Election 2008: Some Perspective

Lord, have mercy...I am wading into a political "discussion." It is going to be a long post.

I had an extraordinary experience Saturday night. I want to share with you about that experience and then make some reflections around the larger issues of politics and Christians who engage in this process.

On Saturday, Senator Barack Obama held a rally at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri. Throughout this election season (was there ever a time when we were not in this election season?), I have watched and read nearly everything I can get my hands on regarding what is happening. My children (15, 12, and 7) have been fully engaged as well. Their interest has surprised me. In fact, they have watched every single minute of each of the four presidential/vice-presidential debates with me. When I mentioned that Senator Obama was going to be in town on Saturday they immediately asked if we could go. I wanted to go to, too, and so at 3:55 p.m., Mimi dropped Annie, Blaise, and I off at 31st and Main. What was my motivation? Curiosity. Excitement. And history. It may be that in two weeks the United States elects Senator Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States. If that happens, he will be the first black man so elected (like I am telling anyone anything here). If that happens, I thought it would be amazing for my kids to be able to say that they were there two weeks before such a historic moment.

Then something surprising happened. We had passed through security and were trying to figure out where we could stand and have a chance of seeing anything (Blaise is 4' tall). I asked a black woman standing in front of me where she was going to go and as we were trying to figure it out, a very well-dressed young woman approached us and invited us to follow her. She handed us each a ticket and before we knew what was happening we were wisked through the crowd, through more security, and ultimately up onto the stage. We were being given seats on the risers directly behind where Senator Obama would be speaking from. We were shocked. And awed. As a technophile I immediately began to snap pics and post them to my Facebook page, including status updates regarding what was happening. The whole experience was incredible. My kids were stunned (and cold - the wind was really biting up on the riser). The people we were with couldn't have been nicer or more stunned than we were. When it was over, we sat there trying to figure out what had just happened. It was electric. It took awhile to get out (75,000 other people had the same idea). We tried to take the bus home (the 57 stops a block from our house and runs right next to the Liberty Memorial) but it was packed beyond belief. Instead we walked up Main, past 31st Street, to the Wendy's restaurant (also packed). We called Mimi, ate dinner, and waited for her to come and pick us up. I am so glad we went to this event. It is definitely something that me nor my kids will ever forget.

Now...I am not a political animal. I am a pastor. I do not endorse candidates. I vote for them. Sometimes I am excited. Most times I am not. I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I am a Christian. I am horrified at any equation of the two things (a political party + Christian). I arrive at my decisions regarding who to vote for slowly and carefully. Jesus and his kingdom has my ultimate allegiance. I am always suspicious beyond that. I am also suspicious of people claiming to fully represent Jesus and his kingdom, myself included. Sitting on the riser behind Obama and being led in cheers spelling out Obama's name was not something I was comfortable with. A Jacob's Well member who could see me from the crowd texted me, "I don't see you chanting." He was right. Had someone asked me if I wanted to attend the event and sit on the risers and cheer for Obama I probably would have declined - the same for McCain. I don't feel comfortable in my position as a pastor using my influence in that way. That is as it should be. However, the circumstances and spontaneity of Saturday's events presented me a situation that required immediately responsiveness. I responded and you know what happened. I am glad I was there. Nevertheless I want to clarify where I am coming from this election.

Over the years I have voted for both Republican and Democratic candidates for different offices based on my perception of the needs, the context, the stakes, the candidates, their character, and their policies. There has never been a candidate that I was able to vote for with 100% conviction. I have always had to marginalize something important to me in order to support something else likewise important. Many people will say that there is one issue that does or should trump every other consideration regarding who gets a Christian's vote. I respectfully disagree. I wish it were that simple.

All that said, there has never been a presidential election where I did not vote Republican: Bush (`88), Bush (`02), Dole (`96), Bush (`00), Bush (`04). Today, I grieve over voting for Bush's re-election in 2004. This year I will not be voting Republican. I will vote for Senator Barack Obama for president. That does not mean that I support Obama 100%. Heck, I rarely support my wife 100%. I do not want to go into all that is behind my decision. It may be in the next election I vote for a Republican presidential candidate again. Anyone reading this should not see this an endorsement. It is one vote. It will be cast with fear and trembling, just as every vote I've ever cast for a Republican has been. Even though I was not excited to be on a riser acting like a cheerleader, I am nonetheless excited to vote for Obama. My reasons are many, and I think if anyone watched or read about Colin Powell's appearance on "Meet the Press" yesterday, you can begin to get a sense of some of the things that are also important to me.

Let me be clear on this point, though: I do not think you should vote for Barack Obama because I am voting for Barack Obama. I do not think you should vote for John McCain because someone else has told you that they are voting for John McCain. I am not even sure you should vote at all. If you do vote, I think you should vote your conscience and have moderate expectations for what results. There is a limit to what any president is able to do.

A couple of months ago, Jacob's Well was one of a couple churches that was profiled about evangelicals and how they vote. This election is unique because for the first time, evangelicals, particularly young ones, are not a solid voting block for Republicans. I posted about the experience of having the media among us here. Given that and all the reporting that the media has done on this phenomenon, I am surprised that many people within evangelical Christian circles question whether or not a Christian could vote for Senator Obama as a result of their faith. Let me share an example of what I am talking about.

I was emailed this question by a woman checking out the church's website this morning:

I was checking out the church's web site, looking for a church home. Based on some of the pictures I see, and the blogs I read, it appears that the church supports Obama??? Although I am not a McCain fan, I don't see how any Christian could in good conscious [sic] support Obama. Please let me know.

Even though I am surprised by it, it is a great question and I would like to share with you how I responded to her. For the purposes of this email, I will call her "Beth."

Hi Beth,

Thanks for taking the time to connect.

Many blessings to you as you search for and connect to a church home. This is no mean task.

Our church does not endorse Senator Obama for president. Neither does our church endorse Senator McCain for president. That is not within the scope of our calling as servants and disciples of Jesus Christ. We are not a community of Republicans or Democrats. We are a community of Christians. I am not speaking on behalf of anyone other than myself right now, but I do not believe that either candidate represents the interests of Jesus Christ. Jesus invited his followers to participate in another kingdom, the kingdom of God. It operates in ways different than the kingdoms of this world.

That said, most Christians I know feel compelled to vote. At that point I believe that Christians with strong values and engaged consciences can and do disagree on who they will support. I know devout Christians who believe that their faith is leading them to vote for John McCain. In the same way I know devout Christians who, out of their convictions, are voting for Barack Obama. And I know a third group of people who believe that participating in any way in a corrupt and irredeemable system gives credibility to that system - and so, because of their faith, these people are not voting. Now you might disagree with who someone votes for but I would caution towards humility and charity before assuming that a Christian doing something you disagree with could or could not do it in good conscience. The Apostle Paul said quite a little bit about such humility and charity in the body of Christ regarding disputable views and behaviors (see Romans 14 as one example).

Jacob's Well is a diverse community of people. As far as this election goes I would guess that our church is about half-and-half in terms of who will receive votes. That split is probably reflective of not just the church body, but also the elders and the staff as well. Within these relationships we have lively exchanges about our opinions. Our commitment to Christ and love for one another keeps us unified in our diversity. As far as our website goes, it simply aggregates what individual people within and without our community are doing. I looked at the blog page and of the many blogs aggregated there, I counted three posts regarding politics. The Flickr photo aggregator works in the same way. Given that Senator Obama was in town on Saturday and 75,000 people attended, it was likely that when some members of our community attended the rally and posted the pictures on their Flickr accounts, they would turn up on the photo page of our website. In the same way, if someone attends the John McCain rally in Belton today, takes pictures, and uploads them, then they will likewise appear. We do not screen photos unless they are inappropriate re: sexually explicit material and/or nudity.

Beth, it is my firm belief that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is our hope. Our hope rests in Jesus Christ. I believe that whoever is elected will please some and disappoint many given enough time. Neither McCain nor Obama will save the world. For that we look to God and Christ.

I hope that helps to clarify who we are and how we posture ourselves re: this election. I hope you will take the opportunity to come and be among us.

Many blessings,

Tim Keel

I shared this with another pastor at Jacob's Well and he made the following comment which I think is helpful.

I think what many Christians are starting to realize/discover/struggle with that is implicit (perhaps explicit) in Beth's question is that there is not one expression of Christianity. Theologically, that is not the case and certainly politically it cannot be the case. As evangelicals, we've been given a recent narrative that defines the parameters for us narrowly. From that standpoint, the shock value (of discovering that Christians with deep and thoughtful convictions vote differently than ourselves) is necessary and important. [Parenthetical content added by me for clarification]

Theologian, blogger, and friend Scot McKnight posted a thoughtful commentary on the same topic, but focused on where Christians place their hope. It is a great post and I hope you'll take the time to read, "Where is Our Hope?," as well as the many comments that follow. His post was originally posted on Out of Ur, a blog connected to Christianity Today. Here's the opening paragraph:

Somewhere between 6pm and 8pm, Central Time, on November 4th, 2008, the eschatology of American evangelicals will become clear. If John McCain wins and the evangelical becomes delirious or confident that the Golden Days are about to arrive, that evangelical has an eschatology of politics. Or, alternatively, if Barack Obama wins and the evangelical becomes delirious or confident that the Golden Days are about to arrive, that evangelical too has an eschatology of politics. Or, we could turn each around, if a more Democrat oriented evangelical becomes depressed and hopeless because McCain wins, or if a Republican oriented evangelical becomes depressed or hopeless because Obama wins, those evangelicals are caught in an empire-shaped eschatology of politics. Where is our hope? To be sure, I hope our country solves its international conflicts and I hope we resolve poverty and dissolve our educational problems and racism. But where does my hope turn when I think of war or poverty or education or racism? Does it focus on November 4? Does it gain its energy from thinking that if we get the right candidate elected our problems will be dissolved? If so, I submit that our eschatology has become empire-shaped, Constantinian, and political. And it doesn’t matter to me if it is a right-wing evangelical wringing her fingers in hope that a Republican wins, or a left-wing evangelical wringing her fingers in hope that a Democrat wins. Each has a misguided eschatology.

I am excited. Being in the Apostle Paul's letter to the Philippians this fall has been great for me and for our faith community. Why? Because one of the themes of the book is citizenship and where ours, as followers of Jesus Christ, resides. Paul writes in Philippians 3:20, "For our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ." We will be studying this passage on November 2. I can't wait. But until then I say "Amen," to what Paul has written and pray that those of us who choose to engage in this election and all that surrounds will do so in a way that will be in accord with what Paul wrote earlier in the same book:

Do everything (this includes voting and discussing voting) without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, "children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation." Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. - Philippians 2:14-16a (TNIV) [parenthetical comments mine]

Comments

[maux didde]

Oh Tim. Thank you for sharing this with us. I read "Jesus for President" and enjoyed it, but I think hearing something like this from someone I know is a lot more meaningful and I find myself more open to it as well. So thanks for your thoughts.

[Jeff]

Thanks for sharing, Tim. For those who missed it, here is a link to Colin Powell's comments on "Meet The Press" Sunday, 10/19.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8

[Terri]

Thanks Tim for this post. I can't agree with you more on this and both Obama and McCain have strong points. I am leaning one way and it is because of my values I am leaning that direction but if we hold different values up higher than we might vote a different way. Thanks for your honesty. Like you said our Hope is in Christ and no President.

[Adam]

I am in the third group. Why? Because many, many months ago you mentioned in a sermon there are not "issues" but people. So, when people are 'discussing' taxes, the war in Iraq, national security, the economy, etc what I really want to talk about is the family who needs food. Instead of voting for(and convincing people to vote for) a president who may or may not solve the housing crisis, I'd rather spend that time finding a home for people who don't have homes.

Additionally, it led me to thoughts of what should we really focus on? The thinking behind voting/nationalism is that together we can do more/bigger things; that the 'big issues' are solved by the combined effort to support a thing (president, country, organization). And then I hear the psalmist, "My gaze is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high. I do not occupy myself with things too great and wonderful for me."(Psalms 131) In short, world hunger is not my problem to solve; the family down the street with no food is my problem to solve.

Which has then led me to questions about how to give and how to serve. I've sort of adopted a policy of "help the people I have met". It's not good enough that I just give money to something. If all of me can't be involved perhaps it's not for me to be involved with and instead those resources are available for whom I can fully engage with. It's an interesting approach to tithing.

Our political seems to support the nameless approach to solving problems. There are no people, just issues. Together, by voting, we can solve World Hunger, Terrorism, etc... because we are the true masters of this place (if we all vote the same [wink]).

So there's my medium length discussion on anarchy. :-)

[Chris Pittenger]

Tim,

I so appreciate these comments and your experience. It is so true that many times in the area of politics we have to "marginalize something important to us in order to support something that is likewise as important". As we pursue allegiance to the kingdom of God, we can only choose, in our best efforts, to support that which most closely matches that pursuit-- in politics and everything else.

I do not think you should be surprised by the question of "Beth" if your church supports Obama because you are personally supporting him. You are of significant spiritual influence to the body and as they see you choose, they will no doubt, feel led to choose the same if following you-- no matter which candidate you choose. As lead pastor, you represent the body of Jacob's Well.

Having said that, this blog clearly defines the personal nature of your decision and in no way tries to convince the reader or follower to choose the same. It is just inherent in the power of influence. As society looks to Oprah or Colin Powell, the smaller body will look to you. Do not be surprised by this.

Paul had this struggle in the early church of Corinth as members of the body were saying "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos" or "I am of Cephas" depending on who had baptized them or led them to Christ. Paul exhorted them to be of one mind and boast only in Christ. He had to constantly remind them not to follow the wisdom of men. (paraphrased from 1 Cor.)

I also wholeheartedly agree that neither candidate will redeem us or reconcile us to God and I value that your focus remains on the only one who will truly save us-- Jesus.

[suhr]

Tim,

Thanks for taking the time to delve into this potentially controversial topic. You have, in my opinion, put this election wonderfully into context.

I was reminded by a friend recently of CS Lewis' commentary on patriotism in Mere Christianity, and I think it's an especially powerful sentiment to keep in mind, particularly throughout this next two weeks:

"...so many people cannot be brought to realise that when B is better than C, A may be even better than B. They like thinking in terms of good and bad, not of good, better, and best, or bad, worse and worst. They want to know whether you think patriotism a good thing: if you reply that it is, of course, far better than individual selfishness, but that it is inferior to universal charity and should always give way to universal charity when the two conflict, they think you are being evasive."

Boy, do I identify with these words this year!

[Darren]

I am in a fourth group. I find I cannot vote for either major party candidate, yet I want to exercise my right to vote. Therefore, I am voting third party. I know my guy will lose - but my little voice will be heard.

[Tim]

Hey Everyone,

I appreciate the civil tone of your posts thus far. Thank you also for your thoughtful engagement of the topic. I am blessed. I meant to say at the end of my already too long post that if you choose to comment, to please do so with generosity and charity. And thus far, there has been no need to have said it. So...

Josh - thanks for the C.S. Lewis reference. I had thought of talking about that. I think it is also in his book, "The Four Loves," where he differentiates between love of country and love of God. Good stuff.

Chris - it is great to hear from you. What a surprise. There is no question on the issue of influence. It is a human dynamic and I have seen it play out in many ways both exciting and unfortunate over the many years I have been a "leader." My intent in this post is not to deny influence, but merely to provide context for my participation at the rally on Saturday. Some say, and have said, that I should not share anything regarding my opinions. Again, I respectfully disagree. What they are really saying is that on certain topics I should have nothing to say. As a leader my goal is to produce mature disciples. It is the same thing as a parent. I want to produce mature children. I may influence them, but ultimately children, biological and spiritual, are to become adults who are responsible for themselves. As a teacher I know that I will incur a stricter judgment. Because I believe that, I take the time to explain myself and put my view within a context. I believe that helps people to understand how I come to a point. I do the same thing with my children. Because I will be judged does not mean that I hide my views. Politics is one such topic on which some people think a leader should shy away from expressing himself or herself. But my experience is that leaders always communicate, in subtle or not-so subtle ways, what they think on all topics. Where I deem it to be timely and/or wise, I want to be upfront about what those things are and say so.

In that sense I think of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 when he is talking to that church re: issues related to marriage. He differentiates what is from him and what is from the Lord. So, verse 10 states: "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)." Later, in verse 12 he says: "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)." I think that Paul setting this precedent is significant and entrusts the community to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, their conscience, and to one another on matters that are not explicit or direct from God. I think what is difficult for some is when a leader states a position or decision that they are choosing something that others disagree with. It is often (not always) then that people say that such opinions should be held privately. In such instances I wonder (meaning I truly wonder) if such opinions should be held privately for an interminable amount of time, or if after the fact, it becomes okay to share them? If so, why? How is that different? Anyway, thanks for the comments, Chris. I hope you and your family are well.

Blessings,

Tim

[billy]

It is refreshing to hear someone voice a "third" option. Consciously abdicating my right to vote is something I fell into in 04. I couldn't stomach either candidate and I felt like the whole political system was lacking. I know I cannot effect political change without participating in politics, so it is good to hear someone articulate that that sort of change isn't all that meaningful. Informed non-participation is something I will continue to explore. Add to all this the pointless nature of my one popular vote in an always red state and I think I will sit idly by.

[Chad J.]

Thanks for this Tim. Your decision to share and the way you frame this affords us all a certain dignity and calls us on toward the kind of maturity you reference above. Glad you weren't afraid to "go here."

[ryan]

Tim, I too appreciate the time that you have taken to broach this topic. I'm glad that you feel comfortable sharing your opinion and how those opinions mingle with your perspective as the pastor of Jacob's Well.

I also am in the fourth group, with Darren. Personally, I am also suspicious of any kind of mongering; be it hope or fear.

I can't help but think of what George Washington said about this, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Please do not think I am saying; someone voting for either republican or democrat in a few weeks is irresponsible. But, for me it would be.

It saddens me that topics such as these have become divisive issues among the christian community. Admittedly my wife and I had a discussion regarding this over the weekend. This issue of who is the most "christian" candidate has become a powerful mechanism to divide us. It concerns me that such a temporal issue has become something that often takes precedence over our shared faith.

I am glad that this discussion has been done with such grace and compassion as well as a desire to understand and be understood.

[Nate L.]

Very well-put Tim. Thank you for addressing a very confusing topic for many Christians (including me) in such a politically saturated time. I whole-heartedly agree with your advice to follow your heart and conscience when (and if) you vote. But more so, put faith in God that he will help appoint the best man for the job.

[levi]

Tim, I enjoyed reading this post. If the email you received from "Beth" was a joy to read and reply to, expect many more joys in your life in the next 24 hours. A little pastor like me has received numerous comments in the past 24 hours because of a small post I did entitled, "socialism and the book of Amos". I can't imagine how many views your site will get and how many emails will fill your inbox. Good luck with all of that. I've always enjoyed the sermons I've heard you give in person and the ones I've downloaded over the web. I just wanted to take a second and thank you for the read and for the wonderful things you are doing in KC.

grace and peace

[Tyler]

"Sigh"... refreshingly simple yet deeply true and needed.

[Vanessa]

thank you, tim.

[Kurt]

As a follower of Christ I must vote pro life. It is somewhat sorrowful that I can’t look beyond that issue.

[katie k]

Thanks for this, Tim. Timely & well-reasoned.

[Adam]

Tim, I have to say that when I saw your pictures on Facebook I was hit with devastation. It caused me to be completely depressed when I went to service that week. Then to top it all off, I have been listening to almost everyone in my Impact Group talk of their support for Obama. I have since come to terms with the fact that I must be the lone conservative/libertarian at Jacob's Well. I appreciate your thoughtful post on this subject of politics. I don't completely understand how a Christian can vote pro-choice and would love to hear some perspective from you or anyone reading this.

[Adam(the other one)]

Adam,

The obvious question is, "So it's ok if we wage war on all other countries as long as abortion is illegal?"

It's not a fair question but it brings out the point, if abortion is the only thing you are voting on then you're leaving out a LOT of VERY important considerations. You're assuming that christians are deciding to be 'pro-choice' when perhaps they're choosing 'anti-war'. These are two different conversations that we've thrown into the same debate because we have a bad political system. Why must democrats be the anti-war people and republicans be the anti-abortion people and never shall the two meet?

Secondly, the answer to abortion is not a legal answer. It saddens me that so many people think that the our government is supposed to stop bad things from happening, or in other words, stop people from sinning. My suggestion for people who truly want to stop abortion; open your home to a single mother. Or offer to pay baby-sitting fees. To vote 'pro-life' but to never personally invest is hypocrisy.

Third, I believe we are put in a place to do our service in that place. Which means, if I live in KC I should serve those in KC and not those in St. Louis. If I'm spending my time trying to make abortion illegal in Arizona but ignore the failing families in KC then I'm doing something wrong. There is a church in the other parts of the world. Certainly God is in those parts as well. We have to trust that those elements will act and not try to act for them. Otherwise, we try to be God for them. (this is oversimplified, I know, but us humans can not run everything)

All this to say, this is not a 'pro-life' vs 'pro-choice' discussion. That's way too narrow.

[Adam]

Adam,
I'm sure that we'll disagree on the reasons that we are in this war (that seems to be going on forever). I can try to explain to you why I support our country and it's decisions but I'm afraid it's going to be the kind of discussion where we will only meet at the same empass we started at. You are wrong to say that I'm assuming that Christians are making a choice between our two discussed subjects here. I have not made any assumptions, nor jumped to any conclusions over the issue of "choice" with Christians. I simply asked for someone's (or Tim's) perspective on the abortion issue as it pertains to voting for a candidate that has a proven record of supporting government paid-for birth control. Now to clarify, the abortion issue that we commonly talk about when it comes to Roe v. Wade is the issue of federal government paying for such abortions. Not the legalization of the act. Don't mistake my question for thinking the government should babysit us citizens and "stop bad things from happening". I am exactly the opposite, I want smaller government, less control for them and more liberty for us! I may morally disagree with abortion but I don't think it's right for any one group to dictate their morals to any other group. That's the beauty of this country's constitution! A guaranteed list of rights that every citizen is given from God. And this is why I can't see voting for Barack Obama. He is quite simply the most Marxist candidate we have ever witnessed in the USA. So when you say that we have a bad political system, I'm going to have to ask you if you think our system of government is bad or is it your distaste for our current president's administration? I can understand not liking Bush. I'm not much of a fan either, but to say that our system is failed then I need to understand what system in this world is better? Please enlighten me.

[Adam(the other one)]

Adam,

I don't think Tim's blog is the best place for the full discussion this needs but here's a short.

You've mentioned feeling devastated because Tim and others are voting for Obama and have implied that they are "voting for" pro-choice or abortion. I'm pretty sure that these people are voting for Obama for very different reasons than that. I say our political system is bad because it sets this polarity up. Democrats are for this and not that. Republicans are for that and not this. And there is no middle ground. (An example of a good system would be when a Republican President would nominate a Democratic VP.)

And to end, I support neither candidate. I do not see how I can pledge an allegiance to both a country and my God. Regardless of who is elected my hope is with someone else, so the outcome of the election is of little impact. If christ has called us to a sacrificial love for our friends and our enemies where does protecting my liberty fit in?

Again, there's a lot I'm leaving out because this is a comment on a blog.

[Adam]

Adam,
The point of my post was to ask a question. I asked that question and you did not attempt to answer it. You instead accused me of assumptions and ignorance. I didn't ask for a debate with you over our political system. I just anwered your allegations with honest feeling. If you can't help me try to understand this point of view that Tim and others must have, then please try and do the Christian thing and not try to hurt me. Trying to show your superiority over me is destructive to the vary nature of "creating spaces" for Christians to converse their beliefs.

[Adam(the other one)]

I'm going stick with 'Tim's blog is not the place to discuss this' and suggest you've misread what I've said.

I gave my opinions on the abortion issue and stated that Christians who vote for Obama are not primarily voting pro-choice; there are other reasons for their choice. Very similar to saying that you are not voting pro-war just because you are voting for (I'm assuming) McCain.

[Tim]

Hey first & second Adam - thanks for your posts. I am appreciative of your engagement with one another. I am going to share a response, however it may take me a day or two to do it in a way that I will be comfortable with. I usually do my online work at the beginning of the week. Starting on Wednesday of this week, however, we hosted a conference at Jacob's Well and I have been unable to do much else as a result. There are a few other things I must attend to first. In the meantime I would love you to remember in the midst of differences the Apostles Paul reminds us, "Let the peace of Christ rule (govern, reign - political language) in your hearts, since as members of one body (not nation) you were called to peace" (Col. 3:15a).

[John]

Tim Keel,

Stunned and disappointed with this entry. You don't list your specific reasons for throwing in with Barack, but I never would have guessed the guy I knew 20 years ago could reach not only a slick and sophisticated post-modernism, but also a post-logical and post-moral point of view.

Long after the term of the next blowhard president, Supreme Court appointees will still be smirking off decisions…and Federal Judges will still be usurping legislative processes across the country. How beautifully emergent!

Our laws are a reflection of our values. What ARE yours?

I'm in no way a lover of the republican candidate, but how can you excuse the calloused disregard with which Obama famously responds on matters of abortion and infanticide.

From the washingtonpost.com….But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

I am aware that Obama’s campaign has twisted the logic to get YOU (apparently) to believe that we can reduce abortions by reducing poverty. I would excuse you of this naïveté if you were a teenager, but you should be better acquainted with reality by now.

I won’t bore you with a “clichéd” description of a baby being torn up or child purposely neglected after surviving an abortion. You can see all the latest ways to kill a baby here if you have the courage…http://www.abortionfacts.com/techniques/techniques.asp

If a "good-willed" church has committed to turn a blind eye to this wickedness then in this election you will have to do more than marginalize an issue, you will have to marginalize your soul. Tim, as a leader of a church, you should be quite aware that you are influencing your constituency, whom I have some affiliations with and have found them to be either confused or caught up in the glee of Hope and Change. And now you’ve blogged, “tipped your hat”, out-side of your tax exempted status with a few merry paragraphs about a campaign rally.

The murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. An abortion is the routine house cleaning on the corner block.

Without Regret or Apology,

John McKenna

[Marlies]

Tim,

Thank you for you thoughts. I feel as "po-mo" a Christian, we play the middle ground and do a little dance anytime a tough issue comes up. I embrace a thousand shades of gray vs. black and white. You do acknowledge and confront these issues, and you do it eloquently and I find it a breath of fresh air. bravo. It's much easier to find a comforting hole to shoot from, you put yourself out in the open, with your faith as protection

[Nick]

HOLY SMOKES! I was afraid of this.

I feel very fortunate to have someone with a position that is so volatile expressing their political feelings so articulately.

I am doing my best and have tried to stay in line with Christ but I have also been raised by a father with a PhD in economy and a mother who works in real estate so needless to say a lot of these issues get brought up and influence my life as well.

That being said, it is unfortunate that in a time of great worries we can condense our spiritual voting record to one issue. As much as I would love to see abortion rates plummet I feel it is my duty (at this moment in time) as a voter to protect the ones who are alive and suffering. I have come to understand that at the executive level abortion will not be handled well, if at all. The second Bush rode on the shoulders of the evangelical vote and in his eight years did not overturn roe v wade and never had anything done about the other hot button issues that the evangelicals voted on. I would also like to note that McCain was opposed to over turn Roe v. Wade in the beginning but now that he needs these same evangelical votes he is automatically pro-life. These have been divisive issues that have separated churches families and essentially the country. All the while poverty is on the rise and there is a bigger gap between upper and middle class than ever.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/10/widening-gap-between-rich-and.php

War is running rampant through our world and I feel as if we need to not vote our emotions but vote the issues at hand. 2 months out of every four years I feel as if my spirituality is under constant attack. Yet I feel that I am still voting pro-life just in a different arena of life. I support a candidate who wants to remove us from a position of war and fighting. Someone who wants to improve the quality of life for those who have been alienated from their identities as human beings to ants in a middle class factory. I still value life, just differently. I wish it were just simple to say vote this candidate he/she will abolish abortion and war and poverty and unequal pay for women. He will take care of our bad loans, fix the economy, restore our image in the world, bring back jobs to America, and find another source of clean energy.

Lord have mercy,
Nick Weinel

[Tim]

Dear friends,

First let me beg your forgiveness for what promises to be a long post, albeit in the comment section of this particular entry. Second, Adam, thank you for introducing yourself to me at worship yesterday. It was so good to talk to you and to hear some of your story. Interacting with you was a highlight of my day. Finally, thanks to you all for all the interaction and, for the most part, the respectful way which you are treating me and one another around a highly emotive topic. I think that is worth more than we might first imagine.

In this blog, as with the community of Jacob's Well, I have sought to create and be a part of creating a space that is generous, respectful, and hospitable. However that orientation does not mean at the same time that any kind of moral, intellectual, and/or philosophical rigor or robustness is compromised. I believe that as a result of the gospel and the witness of the life, teaching, and death of Jesus Christ, we who call ourselves his followers must model, even more must incarnate, the tension of grace and truth at all times. If we are to engage one another around ideas or beliefs that we do not agree on, we must do so that in a way that demonstrates the faith, hope, and love of people whose trust has been wholly placed in the God who resurrected Jesus from the dead.

In our culture, both in the church and outside it, I am afraid that we lack such spaces, such postures, such an orientation. I do not believe that polemics (from the Greek word "polemos" - meaning "war") have any place in Christian dialogue. As a leader, I have always believed that people will rise or sink to the level that you expect them to. I have always believed that the people of this community (and blog) are thoughtful, mature, responsible, and trust-worthy. Because of that I engage around topics (both in the pulpit and in my blog) that are for mature audiences. In that way my posture as a leader is one of faith, not fear, of belief, not suspicion. I believe we must extend to one another the assumption that each person with whom we interact is doing so in good faith and with the conviction that they are being faithful to a particular understanding/interpretation of the world/reality and what it means to be humans made in God's image in such a place. If we believe that people are being openly deceitful or coy about what they are saying, then that must be confronted and those so accused must be given the opportunity to explain or defend themselves. But, again, making that implication without openly confronting becomes nothing more than rhetorical bullying. And the comment section of a blog is a notoriously easy place to do so.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 that one of the characteristics of love is that it "believes all things." The New Living Translation renders that passage that love "believes the best in the other person." Mimi and I wrote that particular line into our wedding vows and even though it is often hard to realize (especially in the heat of a dispute), it is nevertheless something toward which I strive. I wonder, as we interact (even if our interaction is only reading what others have written), if we do so with hearts that are willing to believe the best in one another? Or if we instead will take our cues from the surrounding culture that models oversimplification, name-calling, distrust, and sarcasm as the modus operandi for discussion? This matters.

Perhaps many of you think me unwise to have taken this on, that by doing so I am inviting divisiveness where it need not be. Certainly my wife and I have had several conversations around this possibility and it may be that you who think so are right. Nevertheless, at this point, I do not think so. Again, I think this matters, and not only because of the issue of abortion as it relates to this election and how that in turn affects how one casts their ballot (which does matter, too, and to which I will eventually get), but because how we respond to such circumstances/opportunities exposes something fundamental about our basic commitments. Let me give an illustration.

In May of this year I traveled with a group of people from Jacob's Well to Rwanda. I heard (and saw the aftermath of) horrific stories from survivors and perpetrators of the genocide there. The astounding thing to discover was how complicit the church was in what happened there. It was not uncommon for Hutu pastors to order their congregations to murder Tutsi Christians and neighbors. Their ethnicity overruled their baptism into the body of Christ. I believe this demonstrates the way in which it is easy for "Christians" to hold to an identity or ideology that outweighs their identification with and identity as a disciple of Jesus Christ. Nick, you mention above that two months out of every four years you feel as if your spirituality is under attack. This is what I am talking about. The test of our unity is not what unites us, but what divides us and how we choose to allow those things to animate our behavior towards one another as a result. I think if we all were to be honest, each of us hold within ourselves two or three ideological commitments that threaten to become idolatrous - that is our loyalty to the particular ideological commitment exceeds that of our loyalty to Jesus and his people...or worse, we conflate our ideology to the level of claiming it is God's ideology. I don't think I need to tell anyone of the danger of such a leap. In a sense, that is the corrective of a post-modern epistemology of humility/suspicion to modernity's one of objectivity and certainty. God knows that there are any number of ideological commitments to which we can subscribe: race/ethnicity, nationalism, gender, sexuality, political party, economic philosophy, etc.

The reason I think this discussion is so important is that it demonstrates to us in some way what we are most committed to. It's not that we shouldn't disagree. That would be ridiculous. How can we not? It is that as followers of a God who reveals himself in Christ as a reconciling God that we, as his people, must be reconciled one to another, even in the midst of (significant) differences. My friend and fellow pastor Doug Pagitt made the comment to me last week that we are called to be reconciled to one another. The scriptures say nothing about reconciling ideologies. It does talk about crucifying them. Paul says quite a little bit about this as the early church was struggling to forge a unified identity as God's new covenant people amidst significant cultural, social, and theological differences. Can we disagree with one another, yet remain in relationship with an attitude of humility, love, indebtedness, and hope? If not then I believe our understanding of the gospel is terribly insufficient - that it is nothing more than a passage to the next world...which for far too many and far too long it has been.

I think that I will make this post a two-parter: the first part being about the nature of how we dialogue and how our differences and how we respond to them become an opportunity for us to discover what is most dear to us and to what lengths we will go to defend those differences. In that sense we are having a "meta-conversation," that is a conversation about how we converse. The second part will be around the specifics around dealing with abortion and the election.

I will end this first part, though, with a quote from Albert Einstein that I think applies in a profound way to this discussion:

"I wouldn't give a nickel for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

I might restate it this way, with all due respect to Dr. Einstein:

"I wouldn't give a nickel for the unity on this side of diversity, but I would give my life for the unity on the other side of diversity."

[Nathan Rose]

Tim,

read your blog for the first time. i was refered to it by a friend. you articulate well and make some good points. i still disagree with you. I believe voting for Obama it is contrary to a Christian worldview (i still love you though).

i know your busy, but if you get a moment please read this somewhat breif article by Robert George. He is a Roman Catholic and a professor at Princeton. He makes some very good points.

you can find the article on google if you type in "Robert George and Obama" it will be the first link that comes up. Or you can click on the link. Please read the article before you vote. Thanks brother. God bless.

[Adam(the other one)]

After your comment Tim, I want to do more with this conversation.

I'm my interactions with Adam here, I've tried to relay that the whole discussion can't be held properly in this format. It's too easy to misinterpret text on a screen.

I wonder if those local to KC and at least observing this discussion would be interested in doing a forum or something. I don't know how to do that properly yet, but I wonder if others have an interest.

[Tim]

Dear friends,

Following that last post, I had to take a bit of a break. Having a conversation like the one we are having is a challenging thing to do and requires focus and discipline - something that I often lack on the Monday following a Sunday in which I preach three times. I hope that in seeking to talk about abortion beyond black and white, I can do justice to you and to what the conversation deserves. I can't but feel/fear that I will fail. Nevertheless...

Let me begin by saying that I am 100% against abortion. I am pro-life. I do not believe that pregnancies should ever be terminated except when the mother's life is demonstrably at risk. I do not know when actually life begins for a fetus, but because of that ignorance I believe that we must err on the side of earlier rather than later: the moment of conception is where I believe we must begin until such time as we are able to otherwise determine it.

Let me also say that I know women who have had abortions and that though I believe to have an abortion violates what I believe to be right, I nevertheless have enormous compassion for these women. I believe that the manner in which we talk about this topic (if it can be called such) needs to recognize that just as there are real fetuses involved in abortion (and that the stakes are very high as a result), there are also real women involved whose lives and stories need to be respected and treated with context, compassion, grace, and forgiveness. And truth. My experience is that most of these women have had a large dose of latter, and little by way of former - particularly in the way it is discussed.

I believe as followers of Jesus Christ, if we are going to be "pro-life," then I believe that we need to be consistently, or holistically, "pro-life." Some people say that they are pro-life womb-to-tomb. In that sense, then, like our Catholic brothers and sisters that means we oppose the death-penalty, particularly because of the often unjust way justice is enforced/prosecuted against the poor. I believe that means we also oppose war, especially when we discover that more often than not many of the "casualties of war" are children who are killed, maimed, or turned into refugees. Why are these children less deserving of advocacy than the unborn? I believe that if we are pro-life we cannot be party to torture, even if our security is at stake. Like I mentioned in yesterday's sermon, the Apostle Paul's transformation from one who combined religious zeal and violence in his pursuit of securing Israel's purity to a man committed to non-violence and suffering violence for the sake of Christ is significant. That Jesus himself was tortured to death alongside thousands of others determined by those in power to be a threat to the security of the "Pax Romana," the Roman peace, should be instructive to his followers, I believe. That doesn't mean I don't support our troops, whatever that means these days. What it means is that I think that the understanding of pro-life should be widened to include not only the life of an unborn child, but also our "enemies," including prisoners domestic, military, and political. And I think it means we should have leaders who are incredibly judicious in the way in which force and our troops are "used."

I have not always believed this way. In fact at one point, from about 1991-1996, I am afraid that I was more of a disciple of Rush Limbaugh than I was a disciple of Jesus Christ. But over the last several years my perspective has changed as I have continued to read and study the Bible and the ways in which the conversation around "life" gets worked out in our culture. I think to be holistic about life, we must also talk about the context in which life exists: the environment. The way in which we live in the world is a moral issue and how our government, on the behalf of the nation, interacts with the environment has an enormous impact on the lives of people around the world. One of the challenging things to discover is how often and consistently environmental degradation impacts the poor. This is an issue where we have a chance to be a voice for the voiceless, just in the same way that those who advocate for the unborn do so.

Do you begin to see where I am going with this? I have no disagreement with anyone who is against abortion. I just think that developing a culture of life is far more than simply opposing abortion. In that sense I am not on the same page as Barack Obama as it relates to the issue of abortion. That means, John, that I am not post-moral or post-logical, as I hope you are beginning to see. Rather I would like to expand the scope about what gets included in the conversation about what "moral" is and who gets to decide. For those whose orientation towards life has generally been focused on the fetus, are you likewise comfortable voting for candidates who support war, torture, and economic and environmental policies that oppress the poor? The Bible speaks quite a bit about such things, particularly the prophets of the Old Testament. I would imagine that in the same way that I am not supportive of Barack Obama's stance on abortion, so you would not be supportive of John McCain's record on some of these other topics. I don't know how it feels to you, but to me, as a follower of Jesus, having to decide which part of a "life platform" I am going to give preference to is evil. For that reason my wife is struggling with whether or not she is going to even vote.

Again, I hope that clarifies some of why I am not post-moral or post-logical, John. I will tell you what I am trying to become, however: post-naive. I hope that for you, who come out strongly pro-life, that to be passionately pro-life means more than simply voting for a Republican once every four years. More, I have to report that I am more than a bit cynical of certain politicians commitment to even a reduced pro-life platform (meaning against abortion). I am not convinced that many in power in the last administration saw evangelical voters as anything more than a solid voting block that they could use by saying the right things without ever having to actually do anything to change abortion's legality or prevalence. Perhaps you remember the way faith communities were excited by Bush's intent to create faith-base initiatives that could be funded by public monies in partnership with government programs. David Kuo, a self-described conservative Christian, was the man Bush appointed to head that initiative. Kuo ultimately resigned, disillusioned and convinced that the administration had no intention of following through on anything they had pledged to do. His 2007 book, "Tempting Faith," tells that story. It also tells of the way Bush and other members of his cabinet would say all the right things to evangelical leaders, and then proceed to mock them when they left. I think as Christians that we need to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Just because Bush and/or McCain, or Obama for that matter, says something that sounds good doesn't mean that we should assume that they mean to do something about it beyond the rhetoric. I am afraid that the rhetoric around abortion is one such issue where talk is easy but action is largely MIA. Here, then, is what my friend Will Samson says on his blog in summary of where he has landed:

"To ask these questions is to realize that there are no good answers in terms of who to support. The struggle of how to resolve these tensions is as close as my own home - my wife, Lisa, still has not committed to a candidate, given her strong opinions about abortion. I could take the path of least resistance, and choose John McCain, a clearly pro-anti-abortion legislation candidate. But, given the immense number of positions that Sen. McCain has been on both sides of, I wonder if his one and only pro-life credential is even something he will maintain. Instead, I am choosing to make a compromise, a choice that pulls more clearly in the direction of life than all my other available choices: I am supporting Barack Obama. I am disappointed that Sen. Obama has not supported legislation that would protect the unborn, particularly in the late term. However, even through the sole lens of abortion, I truly believe that an Obama Presidency will change the culture in which unwanted pregnancies will be met with stronger economic and communal support, making the birth of the child a much more imaginable possibility. On the whole range of other Christian moral issues and social teaching - just war, dignity of the person as made in the image of God, strengthening of the family, caring for the poor and the needy, valuing work and workers, and caring for creation - Obama stands head and shoulders above Sen. McCain. The whole range of life issues about which scripture and the Church have always been concerned will fare better with Sen. Obama as President."

I quote Will here because I think he does a nice job summarizing the very many different aspects of this conversation. I would also love for you to read his entire entry. Will and his family have been more than just a little involved in the pro-life battle, having at one point traveled around the country to work on the campaigns of candidates running on pro-life platforms. What he says is not a position to which he easily arrived. Read his short story here:

http://willzhead.typepad.com/willzhead/2008/09/pro-life-and-pr.html

Also, here is a catholic theologian describing his pro-life, pro-Obama decision:

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058

Finally, you may know the name Francis Schaeffer, a theologian of some repute. Francis Shaeffer's son, Frank, claims that he, his father, and Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, were among the first to politicize evangelicals around the issue of abortion. Read his reflections about the issue of life and an Obama presidency here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-pro_b_85636.html

Now, again, I do not post these things to try and persuade anyone to vote like me, though many of you will scoff at that. Rather, I have been directly asked how to reconcile a vote for Obama with a pro-life orientation. This is what I have tried to unpack. I understand why many, many Christians will vote for John McCain and I am sympathetic. I would hope that those who question whether a vote for Obama could likewise be defensible on this issue would likewise extend the same level of respect. That may not be possible. That is why I posted a comment on the nature and context of the conversation before posting on the content of the conversation. This is a humble, and trembling, attempt to convey some convictions around a highly volatile reality. It may be that I will need to say more, but for now, I can't see straight.

Without sounding cliched, I ask that God have mercy.

[rick bennett]

I tried to post this earlier. Not sure what happened. In 2004, in a post about what Emergent Leaders did in the voting booth that year, I said this about you...

"Tim Keel-Stood in the voting booth for an exceptinally long time and closed his eyes before voting for W, no F, no W (Tim should take this as a compliment)"

http://djword.blogspot.com/2004/11/emergent-election-gossip.html

I had a hunch that you had voted for W, even though we did not know each other well. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Welcome to the dark side.

[John McKenna]

Jill Stanek's Story

My name is Jill Stanek. In 1999, I discovered that Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where I worked as a labor and delivery nurse, was leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room.

I personally held one of these infants 45 minutes until he gasped his last breath.

When I explained my experience to hospital administrators, they refused to stop their horrific treatment of these infants.

After going public, my story immediately grabbed the attention of legislators and media, which resulted in the introduction of the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Christ Hospital fired me in August 2001 for reasons related to my public statements.

I testified before Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and Health and Human Services Committee as well as the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

On August 5, 2002, I joined President George W. Bush for his signing of the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/jillstory.aspx

Posted by John McKenna

[Allison McKenna]

Following are Obama's actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.

2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90

Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35

Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002

Listen to audio from Obama's 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a "burden" to a mother's "original decision" to assess and treat them.

Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a "neutrality clause" added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.

2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means "Do Pass Amendment #1.)

Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, "Do Pass as Amended.)

Additional corroboration of Obama's vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.

But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

[Tim]

Dear John and Allison,

I have struggled as to whether or not I ought to delete your comments, not because of their content but because they are not your comments - they are simply you using this space (which is not your own) to posture and be polemical.

I have decided, in this instance, not to do so because I believe your comments are instructive about the difficulty we have in actually dialoguing with another and why this is so important. I gather by what you have demonstrated thus far that this is not something you value. That is your prerogative. But in this space, the prerogative is mine to determine and towards that end dialogue, not monologue or diatribe, is the currency that is valued. Simply put, that means respect and engagement with and toward actual people is the rule, not the exception. If you would like to start a blog and post your thoughts, or articles, I would be happy to link to it. In the same way if you (or anyone else) wants to come into this space and engage me and one another over ideas, actually interact in a mutually trusting and respectful way, then I am happy to do that, too. Especially with those who think differently than I do.

Like I have tried to say now, in many different ways, we have a way of engaging one another in this space that seeks to honor one another, even amongst differences. We take one another seriously and try to treat one another in a God-honoring way. I refuse to think of anyone here as an "enemy," but even if I did I would be obliged as a disciple of Jesus Christ to love them. I am beginning to believe that in the way you are responding to me, or not responding to "me," as the case may be, that you are allowing this issue to frame me as your enemy. Is this the case?

John, you showed up on this blog and chose to address me in what felt to me to be a condescending and sarcastic tone. Further, you accused me of being post-moral and post-logical. I sought to respond in a way that addressed your accusations by agreeing with you about the evil of abortion, but also placing it in the larger context of a number of issues that I believe followers of Jesus should also engage. You have not addressed any of the issues related to life that I, and many others, have raised. You did not respond to any of the issues that most people who are a part of this community believe must be engaged if we truly want to choose life. Rather than come back here and respond in any kind of relationally honoring or even substantive counter to my thoughts, you simply used my blog as a platform for more posturing. You stayed on the same station and simply turned up the volume. From here forward I will delete comments that do not follow what seems to me to be a very straightforward standard for interaction.

I do not support Barack Obama's position on abortion at any level. Having done enormous reading on both sides of this question I am somewhat dubious that either Barack Obama or John McCain will be able to do anything on an executive level to change federal or state laws regarding the legality of abortion, even with vacancies in the Supreme Court having the potential to open up. Allison, I read through the entire fact-check document that you referenced and at the end of the entire thing, their summary is as follows:

"Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden."

I say that only to draw attention to what you do not say in your listing of incomplete data from that page. That does not mean I support Barack Obama or defend him on this. I also watched many of the videos and I think that his response following the "Faith and Values" interview with Rick Warren is straightforward. You may disagree. If so, I understand why. At the same time the research I have done as it relates to McCain on this issue of abortion is mixed historically. The National Right to Life Committee indicates that McCain has "mixed record" on his history opposing abortion. He does the same kind of disassembling in response to those that question his record that many accuse Obama of in the response he makes to the legislation mentioned above. What does that prove? That these men are politicians. And we ought to be very wary. In fact, I reserve the right to be critical of Obama in the future if he wins, just like I will be towards a potential McCain presidency. I will continue to say this: a vote is not an endorsement. For those interested in looking on each candidate's record regarding abortion (and not in the more fully defined terms around life that I also believe to be important), I invite you to look at "On the Issues," a website that profiles candidates on different issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

John and Allison, I wonder if you will take the opportunity, here with me and others, to actually engage with us towards more understanding and interaction with the belief that we all value life and that we are faced with difficult decisions about how to vote in support of it. In fact, towards that end I would be honored to sit down with both of you and have a conversation about this.

Folks, in light of the challenges attendant to this kind of conversation, for the time being I am going to make an administrative change in terms of how this conversation is monitored. If you submit a comment, it will be held until I approve it in keeping with the standards I have set forth here. I will try to be as timely, and as generous, as possible in getting comments posted. If I do not approve it, I may or may not follow up with an email for greater clarification. I may or may not alert others that I have done so. In the event that I do so alert them, I may or may not direct them to your blog in order to give you voice in your own space, if that is a possibility.

Until such time as we interact here humbly, thoughtfully and respectfully, I pray you peace.

[Nate Jackson]

Thank you Tim for making a public statement on something so divisive and controversial. You spoke your heart and spirit bravely and for that I hope that I can be bold and/or naive enough to say God (or at least some of your community) is proud. It would have been much easier to post a "why I'm voting for McCain" piece.

It's amazing that the Evangelical community is even having these deeper public discussions and challenging the status quo surrounding faith and politics. It would have been unthinkable only eight years ago. These discussions are so important.

And the controversy is not bad. God is bigger than controversy, bigger than division, and full of love that will beat the swords into plows. And the peaceful Kingdom will come.

[Adam]

I want to "second the motion" by supporting what Nate has just said. I couldn't agree more that these/this discussion is so important.

This blog is a wonderful place for conversation around any subject and I can say that in former times in my life I never would have dreamed of such a place or pastor that encourages Christian discussion. That being said, I have taken a few days to digest all the information and opinions here and would like to point out that most, if not all of us here are probably on the same page when it comes to our desires and prayers for humanity.

We may not always agree on which politician can deliver, but every point that has been made here can be seen with validity. Understanding that our view is relative to ourselves it's easy to get caught up in only expressing what we know, that's when I try to use empathy when understanding someone's point of view.

Tim, thanks you for your extremely thoughtful insights and expression, they are very much appreciated over here. I am in much agreement that these politicians aren't the ones for us to put hope our hope into because they will most likely let us down. Also supporting a "life" platform is much broader than just the abortion issue and isn't properly defended by one political party or politician.

I know that all of us here are very passionate about our views and that is awesome. I also know that when I express myself, I can get a little defensive. For that very reason I owe you an apology Adam(the other one). You are right, I did misread what you had said. I was readying myself for a bigger defense than I needed. A couple of days away from our discussion allows for clarity and I can see that we actually are more on the same page with our issues.

Oh and BTW (just to clarify) I'm not much of a McCain fan, I'm still pouting that Ron Paul didn't get the Republican nomination! But I digress...

[Adam(the other one)]

Adam, no harm done. I don't usually associate argument with emotion, so I tend to be very blunt. I believe that the majority of people don't do this and it makes for a challenge when talking about 'big' ideas.

One thing I believe is that it really isn't abortion that is the real issue here. What I see is that these issues of abortion, war, economy are symptoms of a deeper problem (root cause if you use that language). That deeper problem, I believe, is rooted in our political system and society as a whole. I see in 1 Samuel Israel desiring a king instead of God. The text is a little archaic but I interpret it like this:

"There are people out there God who do bad things to us and to others. Instead of trusting you God to make things right we want you to give us a government so we can do it ourselves."

So, when we talk about something like abortion I have to be realistic about what I'm really capable of. I think I know about 200 people. If any of those people whom I am in relationship with were thinking abortion I would throw every resource available to prevent it (but still leave room for forgiveness should things not happen as I want them). If, however, it is a person that I am not in relationship, I believe taking action to stop that person (without the relationship) is playing God. It's saying "I know best" in a situation where I know nothing.

I don't believe that it is condoning an evil act. I believe that it is recognizing that I commit my own equally evil acts and crying to God about the injustices that happen.

This idea is not entirely fleshed out. I'd like to hear others respond to it.

[Nick]

I have read every word written in this entry and every comment. It is very much an emotional rollercoaster varying from angst to pride. Not in the singular sense as if I did something worth praise but the fact that I share the same train of thought as a man I very much admire for his authentic heart and intellect.

I have no written record of all the uneasy encounters I have had with anti-abortion evangelical Christians, but I assure you they are many. I have searched high and low within myself to justify my stance for Nov 4th. I have heard both sides, processing each issue cognitively. Still my heart has a role in this election as well. From what I have read I can tell that the same is true for the McKenna's. The passion that they have for this topic I hope is rivaled by their pursuit of Christ because there is a lot of spiritual fervor there.

I would very much like to commend you (Tim) for your steady hand and your peaceful words. I can visualize an internal struggle of establishing identity while including your faith through all this. I thank you for your transparency your comprehensive research and your heart of a disciple.

Nick Weinel

[Larry]

How have we, as Christians, allowed ourselves to come to such a place? We all too often demonize over minor political disagreements. And yes, the pro-life/pro-abort issue is minor, nobody thinks that either McCain or Obama will make any substantive changes to the status quo, so we are demonizing our brothers and sisters over mere rhetoric and politician's rhetoric at that. History tells us how reliable political rhetoric is at determining actions once in office. We must all remember that the political is not the personal, those of us inside the church must also remember that the eschaton will not be politically delivered. Neither Obama nor McCain are either Messiah or Anti-Christ, and their supporters are for the most part good people doing the best they can with what they have. A vote for Obama doesn't make you a baby killer and vote for McCain doesn't make you a war monger.

I cannot in good conscience support either candidate, mainly because I don't think there will be a nickel's worth of difference between the way the two will govern. Both will pretty much do whatever the corporate elites want. I also think that the elections distract the church from its real task which is advancing the Kingdom, worse, due the divisiveness they foster (see above) they may even hinder the church from her main task.

And Adam, you're not the only one with libertarian leanings at the Well.

[Ryan Thye]

Reading through these blog posts I can't help but think of the current divisive nature of this election as well as this blog conversation on two levels:

1.) The first being historical. This is one quote that was posted earlier in this blog space:

"And this is why I can't see voting for Barack Obama. He is quite simply the most Marxist candidate we have ever witnessed in the USA."

To me this is an interesting statement. As on one level I am wondering what "Marxist" actually means to the writer. Secondly, I am thinking I have heard this statement before. And the man that it was said about was arguably the greatest President of the 20th century: FDR

FDR was the most polarizing president since Lincoln.

He was both venerated as a national savior and vilified as a socialist who craved greater federal power.

According to radio journalist Daniel Schorr, who went to college with the help of a New Deal program:

"It is my contention that no one should be allowed to write about FDR who did not experience that era. It really is one of those cases of you had to be there. Roosevelt may be a myth...today, but 60 years ago that myth looked more like hope. In his fireside chats, he turned our Philco radios into shrines, and when he said that America could not afford to live with one-third of a nation ill-housed and ill-fed, we thought he would do something about it. And he did" (Daniel Schorr, "The FDR 'Myth': You Had To Be There," Christian Science Monitor, 25 October 1996, 19).

To me this is quite fascinating, as here we are again, with a similar candidate running for office at a time to some economists as dire as anytime since January of 1933. And the reactions seem quite similar, as we are reactionary creatures of habit.

2.) My second thought on this blog is that of the sociological-historical perspecitve.

As the question that comes to my mind as i listen to the arguements, read the emails and blogs, and watch people on the streets......How much of this current polarization and fear surrounding Barack Obama is actually about Barack Obama and his policies? Historically speaking, it seems the current divisiveness surrounding Barack is more about the deep seated anxiety and fear regarding the nation's current issues....then it is Barack. Much like it was in 1933.

Regardless, I think we are witnessing a pretty historic time in our nation's history right before our very eyes.......

[Tim Suttle]

Hey Tim,

Thanks for this post. I see you trying to elevate the discourse past the polarizing stalemates and sophistry. Your comments on how we should approach each other as brothers and sisters in Christ are as significant as are your thoughts on the issues. I’m glad you waded in, even though I know you are soft-hearted and it had to be a bit disconcerting. But, as you always point out, the way we carry out the dialogue itself says as much about what we believe as do our words, (the medium is the message, right?) and I see Christ in the way you are approaching this discussion.

This year I see the church taking her fledgling steps toward a new imagination for the political. On one hand it’s encouraging. On the other – it’s proof positive we’ve got a long way to go. I’ve been reading a ton of “political theology” lately – Hauerwas, Yoder of course, but also Milbank, Ward, Pickstock & the Radical Orthodox folks – I’m not sure where I come down on it yet. But I do think our faith should help us decide how to organize our common life together. However stilted our efforts may be we should still try to organize ourselves in a way that images (icons) God to all creation. Any way you slice it that discussion is going to be messy, especially in the early stages of what I think will turn out to be a very helpful post-secular theology one day. Post-modern, post-liberal and post-secular theology and philosophy are not disparaging terms. Engaging in a conversation doesn’t make you post-moral or whatever. You are doing it right.

You are certainly right to assert that the Christian must have no political allegiance above the pursuit of the kingdom of God. When the politicians swim with the kingdom, we can join them. When they don’t, we should poke ‘em with a stick! That goes for any issue, any party. Our faith is not a-political, it is a polity. It requires a discussion. There will be disagreements. The manner in which we engage those discussions and disagreements is not a benign issue.

[Adam(the other one)]

This article has some really interesting things to say about our politics and our churches.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort/archive/2008/10/30/how-running-a-campaign-is-no-different-than-building-a-megachurch.aspx

[Scott]

All,

Being a silent observer for a while I hesitated weighing in on this discussion. However, I must make a couple of points and then I'll shut up and disappear. I have my own views on the Presidential candidates and those views I will keep to myself for now.

I think many believers struggle with how to approach politics. Some have decided to completely ignore political issues, but with that have given up their wonderful right to vote. Others have immersed themselves in the democratic process so deeply that in my opinion, have positioned themselves in a precarious situation. Once allegiances are established then it is hard to change those allegiances without affecting relationships. Some of which may be brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jesus taught that the structure of the Body of Christ is based on a different model (Matt. 23). The Body is a flat organization and everyone is directly connected to Jesus, who is the head of the Body. Now, we have some who have been appointed, elected, selected, hired or even self-appointed into a position of authority in a church system. Once the model is changed then the function of the Body is affected.

I believe that as a Body there should be absolute unity in all of our endeavors. Without that unity we have, oh maybe several thousand denominations and millions of opinions on everything from interpretation of scripture to whether we should wear ties on Sunday morning. Now, before everyone starts yelling "as long as we agree on the important things it's OK", let me say that there is one who is always right.

If we are truly hearing or seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit then we should be in agreement on most issues. Does the Holy Spirit tell different believers something different? Does He contradict the "truth" that is shared with one believer by changing His message? Of course not, so why are there so many disagreements between so-called believers. Even within local congregations there are so many views on issues that should be absolute.

Another point is this and Tim, I know you are a brother and I appreciate your leadership and willingness to serve God. However, I do not believe Jesus has put anyone in charge. The role of pastors today is an office that was created by men to shift the responsibility of our service to the Lord to others who are willing to take that responsibility. Unfortunately, it doesn't work and now we have a Body that is sick.

By stating your opinions on the candidates and endorsing one you have usurped the proper process of discussion and agreement even among your own congregation. I have read several comments from those that are surprised, confused and even hurt.

Why do we insist on dressing up, being herded into a building every Sunday, fed whatever the latest wave of teaching is, write a check, endure long messages without much purpose and then leave without really accomplishing anything? I'll tell you why. Because it makes us feel like we're more righteous and we're doing God's "will". People, please wake up and see that one man cannot decide how the Body of Christ should believe or think.

Many of you have lost sleep or at least added stress to your life because Tim posted his opinion. Last time I checked Jesus is still on the throne. He may be saddling up or something, but He's still in charge. Relax, and really seek the Lord on this as to how you will vote. Don't worry about what men think. Be focused on what the Father thinks. Love you all......

P.S. I'm not bitter and I was never hurt by a pastor nor did I leave the church because of a building program:)

[Geri Jaeger]

My biggest concern with Obama is that he can sit in a church for 20 yrs. with a pastor who spews out hatred for a race and say he "didn't hear it". When things are brought to his attention he changes his associations. His campaign then explains that the other side is trying to "distract the voters from the issues". My other problem is with partial birth abortion. If you have not looked up the procedure, please do. I don't know how anyone can support a candidate who supports that. Third big issue--balance of power in Washington. All Democrats in the House, Senate, and a democratic senate plus the potential of appointing Supreme Court justices is a scary proposition. In good conscience, I feel that John McCain is the more ethical person.

[Emily]

Tim-I was referred to website from a friend. I disagree with your stance. I have come up with some questions to think about. Tough but true! Please think about. Would love to see you post them.

• Much of the arguments about supporting Obama and being pro-life center around pro life for all things like the unborn child, no war (does anybody want to get in war I ask you), no death penalty, no torture, but by supporting Obama you are putting the life of an unborn child before a terrorist or criminal.
• How can you compare the life of an unborn child to a criminal or terrorist?
• There are many comments about Bush being all talk, but Obama is the same way? What has he actually done, not said? Most liberal voting record (more than Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy-now that’s saying a lot!), multiple programs he worked on in Chicago a failure
• Obama claims 95% of Americans will not have an increase in taxes, but yet only 70% of people pay taxes.
• Obama already changing his words, first said no family with an income over $250,000 would have an increase in taxes, but now changed to $200,000. Listen to his commercials. What else will he chance his mind on.
• What qualifications does Obama have to be president?
• Let’s say Bill Gates stepped down as head of Microsoft, would you pick a sales person with only four years experience to be the president and CEO of the billion dollar company?
• Obama’s stance on gay marriage? Where is the support for how God designed marriage?
• Obama supporting radical abortion-the type of abortion he supports involves taking an instrument and forcing it into the head of an unborn child to cause it to bleed to death. How is this a strong stance for family values?
• His idea to spread wealth and uniting healthcare-that’s socialism, what’s the incentive to work?
• Have you looked at countries with socialized medicine-Canada, Australia? Do you want to wait 6 months to stent your coronary arteries or fix other life threatening conditions?
• Right now anybody poor or old has access to healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid). Remember that!
• Not taking into account how and why we are involved in the war in Iraq (already in progress, can’t change it now), who would you rather have lead, someone who has experience and fought in a war or someone who has no executive experience unless you call community organizer experience?
• So many negative things are said about big companies and the rich, but I remind you they pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. We should thank them, because without them we would not have this great country.
• Obama likes programs-but what government programs have been positive-the projects were originally intended to be a positive thing, but do you think of them as positive now, I don’t think so, welfare-look where that has gone, created dependency and no work ethic

Please think through these questions. These just touch some of the reasons why I do not support Obama.

[Terri]

Tim,
The disappointment is with the government overall - but my question is this how big of a role do you want government to have in our everyday life. I don't want government to have a big role. I understand as a Christian we want to take care of those hurting and struggling but my question is this - do you think government or the church is better at doing this? For example this week, I cleaned out my closet and am giving it to a ministry - can government give precisely to who needs it the most? Just something I have been wrestling with...

[Daniel King]

Thank you Tim.

The most concise and thought provoking critique I have read about abortion was written in an essay by David Foster Wallace called, Tense Present.

If a reader can agree with Wallace that defining human life in utero is hopelessly vexed then his (DFW) argument that the only coherent position on abortion is both Pro-life + Pro-Choice is helpful in coping with the tension that many christians (including myself) are feeling over this one issue.

I post his writing below.

"In this reviewer's opinion, the only really coherent position on the abortion issue is one that is both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

Argument: As of 4 March 1999, the question of defining human life in utero is hopelessly vexed. That is, given our best present medical and philosophical understandings of what makes something not just a living organism but a person, there is no way to establish at just what point during gestation a fertilized ovum becomes a human being. This conundrum, together with the basically inarguable soundness of the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about whether something is a human being or not, it is better not to kill it," appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Life. At the same time, however, the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about something, I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it, especially if that person feels that s/he is not in doubt" is an unassailable part of the Democratic pact we Americans all make with one another, a pact in which each adult citizen gets to be an autonomous moral agent; and this principle appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Choice.

This reviewer is thus, as a private citizen and an autonomous agent, both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. It is not an easy or comfortable position to maintain. Every time someone I know decides to terminate a pregnancy, I am required to believe simultaneously that she is doing the wrong thing and that she has every right to do it. Plus, of course, I have both to believe that a Pro-Life + Pro-Choice stance is the only really coherent one and to restrain myself from trying to force that position on other people whose ideological or religions convictions seem (to me) to override reason and yield a (in my opinion) wacko dogmatic position. This restraint has to be maintained even when somebody's (to me) wacko dogmatic position appears (to me) to reject the very Democratic tolerance that is keeping me from trying to force my position on him/her; it requires me not to press or argue or retaliate even when somebody calls me Satan's Minion or Just Another Shithead Male, which forbearance represents the really outer and tooth-grinding limits of my own personal Democratic Spirit."

[Josh S.]

Wow. I think I want to be a part of a church where the people can engage in this kind of conversation without risk of ostracism. I also appreciate the C.S. Lewis reference and the many people who admit the complexity of supporting a political candidate or party as a Christian. In my view, neither of the two main parties are an embodiment of the teachings of Jesus or of the Holy Spirit's conviction in my life as I see each issue. In the same way, our nation is not the "promised land", but is also so, so good for enabling us to have these conversations. The Republican Party could learn much from the Democrats, and the Democrats from the Republicans. Our country could learn so much from the people of the Congo, and they from us. Why should we, as Christians, compel/guilt/force other Christians to vote in a certain manner in light of seemingly every modern candidates' failure to live up to Christ's message in some way? (More importantly than any of this late-night rambling: I'd like to worship God with you guys soon if I can break away from my church one Sunday.)

[Dean]

Gotta go with John on this one. Obama doesn't represent the end of our country as we know it and McCain wouldn't have "saved" our country either. The real point of selecting a candidate to vote for is to try to demonstrate and uphold our values. My Christian friends who chose to vote for Obama seem to have a difficult time squaring that decision with their values. Those of us who voted for McCain don't seem to have much difficulty matching that vote to our values. Obama was/is the new fad. He represents a historical event. That's fine but to make history while abandoning one's values doesn't make sense (to me anyway). If electing a person of race (other than caucasion)is so important there are several Republicans that would fill that void. Michael Steele
comes to mind along with many others and I wouldn't have to disregard my values to make that vote. IMHO