the tindog coffeehouse

This weekend we watched the Liam Neeson movie Taken. In the movie, Neeson’s estranged daughter (played by Maggie Grace) is kidnapped while vacationing in Paris. Neeson then spends the remainder of the movie tracking her down before she’s lost forever.

Although the movie isn’t necessarily meant to have a Christian message, I couldn’t help but to think about how it is a perfect analogy for our relationship with God. We often talk about the need to seek forgiveness for our sins and come back to God, and that’s true. But we forget that God isn’t just sitting idly by while we wander off. He’s actively pursuing us, just as Neeson’s character pursued his daughter.

In the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14), Jesus said:

If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he will rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that didn’t wander away! In the same way, it is not my heavenly Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish.

This isn’t a picture of a callous supernatural being who sits around waiting for his worshippers to return to him. No, this is a heavenly Father who loves His children and will stop at nothing to get us back. This is a Father who loved us enough to give Himself up on the cross to pay the penalty for our stupid mistakes, a Father who has declared war on our kidnappers, just as Neeson’s character declared war on his daughter’s. Titus 3:5 says that God “saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy.”

The question, then, isn’t whether we’re too lost to be rescued. The only question is whether we want to be rescued at all.

The earth moves and you find me
Alive but unworthy
Broken and empty, but you don’t care
‘Cause you are my rapture, you are my savior
When all my hope is gone, I reach for you
You are my rescue

– Seabird, “Rescue”

(Click to enlarge.)

How’s that for a broad title?

First, a little background. In March, I wrote a blog post in response to a review of the upcoming movie adaptation of Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. In the post I voiced concern over how homosexuality may be portrayed in the movie, worried that (according to the review) the movie was consciously pursuing a pro-homosexual agenda, which I believed was the wrong message to send to both the Christian community and to non-Christians. I made it clear that since I had not seen the movie, I was only responding to the review.

The post generated a few comments, including a response from the movie’s producer, Steve Taylor. And although it wasn’t originally intended to be a political discussion, it more or less evolved into that.

Now the Weekly Standard has published an article attacking Miller for his support of Barack Obama and his apparent disdain for conservatives:

True or not, Miller and other “emergent” church voices do speak for growing numbers of evangelical college students and young adults who are wary of cultural confrontation. Miller is a former Southern Baptist from Houston who now attends a socially conscious church in Seattle. The “emerging church” describes the progeny of the evangelical world who are trying to transcend polemics and speak to post-modernity. Critics claim that Christian “emergents” have surrendered to post-modernity’s moral relativity, just as theological liberals of earlier generations surrendered to modernity’s rejection of the supernatural. …

Miller’s implied comfort with same-sex marriage and seeming apathy about pro-life causes would have upset one-time Religious Right icon Bill Bright, the late founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, the international college ministry that elevated Miller to best-selling author by distributing Blue Like Jazz to thousands of college freshmen. Bright, like other old-line evangelicals, might also have been discomfited with Miller’s casual references to profanity, liquor, sexuality and marijuana in his spiritual odyssey.

Miller then answered back on his blog, refuting some of the article’s statements and clarifying his views on politics:

The article describes the church I attend as “a socially conscious church in Seattle” and then makes the leap of positioning me as part of the emergent church movement—perhaps because I am under the age of forty. I am not a member of the emergent church movement. I attend a conservative church (in Portland, not Seattle) that reaches out to the poor. I doubt most of the people at my church voted the way I voted in the last election, but quite honestly, we don’t talk about it. We are involved in larger things. …

As for my support for President Obama, I travelled around the country during the campaign and publicly disagreed with Obama’s position on abortion. I encouraged conservatives to do more on the issue than speak loudly because I saw the last 40 years as hardly being successful as far as reducing the number of abortions or ending the tragedy taking place in our country. This is hardly a soft stand on the issue. Not many people in the Obama camp were saying such a thing. And yet they accepted me and listened to my position. I found them to be open to dialogue. I still do.

I appreciate Mr. Miller’s clarification, but it brings up a question I touched on in my earlier blog post: Should a Christian who disagrees with abortion or homosexuality based on their faith support a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual political candidate? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Does that make Donald Miller’s support for Obama wrong? Obviously, I would say that it does. But does that mean that Christians should automatically vote Republican or blindly support conservatives? Absolutely not. (Case in point: Mitt Romney.)

As Christians, what we believe and how we live our lives should be based on one thing and one thing only, and that’s the Bible. We shouldn’t bring politics into the church, nor should we use the pulpit to promote a political agenda. However, our faith should determine how we vote. If we really believe that homosexuality is a sin and that abortion is infanticide, then by supporting a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion candidate, we are acting contrary to those beliefs.

Now, there are many Christians out there who would disagree with me on this point, particularly those within the “emerging church” movement referred to in the Weekly Standard article. Trending toward a more postmodern, post-evangelical (and typically left-leaning) approach to Christianity, the emerging church tends to downplay issues such as abortion and homosexuality, choosing instead to promote tolerance and community over Biblical theology or ideology. As a result, relevance and relatability become more important than strict adherence to Scripture.

While I wholeheartedly agree that the Church should be outward-focused and active within the community, the moral ambiguity of the emerging church sends a very dangerous message to the non-Christian world, namely that there are no absolutes, no judgment, and no consequences for wrong choices. And it was precisely this mindset — as displayed in Gabe Lyons’ movie review — that I took issue with back in March.

Nevertheless, while I may disagree with certain aspects of the emerging church movement, the fact remains that we are all still Christians, and our focus first and foremost should remain on glorifying God and furthering His Kingdom. And I believe Donald Miller is doing that through his books. Even if we did vote for different people in November.

Previously:
Concern over movie version of ‘Blue Like Jazz’
The election is meaningless
Faith and the Presidency

It seems like everywhere you turn lately, there’s some new sordid story about the marital breakdown of Jon and Kate Gosselin, the stars of TLC’s reality show Jon & Kate Plus 8.

Like others who watched the show, I always respected them for their faith and their commitment to their family. How much of that has changed over the years I don’t really know since that’s really only a question that they themselves can answer.

But if there’s any good that can come out of the couple’s situation, it’s that the train wreck being played out on television and in the tabloids can provide us as Christians with some extremely important lessons.

First, Christianity Today reminds us that we’re as vulnerable as anyone to falling victim to the seductions of the world:

It was not until the recent allegations of sexual impropriety arose that a significant number of Christians began to question whether Jon and Kate were indeed the examples of faithful living that we had imagined. Somehow most of us missed the long trajectory that was, day by day, moving them farther from a life of Christian virtue. Sexual immorality—whether actual or merely suspected—caught our attention, but the materialism, narcissism, and exploitation of children that preceded it was largely overlooked.

As such, the breakdown of Jon and Kate’s marriage is but a symptom of the larger weaknesses of ethics in the evangelical community. We are easily seduced by wealth and fame. We are easily contented by the shallow rhetoric of hot-button issues. In short, we are easily deceived by cultural values painted in Christian veneers (or clothed in Isaiah 40:31 T-shirts).

Second, blogger Jon Acuff points out the ever-present need for grace:

Did Jon and Kate get what they deserve? I don’t know. I’ve seen other Christians express this opinion but I don’t know Jon and Kate. I know me. And I didn’t get what I deserved. I got grace. I got forgiveness. I got Christ. I got rescued from the ruins of a life that seemed beyond redemption. I got a second chance and a 10th chance and a 300th chance. I didn’t get what I deserved. And when we say that someone, “Got what they deserved,” whether we’re talking about a reality TV couple, our relatives or our neighbors, we lose sight of grace, which is the undercurrent of our entire faith and a gift we do not deserve.

We’re all flawed. Every single one of us. To think otherwise is a flat-out lie. Why should the Gosselins be any different than the rest of us? Or to put it another way, why should I think than I’m any different from them?

President Barack Hussein Obama (because he likes being called by his middle name now) delivered a lengthy speech in Cairo earlier today, in which he essentially apologized to the Muslim world for that whole “war on terror” thing and asked if we could be their BFF. (Emphasis mine.)

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. …

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity. …

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. …

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. …

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror. The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:

What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech. In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)

Now, you may be asking, so what? Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world? After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith. It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration. He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons. He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world. But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.

The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead. They still want to destroy Israel. While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.

The point is that now is not the time for apologies. Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda. Now is not the time to “change course.” If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it. It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.