much like the consensus in the 1700’s and early 1800’s. Though many laid the groundwork, Billy Graham became the face of this neo-Evangelical movement. Graham simply focused on preaching the Gospel message of salvation; however his son has since founded a relief agency known as Samaritan’s Purse.

It is this neo-Evangelical movement that we know today. Over time many of these neo-Evangelicals entered the political fray under the group known as the moral majority in order to support several issues deemed important for the moral health of America. In the past five to ten years this group has begun to unravel with more moderate and liberal elements emerging in the Evangelical camp.

Though some mistake Evangelicals for Fundamentalists, the two groups have very different approaches to contemporary culture and theology. They both believe in the same God and the same basic elements of the Gospel, but one could never drop the words of a Fundamentalist into the mouth of an Evangelical or vise versa without taking great care. One scholar once quipped that you can tell someone’s an Evangelical if he/she likes Billy Graham. In my experience, this statement is generally true.

I used to live next to a nine hole, par three golf course. The golf course was next to a river. Guess where most of my shots ended up.

What I knew about golf I gleaned from my summers working for a house painter and dear friend of mine, Jimmy. Jimmy was hosting a Spanish exchange student named Felix who also worked with us. We’d typically finish around 3:00, wash the brushes until 3:30, and then grab our clubs to putter around in Jimmy’s back yard. Jimmy sort of knew what he was doing, I knew how to putt, and Felix just hit the ball really hard. Felix had a saying that went like this, “Jimmy is stra-tee-gee. I am force.”

Jimmy’s favorite stunt was chipping golf balls off his roof to the hole dug out on the other end of the yard. Felix and I just waited until he came down.

With this kind of expertise as my guide, I’d sometimes drag my clubs over to the nine hole course and play a few holes. I rarely made it through all nine. I typically ran out of balls, patience, or both. Sometimes I managed to drive the ball clear down the tiny fairway, and even manage to plunk the ball in on four shots. This was a rarity at best. Suffice it say, sometimes my methods worked, but more often than not I ended up whacking brush back in the woods or fending off mud and crayfish in the river.

The mud almost ate my sandal once.

While there was no reason why I couldn’t keep playing golf and having a good time, it would be foolish to say that I didn’t need lessons or a training video. A bad golfer is a bad golfer, even if he sometimes lucks out.

While I don’t want to stretch this analogy too far, I think that the ways we share the Gospel are often left unevaluated because we occasionally enjoy success. If it works on some occasions, then we have nothing to evaluate, lest we undermine the well-meaning people who are just “trying to do God’s work.”

This is sticky business, however I think it’s key that we honor good intentions, while turning a critical eye to the way we live out and share the good news that God loves us and wants to know us. For example, we typically think of the Gospel as a message to be shared. Yes, we sometimes quote the line from Saint Francis about preaching the gospel by how we live, but I don’t think Evangelicals on the whole really understand just how radical a living witness to the Gospel can be. When we meet gossip with blessing, dishonor with honor, and harsh words with kind words, we are living out the reality of God’s Kingdom, living beyond the limits of this world. Suddenly these doctrines we profess have profound power over our daily lives.

While I don’t think we necessarily need to develop a “stra-tee-gee” for sharing the good news of God’s love, I think it helps to hold ourselves up to scrutiny from time to time. Are we watering down the message? Are we failing to live out the message? Are we being pushy and offensive? These are normal, healthy questions we should be asking. We can’t guarantee a birdie or an eagle every time we love our enemies or do good to those who persecute us, but in doing such things we are training ourselves to follow in the steps of Jesus. This makes it all the more likely that we’ll one day figure out that balance of living and speaking the Gospel in the right ways and at the right times.

Jim Spiegel of Taylor University has published yet another fantastic book that Christians will find immensely insightful: Gum, Geckos, and God. Using conversations with his children about God as a springboard, he explores the most perplexing questions Christians face such as where did God come from, What is God Like, Why is it hard to be good, and What will we do in heaven?

Jim delves into deep theology one moment, and then swoops back into the world of his children, never leaving the reader behind in the conversation. His writing is clear, entertaining, and always spot on. Over this week and the following week Jim’s book is on a blog tour.

A number of blogs are part of Zondervan’s tour, and today is my stop:

July 21 - Spunky Homeschool
July 22  - Beauty from the Heart
July 23 - At a Hen’s Pace
July 24 - A Holy Experience
July 25 - Family Voice
July 28 - Ted Wins
July 29 - In a Mirror Dimly
July 30 - Oversight of Souls
July 31 - Christians in Context
August 1 - The A-Team Blog
August 4 - Embarking
August 5 - Challies.com

Q & A with Jim Spiegel

As part of the blog tour Jim has fielded questions from bloggers and then shared his responses. I’ll forward any comments on to him today so he can reply. I’ll begin with a passage that I questioned Jim about, and then share his reply. On page 35 he relates his response to an atheist’s question “What would it take for you to stop believing in God?”

“Belief in God is not just about evidence, or at least not in the sense that we usually think about evidence, where, say, data from science, history, or some other source are used to justify a position on an issue. Most of us believe in God because of a personal experience. Yes, the reality of God is confirmed by everything from design in nature and big-bang cosmology to near-death experiences and the commonsense belief in moral values. But what really compels most of us is our sense of God’s presence with us. My personal experience of God has persisted for many years, working itself out in all of life’s details–pleasurable and painful, trivial and momentous” (35).

Based on this passage, I asked Speigel the following question:

Ed Cyzewski: You speak of God as an experience. I’ve hit a similar point myself, as I asked myself the question, “What makes Christianity the only true religion?” The best answer I can think of is that God has revealed himself in my life and in the lives of others. It all begins with that revelation. I wonder if you could expand on that concept of experience in your own faith. Also, there are plenty of Christians who assert that they can prove Christianity is true or can be 100% certain of salvation, but they may not be satisfied with where you land on this. What would you say to them?

Jim Speigel: You really touch on two distinct concerns here–the truth of the Christian worldview and the question of one’s own salvation.  Many people feel certain about the former but struggle with confidence about the latter.  As for evidence for the Christian worldview, I think the preponderance of the evidence is conclusive here regarding two key facts: the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.  These are not the only two doctrines within the Christian worldview, but they form the crux of it.  I’m not sure that Christianity can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (a much higher evidential standard), but this distinction is not as important to me as it is for some folks.  And at the end of the day, my own confidence in the truth of Christianity does come largely from my experience of God, as does my confidence in my own salvation.  This experience, I believe, derives from the Holy Spirit’s inward testimony.  He assures us of both the truth of our beliefs and of God’s saving love toward us, and this assurance transcends apologetic arguments.

I also made a point of asking Jim about his kids:

Ed Cyzewski: What do your kids think about their leading roles in your book? What’s it like for them to see their names in print?

Jim Spiegel: This has been one of the most fun aspects about the publication of Gum, Geckos, and God.  My sons, Bailey and Sam, have been thrilled to hear us read selections to them and to be reminded of the actual conversations and events that were recorded in the book.  And they have been excited to tell some of their friends who are mentioned in the book as well.  But my wife, Amy, and I have been careful to remind our sons that the book is not really about them, so much as it is about God’s truth and building up the faith of those who read the book.  So whatever inclinations our kids might have to think of themselves as celebrities have been thoroughly quashed!

Reviewing the Book

Read the rest of this entry »

As a rule I don’t blog specifics about ministry, work, or volunteer work. Having said that, I’d like to share some general observations I’ve made in the past month about myself.

I’ve been serving off and on in two relatively forgotten areas in our society of late: prison (when I can) and among the elderly/housebound (as a substitute for a regular volunteer). It has been a very interesting process that has pushed me to some new places.

Getting Started

Breaking in to service is the hardest thing. All I could think about at the start is what I’ll be missing, and what I wish I was doing instead. I was also hit with a lot of doubt about my own ability to handle whatever is thrown at me as I pondered all of the unknowns.

The First Time In

Whether serving the elderly or going into the prison, I admit I was nervous during my first visits. I didn’t quite know what to do even if I had been trained. I felt like an outsider, and any time you feel that way, it’s a bit tough to settle down and be yourself.

Acclimatizing

After serving a few times I have found that the routine isn’t all that hard to fit into my schedule. It requires more planning and some sacrifice, but now I have found that life goes on, and I don’t mind taking the time volunteer. As I’ve gotten to know the people I find myself settling in and relaxing, not worrying about sticking out as an outsider.

The Biggest Surprise of All

Serving is a wonderful experience and I have deeply enjoyed getting to know the people. It’s funny how you may see someone and underestimate the life, joy, and insight that is resting underneath the surface, just waiting to come out. It has been pure joy to see personalities and passions come out of people as I spend time with them. It suddenly stopped feeling like a chore, but rather a perfectly normal and wonderful addition to my life.

The New York Times recently published an article highlighting the difficult time that comedians are having with Obama. He doesn’t mangle words, resort to catch phrases, or make silly gestures. He’s the straight man to W’s antics who rarely makes a joke or anything that would feed into a solid joke.

The writer’s for the Daily Show have experimented with the idea that Obama is so wrapped up in the historicity of his campaign that his goal is to have his image engraved on a coin. That’s kind of funny, but it seems that the guys at Jib Jab may have succeeded in at least finding one weak spot for humor, even if his one funny segment in the video pales to the shots taken at McCain and Clinton. I think the flying unicorn and bouncing rabbits are a nice touch. Have a look for yourself…

I have wonderful news for you. I have recently learned that all of our news for the next four months can be easily summarized into a brief series of points that can be easily read and remembered, thereby alleviating the need to read the papers or watch the news in the evening.

The Economy

The economy will continue to be terrible. The White House will deny there’s a problem and Congress will debate endlessly while passing a few symbolic measures that do little to help.

Health Care

If you aren’t receiving health care through a full-time job, don’t hold your breath. You won’t be able to afford a trip to the emergency room if you pass out.

The Election

Obama and McCain will continue to run a tight race. Obama will raise more money and will win a squeaker of an election. Hillary will not get the VP nod.

The War on Terror

Iraqis will continue to gradually take responsibility for their government and security. Some America troops in Iraq will be attacked by insurgents. Afghanistan will continue to plunge into chaos since our strategy didn’t go much further than dropping bombs and electing a government. It will take years to restore the economies and infrastructures of many Afghan villages.

World News

Dictators and other corrupt governments will continue to do cruel things to their people. The UN members will pout while a few resource rich nations such as Russia and China will continue their stalemating measures. Good things will happen all over the world–far more good than evil in fact–but we’ll hear very little about it since tragedies make better news. Driving fear into the hearts of listeners ensures high ratings.

Why I’m Doing This

Of course this is just a silly exercise, but I realized the other day that all of the news is generally the same day in and day out. Dictators, corruption, war, a sagging economy, and a close election: news outlets have to keep these same topics interesting even if they generally know things aren’t going to change all that much. There’s a constant quest for a new angle on these issues and a search to drive a little fear and unease into us so we’ll keep listening.

I heard one commentator say that the 24-hour news cycle demands that we constantly dig up topics for public consumption. It’s as if we need to manufacture stories.

However, I still listen to NPR every day. I still read the news online. I’m not saying we should be ignorant. I’m just trying to point out how very little of our “news” is actually “new.”

One of the most popular verses in the book of Jeremiah is 29:11

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” (NIV)

This is God’s message to the exiles through the prophet Jeremiah. We typically cling to this verse as a promise of good days and smooth sailing, but on reflecting on this verse, there’s a bit more going on.

First of all, this message is coming in the wake of the exile, the single most tragic and destructive event in the history of the Israelites. Simply put, they abandoned God and things swiftly went south (or north actually if you consider Babylon’s relation to Israel). In the midst of God’s people reconciling themselves with God and rededicating themselves, this message of hope comes.

Secondly, while there is a message of hope for a future and an assurance that God has a purpose for them, he has to assure them that he will not harm them. In other words, things may not look like they’re going well, but have faith that things will work out.

So while we have a passage that is often used to bring hope and assurance, we also have a challenge to trust God in the midst of hard times. Just because God has a plan, we are not assured that life will be a simple glide to prosperity. The picture here is one of trusting God in the midst of difficult times, trusting God is working a good end for us, even if we can’t quite understand it.

A few days ago I began an experiment that aimed to look at the reasons an Evangelical may vote for McCain or Obama, I’ll still add the qualifier that I’m merely offering my own justifications and reasoning, which means I don’t speak for all Evangelicals. I’m merely presenting scenarios in which an Evangelical could feasibly vote for either of them. You’re welcome to play along in the comments. I’m having a go at Obama today.

So if I, an Evangelical Christian, was going to vote for Obama…

Health Care

Obama’s plan to provide health care for everyone who needs it is very appealing, even if paying for it makes many nervous. I’ve gone without health care before, and it can be expensive when something happens and you simply need a doctor. While the poorest of the poor at least have a health care option, our nation thrives on cheap labor, but doesn’t necessarily take care of these, the working poor. It smacks of injustice to rely so heavily on cheap labor, but promoting a health care system that doesn’t have any provisions for those unable to find insurance through their work. The poor come up very often in the Bible, and those who neglect them often end up in the dog house.

Economy

Our economy is a bit of a mess at the present time, and I have to ask if part of the problem is lax regulation, allowing greedy investors to make terrible decisions in places such as the housing market and mortgage lenders to drop all semblance or order when approving loans. I think Obama is enough of a pragmatist to seek rules and oversight. However, as a Christian I’m more concerned about the just distribution of wealth among all segments of society. While McCain’s hands off approach may favor the growth of business, Obama has some appealing ways to help those with lower incomes and the middle class who may be struggling with his tax rebates and cuts for their income brackets, while increasing taxes for those in the top income tiers.

Energy
While Obama is no Al Gore, his commitment to the Democratic platform to cut carbon emissions, boost energy efficiency, and seek alternative energy are the kind of dramatic steps we need in order to be good stewards of creation.

Taxes
As stated in the economy section, Obama’s tax plan will ease the burden of those struggling to get by, while not giving any breaks to those in the upper income tier. While no plan is perfect, this may be the more just plan of the two.

Iraq
Obama is in a tough spot with Iraq. He’s not in the briefing room with the generals, receiving detailed reports about the conflict, however, he has opposed this war from the start, which was the proper moral judgment. Blessed are the peacemakers… He recognizes the importance of giving Iraq back to the Iraqis and alleviating their suspicion that we hope to make Iraq a kind of colony or to at least exploit it for oil.

Moral Values
Obama’s major sticking point for Evangelicals is abortion, since he supports this procedure. The only way to move past this issue as an Evangelical is to recognize that other issues may very well relate to preserving human lives and are just as worthy of consideration. In addition, simply banning abortion will not stop many from having the procedure. Avoiding war through diplomacy, combating climate change before scarcity of water and food lead to additional conflicts, and helping the poor through better health care are moral issues in their own right worthy of consideration. We’ll never know how many Iraqi lives have been lost (not to mention the lives lost in Afghanistan), nor how many more could be lost if the Republicans continue to push the war on terror forward. War, the economy, and the climate are all moral issues that affect millions upon millions of lives. While abortion is tragic, there are ways to curb it beyond voting Republican.

Illegal immigration
Many analysts can’t tell Obama and McCain apart on this issue. So I’ll say ditto to what I said for McCain!

Terrorism

As a follower of Jesus who said blessed are the peacemakers, Obama is very appealing because of his commitment to diplomacy. In addition, Obama is very popular in Africa and Indonesia, two important regions where the US will want to stop the spread of Islamic extremism. If peace is our goal, then Obama is the clear choice.

So there you have it: my reasons why an Evangelical may vote for Obama. Whoever Evangelicals vote for, there will be red flags to watch out for: McCain’s bellicose policies and lack of experience in economic matters vs. Obama’s lack of overall experience and support for abortion. For me, it all comes down to the way you do two things:

1. Weigh the importance of issues.

2. Deal with those issues.

Whoever tackles the issues most important to you in a way that you believe to be effective will most likely win your vote. There isn’t one candidate here who is the clear choice for Evangelicals, nor should there necessarily be one.

We’re up in the beautiful college town of Middlebury, VT today and tomorrow. Julie’s in MIddlebury during weekdays in July to take English Lit. graduate courses at their Breadloaf campus. I decided to tag along and then head home tomorrow. So far we had a fantastic swim in Lake Dunmore, a nice walk around town that ended in a sudden downpour that left us soaked, a comforting meal at A Taste of India, and now an evening in the library of Middlebury College.

This place makes the library at Taylor University, my alma mater, look like a road side stand–and Taylor does have a very nice little library! So yeah, this place is huge. With four stories (at least) and all kinds of wide open spaces, you couldn’t ask for a nicer place. We’re in this huge seating area facing the Green Mountains to the east sitting in–are you ready for this?–recliners. Yes, posh, blue recliners with a little desk tacked on to the side that can swing over should you need a writing area. Julie has encountered people actually snoring away on these.

So with a recliner, a view, and free wifi, I’m just about as set as can be. I’ve been very impressed with Middlebury as a town, and the college has thus far been top notch. They’ve done a nice job filling in the downtown area around a dramatic water fall, mixing in craft and gift stores with cafes and restaurants. It makes you realize just how much Manchester, VT caters to tourists and outlet shopping. Ick.

Tomorrow I’ll spend the morning goofing around at the Breadloaf campus up in the mountains while Julie’s in class, and then we are planning to take our kayaks down Otter Creek, which we hear is a rather deep and easy to navigate river. I’ll post tomorrow if we can figure out a way to get back to our cars…

As I begin phase one of my experiment to dig into the reasons an Evangelical may vote for McCain or Obama, I’d like to add the qualifier that I’m merely offering my own justifications and reasoning, which means I don’t speak for all Evangelicals. I’m merely presenting scenarios in which an Evangelical could feasibly vote for either of them. You’re welcome to play along in the comments. I’m especially interested in seeing McCain supporters to pretend they’re voting for Obama and vise versa. I’m trying to be as hypothetical as possible.

So if I, an Evangelical Christian, was going to vote for McCain…

Health Care

It is not possible for our government to provide health care for every single person. McCain is a pragmatist who knows this. A common theme for many of these issues is the need for the government to let nonprofits, including churches, address some of these concerns. We don’t need a bigger government, especially since some of the funds for health care may very well end up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and those who play the system to their advantage.

Economy

McCain’s weak point is the economy, though his advisors have developed simple plans to keep regulators away from business growth and allowing our economy to fix itself. It’s not the job of the government to fix all of the injustices that happen in our world. Christians should be involved in addressing injustices, and hopefully McCain will beef up the Faith-Based Initiatives to help them accomplish this goal.

Energy
The science on global warming has been called into question, though it can’t hurt to gradually regulate some of our greenhouse gas emissions. McCain’s plan to boost nuclear power is basically sound and is the best option in a narrow field of choices. As a good steward of creation we need not give climate change and our energy options too much consideration since all we have are speculative computer simulations.

Taxes
McCain’s commitment to continue middle class tax cuts is appealing, and even if the tax cuts to the wealthy may strike some as unjust, we need to encourage growth, investment, and spending. This is the only way to keep the economy running at a healthy pace.

Iraq
McCain is a strong leader who has a sense of duty, in particular that Iraq is a mess we made from our own mismanagement and incompetence. Instead of a vague plan for withdrawal, McCain is committed to seeing Iraq emerge as a stable democracy. It is immoral to consider withdrawing from Iraq after we destabilized it.

Moral Values
McCain is no angel, but he is committed to supporting the pro life cause. Even if we may not expect too much from him, at least the pro choice movement will not gain ground under his watch. McCain needs Evangelical support, and so we will find him a ready ally in keeping America on a moral course.  

Illegal immigration
McCain is once again a pragmatist on this issue trying to provide a compassionate and fair approach. In my concern to be kind to foreigners, as commanded by scripture, I find McCain’s bi-partisan approach a feasible path forward.

Terrorism

While McCain’s war record is commendable, I take a slightly different angle. I basically agree with Wesley Clark’s main point, even if I would never have said it the same way. McCain was not part of the high command in the military (such as George Washington, US Grant, Eisenhower, etc), and so he really has not been trained to be “commander in chief” per se. However his military experience shows his strength of character and commitment to his country. Also, the fact that he was tortured may be a helpful guide in the decisions he makes in the war on terror.

So there you have my hypothetical scenario: If I voted for John McCain. You’re welcome to play along, listing your reasons for voting for McCain.

Up next, I’ll look at Barack Obama on the same issues.

Based on a USA Today Gallup Poll, the following were selected as the key issues for the presidential campaign:

Who would do a better job on: Issue Obama McCain Health care 51% 26% Economy 48% 32% Energy 47% 28% Taxes 44% 35% Iraq 43% 43% Moral values 40% 39% Illegal immigration 34% 36% Terrorism 33% 52% Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,625 adults June 15-19. Margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points.

If these are the issues we have before us, then how will Evangelicals balance their priorities among these issues? One could argue for a moral angle on each issue, even if there’s a separate “moral values” slot, which I’m guessing covers abortion and other conservative favorites.

In light of the upcoming election, I’d like to play a bit of a game. I’m going to pretend that I’m actually voting for each candidate, and then I will provide reasons for my choice of each. My angle will be one of a political moderate or independent, committed to his Evangelical faith. In other words, I’m going to play swing voter and try to discover what is appealing about each candidate. Since we have so many issues out there, I’m going to focus on the issues in this list.

My readers are welcome to play along, however, the rule is this, you can comment on why an issue doesn’t matter to you or why a candidate’s weakness in one area causes you to look elsewhere, but our goal is to map out scenarios, believable scenarios, in which an Evangelical Christian could feasibly vote for each candidate.

Game on!

The other day I read about Barack Obama’s plan to support programs run by Christian organizations and churches through government grants. The basic plan is to make money available for faith-based organizations who are addressing the essential needs of people. In other words his grants would help fund programs providing food, shelter, medical care, etc., and not religious outreach or overt “proselytizing”.

I really wrestled with this one. On one hand, once you get government money involved you’re going to make people nervous about using the tax payer’s money to fund a religious programs that aim to convert people. In addition, as a Christian it’s hard to say where this line will be exactly. While delivering food to people, I can’t rule out the possibility of sharing the Gospel. I’m delivering food because they need it, not because it’s a “cover” for sharing the Gospel. However, as a follower of Christ I will share his message of hope if it fits.

The more I think about it, however, the more I’m convinced Obama’s program could be a win-win. Grants are based on rigorous applications, and as the economy tightens, I’ve seen small donors for nonprofits drop off, even if large donors are holding steady. This means grant money could very well fill a funding gap that will keep essential human services going.

In one instance, a friend of our family is a director of a Christian operated shelter in Burlington, VT. Though participation in Bible study is encouraged, the shelter does not make this mandatory. Over the past two years the shelter has run in the red, even though town officials have recognized this shelter and it’s programs as highly successful, especially in keeping ex-convicts from re-offending. I wonder if such a shelter is just the kind of place that would benefit from the grants in Obama’s vision.

The church and state matter can be sticky, and I certainly think it’s bad for both parties involved if the government digs too deeply into the church and vise versa. However, funding effective human services, religious or not, through grants strikes me as a practical and, dare I say, promising plan.