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
