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

So begins Relevant Magazine’s feature article, the last interview of Jerry Falwell, which was conducted two weeks before his death in May 2007. And I think that one statement pretty well sums up how most Americans, Christian or not, would describe him.

As anyone who has spent time in evangelicalism’s inner orbit knows, there are really two Jerry Falwells. One, of course, is the fundamentalist most Americans have seen on television, the man who once denounced homosexuality as “a vile and satanic system” and the feminist movement as “a satanic attack on the home.” This is the Jerry Falwell who not only blamed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on a long list of domestic minorities (homosexuals, feminists, pagans, abortionists, etc.), but who also tried to cash in on the public outrage over those remarks by telling his supporters in a letter signed by his son Jonathan—that he was being victimized by “a vicious smear campaign” and asking them to send “a special Vote of Confidence gift … of at least $50 or even $100.”

The other Jerry Falwell, the one I’m seeing today, is more akin to a religious Willy Wonka—a whimsical, mercurial figure who delights in unexpected acts of generosity and trickery. This is the Jerry Falwell who gives away college scholarships to kids who hit baseballs over his fence, who plays lighthearted pranks on uptight fundamentalists and speaks adoringly of his grandchildren. This Jerry Falwell has made some unlikely friends over the years, including Senator Ted Kennedy and Penthouse publisher Larry Flynt, both of whom praise Dr. Falwell as a decent human being while condemning his political views.

I’m not sure why the interview is only now being published, but it’s fascinating nevertheless, particularly in light of the recent rise of technically-progressive megachurches such as Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church and Andy Stanley’s Buckhead Church. Falwell’s dark wood office walls and Diet Peach Snapple habit seem somewhat antiquated by comparison. Yet even two years after his death, it’s amazing how controversial the founder of the Moral Majority still is. This interview, however, shows the human side of him, a side that rarely if ever is portrayed by the secular media.

Too bad we had to wait this long to see it.

Here are a few of the more interesting ones, but it’s worth reading the whole thing.

On the troop surge in Iraq:

“And I can’t remember the moment, but I know full well [National Security Adviser] Steve [Hadley] and I said, ‘We’re going to figure out and get to the bottom of this thing . . .’ And you’ve got to understand: With me, I’m thinking victory the whole time. And I fully understood the consequences of defeat — which are easier to explain, by the way, than the consequences of victory. And so we started to assess, and the different options started bubbling up, I guess, toward the end of the summer [’06] . . .

“The way it should work for a president on a decision this big is to make sure everybody has a chance to express themselves. I guess you could try to hastily make a decision of this magnitude and say, ‘This is the way it is.’ On the other hand, when you’re implementing a decision of this magnitude, where people’s lives would be at stake, it is important to give a lot of different stakeholders a chance to express their opinion. The president says, ‘It’s not working, we must assess, and what is it going to take to win?’

“And there were a lot of opinions during this period of time — a lot. Which is good for the president. You really don’t want homogenized decision-making. And opinions ranged from Get out, to Get out of Baghdad, step back, and hope the violence which will occur as a result of the vacuum doesn’t spill out.” Some people said, “Okay, some troops” — and eventually, “as a result of a lot of interagency working,” there were 30,000 additional troops: the surge. “Why? Because that’s what it would take to win, or to achieve the objective.”

On abortion:

“One of the principles by which I have conducted my presidency is, all life is precious, and a society, a whole society, is one that treats the most vulnerable with respect and care. And I believe the most vulnerable — one of the most vulnerable is the unborn person, unborn child.”

He also felt the need to say, “I fully understand the importance of science.”

On a “culture of life,” he said, “I’ve always said laws change once hearts change. I think there’s [now] a better appreciation of the importance of protecting life; that the debate has somewhat shifted from one of civil rights to one group of people to civil rights to the unborn.”

On popularity with other nations:

“You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them.

“You know, popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation. But principles are enduring.”

On principles:

“I’m comfortable that I have made principled decisions for eight years — that I was unwilling to sacrifice those principles for the sake of short-term approbation, approval, or whatever you want to call it.”

It’s refreshing to hear President Bush speak so freely without the filter of a biased media.

I must say I’ve disagreed with him on a number of things over the course of his presidency, but I’ve always respected him for acting on his principles. One of his greatest strengths (and possibly his weaknesses) is that he always fought for what he believed in, whether it was popular or not. Quite a difference from Bill Clinton, who never had a genuine conviction in his life.

In 1984 the Reagan administration denied family planning funds to any overseas group that offered counseling about abortion, and generally opposed public sex education for teens (which works) and supported abstinence education (which doesn’t).

It was willing, in other words, to make a bad investment in order to advance a principle.

The funding decision affected Planned Parenthood, which is under the umbrella of an overseas organization. They made an intriguing case for being able to spend as they saw fit while taking the money: we won’t spend your money on abortion education. We have other money; we’ll use that.

Abell’s argument is that just as Planned Parenthood should be able to use public funds to offer abortion counseling, financial companies should be able to use public funds to pay for executive bonuses because  “[e]xperts should manage the business. Amateurs with agendas should not.”

Never mind that the taxpayer-funded bailout rescue plan was never intended to pay for bonuses. The idea that the same executives who ran not just their own companies but the entire economy into the ground should be financially rewarded for their performance is ludicrous. At a time when a company like Citigroup is laying off an additional 53,000 employees to cut costs, I don’t think executive officers should be collecting massive bonuses, whether the money to pay for those bonuses is public or not.

Abell insists that companies still need to be able to compete for top talent, even in a bad economy. Fair enough. But how effective is a company if it can’t even pay for its own rank-and-file employees? It’s the chicken-and-egg conundrum: Which comes first, the superstar CEO or the high-performing company? If the CEO is the only employee left in the company, then I guess it doesn’t matter, does it?

As for the abortion counseling argument, Abell may think funding abstinence education is a “bad investment,” but since it’s the taxpayers’ money, the taxpayers should have a say in how it’s used. And I, for one, do not want my money going to pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood.