Dear Senator Obama,
Grace and peace to you.
I have read your 'Call to Renewal' keynote Address which you gave at the “Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America” conference. I appreciate that you are attempting to build a dialogue between evangelicals and secular people in our society. It would be good if we really could have respectful dialogue instead of the normal political negative “sound bites” that divide, isolate, and polarize. I honor your effort to move us in that direction.
Yet, it seems that the cultural divide is so great between who we are as conservative bible believing evangelicals that you are not aware that in your effort to find some “middle ground” you said things that would be offensive to anyone living in the conservative evangelical culture. I do not think you thought what you said would be offensive but I think you spoke out of a lack of understanding of conservative evangelical people.
The two greatest examples of this was you seem to imply that the Bible cannot be used to guide public policy except in the most abstract and general way since it has within it immoral and impractical ideas. This seems to what you are implying when you state:
“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles.”
I remember a few scenes from the series “West Wing” that seemed to reflect this same point of view almost verbatim. It seems you are saying that the Bible has some great inspirational poetry but we cannot take literally any of its values or teachings as legitimate for the public square or our lives, without inviting irrationality, injustice, and cultural disaster.
You add to this by taking the story of Abram and Isaac and use it to place faith in a realm of the irrational and fanatical that has no reasonable foundation. You seem to accept a post modern division between faith and reason where on is absurd and the other rational. Faith gives meaning and significance but is beyond proof and reasonable understanding.
Just for a historical note the word “lad” found in the passage can be used of any unmarried man so it does not demand that Isaac was a child. It is the same Hebrew word used for the servants that went with Abraham and Isaac. Since he walked three days, was separated from his mother, and carried the wood this would indicate a young adult man. The rabbi’s teach that Isaac was 37 years old at the time of this test of faith
[1]. So in the actual historical event, Isaac was involved as a young adult who also believed in the promises that had been given to his father about him. It is likely that both Sarah and Isaac had shared in the propositional, objective, and historical revelation that made him the only source through whom Messiah could come and therefore making his survival an absolute necessity. Abraham believed that Isaac would be resurrected since if he died and was not revived then God Himself would have to die as a violator of a covenant promise (Hebrews 11:17-19). Such a view of the events of Genesis does not eliminate all the struggles one may have with this story but they take it a long way from an example of extreme religious child abuse.
Your view of Abraham’s faith being an irrational, subjective, and immoral action seems to come from a naïve reading of the text. You place faith and reason at odds with each other and assume that there was no way to verify Abraham’s faith and that it was totally subjective. With this as an understanding of “evangelical faith” then it is understandable that there would be great concern about such “faith” coming and attempting to dominate the public sphere of American life.
With such a view of faith being so opposed to reason, how does “common reason” ruling in the public square differ from having the secular humanist or materialistic world view dominate in politics and policy? Clearly, “faith” as you describe it may provide some personal motivation but has within it the ability to move people to extreme and dangerous actions. It is hard for me to see the role “faith” has in such a perspective except to add some “poetry” to what is already known to be true.
Practically this would seem to place convictions about faith in the realm of the absurd and superstitious which should not be allowed to provide a basis for our common social policy except where such ideas support what seems reasonable. If “faith” supports the idea of helping the poor then since we already know that helping the poor is a good idea then we can use “faith” to motivate people towards an end that they already know from “common reason” or “common sense” they should do. “Faith” can motivate people to do some public good but not educate us on what is in the good of the public.
The impression that many evangelicals could have from your comments is that you have little trust in the Bible or its revelation of God. The skepticism and even atheism of your family can easily be seen in your use of Abraham and Isaac as an example in the way you did. Your own faith seems more an existential experience aimed at finding community, purpose, and a sense of belonging in a cold universe than a commitment to historical Christian orthodoxy or an Evangelical Christian world view. You do not seem to be saying you are an evangelical but only that you desire to understand and dialogue with evangelicals. This is a noble and good thing but this is an important distinction.
One thing I found interesting about your comments was that you felt that those who were supportive of intelligent design being taught in our schools, opposed homosexual marriages, and felt abortion was wrong had no basis for such ideas except either the authority of scripture or the teachings of the Church. My experience has been that evangelicals recognize that the bible or ecclesiastical rulings mean nothing to the outside non-evangelical society. We might use such arguments when talking to the “choir” back home but never in the public square. We recognize that we must give a reason for the propositions we set forth that can be tested and verified by each person and would look for “common ground” to communicate our convictions to groups that do not accept our religious presuppositions or paradigms.
I am sure you have read the classic evangelical work discussing abortion written by the late Dr. Francis Schaffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop entitled Whatever Happened To The Human Race which sets forth a philosophical and rational argument for rejecting abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. One does not have to be a Christian or even a theist to reject legal abortion as a wise course for our nation. There are solid secular arguments against abortion being legal and these arguments need to be listened to without them being rejected because they are “religious”.
The abortion issue is due to one of our most basic beliefs as a nation. Every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are classic American values. The founders saw these rights as “divinely” given but this did not make the issue a matter of religion verses reason.
How does this “right to life” impact abortion? The question which has to be answered is; “When then does life begin?” When is a person a person? At what point should the government defend a person’s right to life? At what point in their development does a person have “the right to life”?
There are different viewpoints on this question regardless of faith.
There are those who believe that a human being has an inalienable right to life from conception,
Others believe it happens at some later point of development in the womb
Others believe that it happens when the child takes their first breath outside the mother.
Then there are those who really believe that there is no inalienable right to life and that it is in the common interest to simply eliminate these undesirables from the human race because of some defect, need to limit population, dysfunctional nature of the home of origin or economic necessity.
While this last view is held by a few, I believe that as a people and a culture, Americans do not want to accept the value that some innocent human beings can be killed because they are handicapped, cause social stress, produce more a strain on our ecosystem, or present us with economic hardships. I do not think the slaughter of the weak and helpless is an American value or ideal.
Gallup indicates that 54% of the American people believe that abortion should only be allowed for rape, incest, and a few other extreme cases with 17% wanting it banned in all cases. That means that 71% of the American people would like restraints on a woman’s “right” to have an abortion and that Roe vs. Wade does not reflect the common values or common reason of the American public. Present abortion law does not reflect a compromise or a win/win solution but the domination of the values of 29% of the population over the other 71%. Does this seem reasonable, balanced, or fair minded?
Therefore, the debate about when life begins based on the most rational and logical discussions would seem to be critical for us as a nation. Our current abortion laws are only just if we know that a fetus is not a human being. Ignorance on such a critical issue could never justify the potential slaughter of over a million human beings a year. Surely, most of us want to be prudent and err on the side of caution if there was any rational possibility that we could be killing hundreds of thousands of human beings. In Roe vs. Wade the Supreme Court said they did not know when a fetus became a human being so at least in theory they opened the door to the potential slaughter of millions of innocents. This should concern any rational and ethical person thinking about abortion.
Now this has nothing to do with religion. This is just logic. Either we are or we are not allowing the killing of innocent human beings. To determine this we must know when a fetus becomes a human being. If this is beyond our ability to know, then we must err on the side of caution to ensure that no innocent child would be killed and denied due process.
Clearly as a society then we must address many other concerns about caring for these citizens and for their mothers. But the right to life, as our founding fathers saw, was foundational to all other rights. If you have never read The Unaborted Socrates by Dr. Peter Kreeft for a philosophical discussion of this issue it should be of interest to you.
You must understand that as evangelicals we have rejected the call of the “Malcolm Xs” among us that called for a violent response to what we see as an on going American Holocaust because we do recognize that people differ in their world views and for the need to persuade people by reason even regarding the most critical ethical issues. We see that we are called to be “peace makers” and to love those opposed to us. We did not accept the idea that we needed to use violence as a means to end what we see as a horrible injustice.
Because of these values, with tears in our eyes we have set up an alternative care for women with crisis pregnancies which provides counseling, medical care, housing, and support without any cost to the mothers in need. Unlike the very lucrative abortion industry that makes at least 1 billion dollars a year in profit providing abortions, we have sacrificed money and given care to women in need and to their children. American Evangelicals donate at least 2 billion dollars a year to fund the 2,200 alternative centers and their services to women facing crisis pregnancies. This does not include the free housing, care, and professional services given to women who choose to give their children life. This demonstrates that we do not just care about the unborn children but their mothers.
We have done this in an effort to find a peaceful solution to what in our eyes is the greatest social sin in America’s history. A solution that we believe Martin Luther King would approve. This shows that we do understand tolerance, pluralism, and the need to work with others in the public square in finding common solutions on difficult issues.
We do believe that Roe vs. Wade was “bad law” as many legal scholars do, and seek to see it reversed, but we also see the need to provide social support for women facing crisis pregnancies and have put our money where our mouths are to demonstrate our resolve to find positive and life giving answers. I am not sure how well you really understand us if you think our opposition to abortion is based on our desire to impose our religion on others. It is based on our belief in the “right to life” and it really is a simple as that.
In reality the only morality one has to have to be opposed to abortion is to not want to have innocent human beings murdered and to believe that babies in the womb of their mothers qualify or could qualify as innocent human beings. This is a long way from attempting to impose religion on others. The fact that many people “of faith” hold to this perspective does not make the “pro-life” viewpoint religious.
The issue of abortion more than any other is what drove the conservative bible believing community into politics. Many of us prior to Roe vs. Wade believed politics was not part of serving God. It was this life and death issue that inspired us into becoming a significant force in American politics. That is why you are motivated to dialogue with us and call on us to join you to work for a better America.
It is the abortion issue that led many of us into an uneasy co-belligerency with the Republican Party. Like most communities we were divided among ourselves concerning liberal, progressive, conservative, and libertarian outlooks. But when it came to issues of life and death this seemed to be a clear and present danger to the most basic of rights.
There are also rational common ground arguments for including the idea of “intelligent design” or theistic philosophy in the education of our children since most philosophers agree that without the idea of God it is hard to establish a basis for ethics. Politics reflects an application of social ethics and therefore as has been argued by Kant that civilized nations needs a universe in which the divine will and duty is present. If the public education of our children reflects or offers only a materialistic world view then we will have to establish a purely materialistic ethic as the basis for our social morality. At a gut level the American people know their children have a need of the idea of God and divine duty, since 76% want a constitution amendment for a silent moment of prayer in our public schools. To develop a totally materialistic basis for ethics, purpose, and significance is an extremely hard thing to do. If a scientist lacks commitment to integrity then who can trust their findings? This in turn destroys the effectiveness of the scientific method on which the advances of our modern society rest.
Failing to establish a purely secular ethic, we will find our children becoming lawless and living lives destructive to the common good. To rely solely on home and organized religion to reinforce this concept when both those institutions are under pressure seems unwise and an abandonment of public duty. Changing the curriculum of our nation to teach healthy and practical skills of human relationships may go farther then anything else to turn the tide in coming generation as the movie “Freedom Writers” demonstrates.
To develop instruction on core American values held in common by most Americans would help to practically develop the socialization that the public schools are suppose to be designed to develop. The other reality is that if our public schools are really dedicated to being schools promoting the philosophy of materialism then all those who reject this philosophy will abandon the public schools even while paying for them with their tax dollars. With 11% of our children now in some form of private education and the public deeply concerned about lack of funding, lack of discipline and overcrowded classrooms the time has come to create a public schools system that reflects the desire and values of the parents in the community and provides a quality education in a safe environment.
There are also arguments to be made for preserving the institution of marriage exclusively for people of opposite genders. One should take note of the social cost in tax dollars of the social experiments released in the 1960’s before opening the door to yet another grand change in the social order that has never been done before. With 1/3 of our children being raised in single parent homes it does not seem to be the time when we need to do more damage to the institution of marriage. Historically, sociologists have felt that the stability of a nation depends on the stability of homes in that society. If that is true, then our nation is at great risk presently. My main point here is that we would argue for the preservation of the historic understanding of marriage with arguments based on common sense and reason, not divine revelation however that might influence us privately.
These social issues with concern about abortion being the most pressing woke up the evangelical sleeping giant and released evangelicals into politics. From 1976 in our first naïve support of President Jimmy Carter to becoming pawns in the Republican political machine for the last three decades we have worked and sacrificed in an effort to strengthen our nation. We have not always done this wisely or well. But we were citizens striving to create what we saw to be the common good.
At this point many of us are worn out and disillusioned. We do not trust either party. Some have said that evangelicals have been the mistresses of the Republican Party in which in private we are told how much we are loved and in public ignored. This is most likely an under statement of the reality. It is clear to many of us that we have been manipulated as a community to win elections and after nearly thirty years of efforts to change our society have little to show for the sacrifices and efforts we have made. Recognizing we have been used and manipulated has left many of us cynical and ready to retreat from involvement in politics all together.
The desire of many of us not only to protect the unborn but to care for children from conception to death can be seen in our dedication to private charity and our hope of having government funds used to help faith based non-profits to get the most effective use of these funds. However, all of this was used by President Bush and the Republicans as only a maneuver to win us over. This has been documented in the book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction by David Kuo. This dream was also just political manipulation and deception.
It is important to remember that many of us want to help those in need we just don’t trust the government to do a good job at helping people or using funds. As a group conservative bible believing evangelicals give to help those in need.
[2] We are a compassionate people. It is the means and not the end that are being debated.
Your recent statement supporting faith based initiatives sounds great but will it lead to the reality that so many of us have hoped to see? Can government and faith based non-profits become allies against the social evils of our society? So many things come down to an issue of mutual trust.
This means that even your call to conversation and dialogue is hard to really believe. While I want to believe that your call to dialogue is a sincere effort to understand us, I must admit that it seems like as a community we are simply being courted to become the mistress of the Democratic Party having been so mistreated by the Republican Party.
Knowing that we can have a significant impact on the election is all of this a way to simply divide or win our votes and then betray us and our concerns after the election? Those who are leaders of the “liberal evangelical left” like Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis and Ron Sider seem to have allied with you in this election to move us who are disillusioned to abandon making our concern for the unborn the key political issue. Is this just all political manipulation only this time coming from the left instead of the right?
But despite my concerns I want to make a reasonable step of trust in taking up your challenge to really be in dialogue and hope to seek together a more sane, stable, and spiritual future for our nation and culture. I do think that we need to carefully, logically, and with respect for everyone around the table of our pluralistic society develop some noble and inspiring American values upon which we can rebuild the character and vision of our Republic. We need to really seek “win/win” solutions instead of politics based on power, control, and domination of opposition.
We really do need a new politic. We need a space of real respectful dialogue and wrestling to find new solutions. Our nation is at a cross roads. We must find a way in the midst of our differences to not demonize each other when we disagree. We must strive to really hear each other and define common values and principles while also seeking to find new creative solutions that do not polarize our society.
Clearly, the idea of a “culture war” will only lead to a nation divided which means we cannot stand as a nation (Matthew 12:25 and Abraham Lincoln). We all must be willing to really hear the arguments that the other person is making and when warranted by the facts be ready to change or adjust our point of view. Only when we can really get beyond rhetoric and sound bites to reality and issues will we have something more inspiring than our current political environment.
If we are to inspire the next generation of young Americans we must believe that our nation is great, not because we have more nuclear weapons, the most efficient military, the most massive wealth, or the highest standard of pleasure on the globe. We must believe that America is great because America is good. We must see ourselves as a nation of nobility, honor, truth, and character. Our nation must be worth dying for and more importantly worth living for. We must be able to admit our mistakes, confess our transgressions, and show humility in our strength. It is vital that young Americans come to believe in the integrity of our leaders and its government. America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
Edward Gibbons writes concerning the fall of Rome "If all the barbarian conquerors had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the empire of the West: and if Rome still survived, she survived the loss of freedom, of virtue, and of honour." The point is simple, if America survives terrorism, the rise of China, the slaughter of her own children, and the threat of ecological disaster; she will not really have survived if the values of freedom, virtue, and honor on which she was founded are abandoned.
It has been said by some that the real reason Rome fell was that the Romans no longer cared if Rome survived or not. We are at a turning point and we need real leadership to take us to a revived vision of our own destiny as a nation. We need honest leaders, asking honest questions, looking for honest answers, who seek to develop a balanced, good, and beautiful culture which can be an example of both grace and justice.
You were challenged and hurt by Allan Keyes question; “Would Jesus vote for Barack Obama?” He asked his question because of your pro-choice and pro-homosexual right viewpoint which he saw as out of accord with the world view of Jesus Christ. We could also wonder if Jesus Christ would vote for those who seem to love war more than peace tolerate a legal system that gives more justice to the rich than to the poor or finds excuses for the torture of prisoners.
Perhaps the frightening reality is that neither party is really representing the agenda of the real Jesus Christ. Perhaps the more significant question is; “Would either party be willing to vote for Jesus Christ and His agenda for our nation?” What would Jesus do if He was president? That is a hard question to answer if we do not create Jesus into our own image and impose on Him our own agenda.
I agree with your friend Tony Campolo when he said "Jesus transcends partisan politics. That's what's wrong with the religious right... they have made Jesus into a Republican, and he's not!" but I would add Jesus is not a Democrat either. Jesus and his world view is greater than either the Republican or Democratic parties.
The hard issue for evangelicals is which of the parties at this time and in this election best reflects the values of Jesus and which can be most trusted to be a party of integrity. Those are hard questions that require clear thinking and much prayer.
I was reading the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy. It reminded me of a dream I had as a young man for our nation. I would invite you to hear his words again.
“The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God…..
Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation," a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”
I urge you to review President Kennedy’s inaugural address. Here was a vision in the right direction. Here was a group of values that could unite all Americans. Here is a future that would again make America great because she would be good.
I am glad that you want to be “fair minded”. I think you need to continue to seek to overcome cultural stereotypes of evangelical Christians. It is hard for all of us to overcome our preconceived notions. But, I thank you for the invitation to come to the table and talk.
May God bless you. Dr. Norman R. Wise
Senior Pastor of First Church West
1. Several commentators have weighed in on this question. Leupold wrote: “He may by this time have arrived at the age of some eighteen to twenty years” (1942, 1:625). Josephus stated: “Now Isaac was twenty-five years old” (1.13.2). Adam Clarke said: “[I]t is more probable that he was now about thirty-three” (1:140, emp. in orig.). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown asserted that Isaac was “then upwards of twenty years of age” (n.d., p. 29). J. Curtis Manor described him as “a youth of sufficient strength and agility to carry a load of firewood up a mountainside” (1994, p. 103). Keil and Delitzsch affirmed that “this son had grown into a young man” (1976, 1:248). Morris added: “[T]he meaning in Isaac’s case should also be ‘young man’ ” (1976, p. 373).
2. When we look at actual private charity, however, we see conservatives do just fine. For example, conservative-headed families in 2000 gave about 30 percent more money per year than liberal-headed families on average, while, earning 6 percent less income see Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.
1 Several commentators have weighed in on this question. Leupold wrote: “He may by this time have arrived at the age of some eighteen to twenty years” (1942, 1:625). Josephus stated: “Now Isaac was twenty-five years old” (1.13.2). Adam Clarke said: “[I]t is more probable that he was now about thirty-three” (1:140, emp. in orig.). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown asserted that Isaac was “then upwards of twenty years of age” (n.d., p. 29). J. Curtis Manor described him as “a youth of sufficient strength and agility to carry a load of firewood up a mountainside” (1994, p. 103). Keil and Delitzsch affirmed that “this son had grown into a young man” (1976, 1:248). Morris added: “[T]he meaning in Isaac’s case should also be ‘young man’ ” (1976, p. 373).
2. When we look at actual private charity, however, we see conservatives do just fine. For example, conservative-headed families in 2000 gave about 30 percent more money per year than liberal-headed families on average, while, earning 6 percent less income see Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism
