Christians for Change

Book Review: Divided by God

2005-10-26T08:03:00.000-07:00

Divided By God
by: Noah Feldman
Reviewed by: R. Mitch Randall

According to Noah Feldman, there is a bitter divide between two warring ideological factions within this country. On one side there are the legal secularists submitting the idea that our government must be free of all religious propaganda and practice. On the other side lies the "values evangelical" who promotes faith and the practice of faith within the governing body of this country.

The premise behind Feldman’s claim is the struggle which has been occurring ever since the formation of this great experiment called America. From the onset to the creation of the Bill of Rights, there has been the great paradox for this country regarding the relationship between church and state. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and a host of dissenting Christian faces worked hard to create a government which would keep the "institutionalized" church and state separate.

However, with the emergence of fundamentalism within the Christian sphere and the rise of secularism within the legal and scientific realm, the struggle has intensified greatly. Beginning domestically with the Scopes Monkey Trial and culminating in America’s bitter foreign struggle with Nazi Germany and Russian Communism, America began a drift towards "Judeo-Christianizing" this country. In the midst of this process, legal secularism began its rise to glory with a scientific and secular community which promoted evolution and gained more strength with the anti-establishment fervor of the 1960’s.

This brings our country forward to today, where the line of separation between church and state is shifting with every election and court appointee. Feldman argues wisely that the institutionalized church – whatever form that might take – must remain separated from the state. Government should not establish nor endorse instituted faiths of any kind. However, under the ideological venue of morals and value, faith can bring important elements to the governing of this country.

The problem with Feldman’s idea is not within the thinking, but within the application. What might be a value or moral for one may not be the same for another. A good example is found within the case of homosexual marriage, on which both sides seem unwilling to waiver. Yet, Feldman’s strongest point remains that people of faith must not be shut out from the political process for the basic fact that they are people of faith. In the marketplace of ideas and the shaping of public policy, secular and religious voices should be welcome to create public policy that exists for the common good of all. However, the difficulty remains at what point both sides are willing to compromise for the common good of all.

Unless both legal secularists and values evangelicals are willing to compromise for the common good of the country, our country remains in a bitter dispute. There are two desperately needed elements to this equation. First, an alternative voice needs to rise from within the values evangelical camp that is not from the fundamentalist or liberal faction. Secondly, an alternative way way must be created in which church and state can remain separate, yet creating an arena where the two can work together without losing the neutrality of government and the exclusivity of faith. Without these two elements, the country will remain in the paradox in which it currently exists.

The Practice of Faith and the Judiciary

2005-10-26T08:01:00.000-07:00

The Practice of Faith and the Judiciary
R. Mitch Randall

With the last two presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, faith has played a large role in the deliberating process. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts told a Senate committee that his Roman Catholic faith would not be entangled with his judicial rulings. On the other hand, Supreme Court Justice nominee Hariett Miers has been lauded by many within conservative circles as a person who has "conservative evangelical" ties that might give indication to her future rulings.

A quandary has been created. How much should one’s personal faith play a role in the judiciary? As a strict separationist between church and state it is easy for me to conclude the obvious; faith and the judiciary should remain separated. Yet (as a strict separationist for many years), a question has been troubling me for quite some time. How can we honestly ask someone to separate themselves from his or her faith? Realty tells us that this cannot be done. Faith, or the lack of faith, is very much a part of a person’s inner being. It guides a person’s thinking and actions. A person takes faith in and out of the workplace, no matter how much we like to believe otherwise. The practices of compassion, generosity, humility, and justice are all faith tendencies we cherish. Seriously, what employer – secular or governing body alike – would not like those principles guiding a person’s work?

However, the problem exists when people of faith begin to use their faith as a platform to move along a skewed political agenda. More and more preachers are sounding like politicians and more and more politicians are sounding like preachers. Faith is certainly impacting the purpose of justice, but a line is crossed when a very narrow religious belief replaces justice as a guiding principle for the judiciary. When this occurs, faith evolves into an oppressive monster looking to destroy its opponent.

An even greater danger exists when that person of faith claims "absolutism" as an ideological, theological, and political mantra. Religious "absolutism" condemns all other types of thought, pursuing an oppressive line of domination. All other types of thought are considered heresy and replaced with a narrow worldview. Justice cannot survive within the realm of religious "absolutism," because justice is abandoned for the sake of power and control.

Yet, faith in itself is not evil. Only when used improperly is a great danger present. The question asked of the Supreme Court nominees, "Will you allow your faith to play a role in future rulings?" is misleading. A better question is, "How will you let you faith impact future rulings?" As a proponent of both religious liberty and the separation of church and state, I feel this question best represents reality.

There must be a venue where religious liberty and the separation of church and state can coexist. Individuals should not be asked to divorce themselves from their personal faith, but neither should personal faith be a litmus test for judicial rulings. For justices claiming faith, let me provide this thought. With faith in their hearts and the constitution before their eyes, members of the judiciary can render impartial decisions regarding legal matters. Without allowing religious dogma to control the decision making process, members of the judiciary can rely upon their personal faith to bring about true justice for all citizens. Faith does not seek to dominate over others. Faith pursues truth, and truth reaps justice.

Faith and the Judiciary

2005-10-26T07:58:00.000-07:00

Faith and the Judiciary
Susan Davis Coopersmith

I had to look up the definition of "faith" because it means different things to different people. On the website www.dictionary.com, faith is defined as follows:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. Faith meaning Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

There is a debate that is growing in popularity regarding the place that "faith" has within our judicial system. I think that this debate is largely fueled by the past two United States Presidential Elections and the circumstances surrounding those elections. President Bush arguably ran his campaign based upon an infusion of religious and political rhetoric. For this reason I believe the popular debate over "faith and the judiciary" is based on the definition of "faith" as it relates to religion or belief in principles as they are defined by religion.

Having studied law for the past three years and subsequently having read many cases that have passed through the lower courts as well as the United States Supreme Court, I believe that the active infusion of religious faith into the functioning of the judiciary would in essence undermine the capacity of the courts to make fair and just interpretations of the Constitution. Consequently, if the courts were to base their rulings on religious dogma rather than the Constitution, the faith (as defined in number 1 above) of people in the courts would become eroded, especially when their religious views differed from those of the particular court’s (or that courts judge(s)). If an individual has no religious faith then their "faith" (as it is defined by numeral 1 above) in the court would be eroded entirely.

Furthermore, it is my belief that interpretations of the Constitution and subsequent judicial rulings based upon religious faith would in themselves be a violation of the Constitution.
The argument posed by the religious right that there is no specific language within the Constitution that states: "there shall be separation of church and state" is fatally flawed for the following reasons:

The Constitution is a document created by our predecessors as a guideline for our new government to follow so that personal liberty is assured through the legislation and execution of laws (i.e., laws that are Constitutional). The courts (judges) are charged with the fiduciary duty of interpreting the Constitution for purposes of evaluating/interpreting and executing laws.
Judicial interpretation of the Constitution is necessary because the document is only meant as a guideline to preserve liberty and is not one that specifically delineates every minute personal liberty (or lack thereof). It was meant to establish a set of rules, values and/or principles of which our courts are entrusted to uphold.

An important method used by judges when interpreting the Constitution is looking at the rationale of the drafters. In other words – judges look to determine the drafters intent when they chose certain language for creating that particular section of the Constitution that is at issue in the case before the judge. Judges do this so that they can rule according to the Constitutional intent of the drafters (i.e., so they can make a ruling that is Constitutional).
In order to understand the intent of our founding fathers in drafting the Constitution one must look at their personal history.

The drafters of the Constitution were immigrants to the United States. One of the reasons for colonization in the Americas (other than expansion of wealth and exploitation of resources) was to escape religious oppression that settlers had experienced in their homelands. In short they wanted to have the freedom to worship (or not worship) without government intrusion. The drafters used the Constitution as a vehicle to ensure such personal liberties for citizens of the United States. They pointedly established no national religion. As a matter of fact, the founding fathers themselves were of differing religious (or non-religious) faiths: George Washington is commonly referred to by historians as being a Deist as were some of the other founding fathers.
A Deist is defined on www.dictionary.com as: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. In sum, some of the founding fathers were not Christians at all.

Thus it stands to reason that their intent was not to establish a judiciary that employs religious faith when interpreting the Constitution. It stands to reason that the founding father’s did however intend for the judiciary to function in such a manner that the people of the United States could have "faith" (as defined above in number 1 of the definition) that judges will uphold the personal liberties assured them in the Constitution.

As per my previous argument, if the judiciary were to make interpretations of the Constitution based upon religious faith then that faith (as defined in number 1) in the judicial system would fail, and personal liberties would be lost to those who did not share the religious views of a particular judge making a ruling.

It is easy to conclude that the Constitution was a tool used by it’s drafters to do the obvious: ensure personal liberties – such as the liberty to worship as one chooses (or not to worship), and also to ensure the separation of church and state so that the citizens of the United States are free to enjoy these liberties without religious oppression such as that which our founding fathers experienced.

Finally, I should also note that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution does specifically state that the government should avoid excessive entanglement with religion.
In conclusion, with respect to the question of the relationship of "faith" to the judiciary, I believe the proper focus should be on the faith - the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing - that the citizens of the United States have in our judicial system and how the infusion of religious faith into that system would ultimately undermine and destroy such faith.

The Texas Marriage Amendment

2005-10-26T07:57:00.000-07:00

The Marriage Amendment: Who Defines Marriage?
Brian Edwards

(Editor's note: On November 8, 2005, voters in the State of Texas will consider Proposition 2, which would amend the Texas Constitution to limit the definition of a legal marriage to the union of one man and one woman. The Proposition further prohibits the State or any political subdivision in the State from creating any legal status identical or similar to marriage.)

Struggling with issues of marriage is not something that is unique to our day and age. Though people on both extreme sides of the marriage amendment debate might want us to view it differently, marriage has been important for a very long time. While such a thought seems extremely basic, we need to keep in mind that the very existence of the scriptures and sacred writings that many people are using today to buttress their arguments should give us warning that issues of marriage have always been at the forefront of the minds of humans. I do not wish to speak to the interpretations of such passages; I simply seek to point out that we would not have these ancient words on the subject of marriage if the subject itself were not deemed important in days of old.

That being said, issues of marriage, particularly the issue of what exactly constitutes a marriage, are extremely hot contemporary topics. We especially see politicians, on both sides of the aisle, throwing around marriage as if it were simply some political game, in which the participants play only for their own purposes, not for the purposes of the constituents they are supposedly representing. Marriage is too sacred for us to allow politicians to throw its name around as they jockey for political standing. So, I think we must ask the question: Within this marriage amendment debate, is marriage being used for selfish, particularly political purposes? Yes, in my opinion, marriage is being covertly used as a disguise for personal gain, and that is wrong.

What is particularly at stake in the marriage amendment debate is who exactly has the authority to define marriage. People on all points of the spectrum seem to be quick to claim that God is on their side. Such people might be somewhat on the right track as Christians, for instance, believe that ultimately, in the end, God is the one who defines marriage. But, what is so very interesting in this debate, as in so many other similar debates, is how quickly such people (and I do not wish to pardon myself from this critique) forget that the ultimate authority on this matter is God.

Therefore, Christians, particularly, should not be so quick to flippantly use God to support their interpretations of scripture and ultimately their standpoint on the marriage amendment issue. I fear that this rampant, shooting-from-the-hip approach moves dangerously close to violating the third commandment (Exodus 20:7, "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name"). Rather than pridefully using the name of the Almighty to strengthen a particular argument or side of the debate, maybe we should be more humble, spending more time struggling with the issues involved and discovering which side God would have us to be on. We would do well at this point to remember the words of Reinhold Niebuhr: "Has there ever been a conflict in the human community where we have not felt we could fight the battle were not the Lord on our side? Perhaps, as Abraham Lincoln said, we did not as frequently ask the question of whether we were on the Lord’s side."

Furthermore, if we want to have an amendment on marriage and the importance of marriage, maybe we ought to spend more time looking at what is actually tearing the institution of marriage apart. I would argue that homosexuality is not the main thing tearing today’s family apart…divorce is the main culprit. If "the family" is truly the fabric of society, as so many are arguing in the marriage amendment debate, why are we not about the business of stabilizing and enriching marriages? Why are programs not being designed and enhanced, on state and federal levels, to promote healthy marriages and to help families deal with marital problems? If we truly are concerned about marriage and what is tearing apart families, we ought to be doing something positive to promote healthy marriages and to help curb marriages ending in divorce.

Faith in the Public Square

2005-10-26T07:53:00.000-07:00

Faith in the Public Square: Where Has it Gone?
James Hassell

"Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way."
--Paul, the Apostle, speaking to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22).

Hello, my name is James, and I’m an ethics nerd. Yes, that’s right. I’d sometimes rather listen to podcasts of NOW with Bill Moyers (now hosted by David Brancaccio) or get up especially early on Sunday mornings to watch "The American Religious Town Hall Meeting," a low-budget, ecumenical religious liberty forum. Sometimes, I even watch everyone’s favorite, "The Coral Ridge Hour" with James Kennedy. One must keep fair and balanced, you know. In spite of such "nerdism," I’ve come to an exciting conclusion. Americans are a religious people. I’ve also come to an enduring question: Where has faith expression in the public square gone? This time, though, let’s talk about the conclusion in order to answer the question.

The Exciting Conclusion
Based on information gathered from The Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, the US Census 2002, and the Gallup Poll, Americans view themselves as religious people. I’d even venture to say, along with Paul, that we are "extremely religious in every way." While such religiosity should be celebrated, we may not help but notice some complicated ethical issues at work. We are a nation of religious people, yet we choose to express faith in many different ways. As Richard Niebuhr so poignantly discussed in Christ and Culture, even Christians are diverse with regard to faith expression. Some Christians view their expressions of faith as firmly entrenched against the wiles of culture, while others haughtily dismiss culture, because their religious perspectives are above such a base thing. Even some of us cannot help but see a total duality of religion and culture. By the way, if you need any coaxing on the believability of Niebuhr’s prophetic words, simply watch Oprah and the Nightly News today.

Unfortunately, some religious Americans, both the leaders and the politicians, have likened diversity to evil. In other words, their religious way has to be the best—sounds a bit like Greek to me. In fact, Paul’s words in Acts 17 toward the Athenians may indict us, especially those of us who are the perverted political crusaders, justifying legislation based on a religious cause (i.e. a U.S. President promoting war by saying, "God told me to").

The Enduring Question
Therefore, in answering our question, allow me to interject a few ideas. First, Centrist Christians should be discerning when they observe the faith expressions of self-proclaimed, religious Americans—especially those who hold positions of power. With this in mind, faith in the public square has not really "gone" anywhere, but it has simply been trampled in the dirt of religious piety. In other words, neither faith nor religion should be the selling points for legislation. Thus, faith in the public square must again rise from the ashes through a celebration of religious diversity.

Second, Centrist Christians should readily embrace and engage the religious powers that be in the public square. Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote, "Expressions of deeply held faith, of whatever religion, should continue to play a role in an American society that values our unity and appreciates our diversity." Religious diversity keeps the public square in business. Centrist Christians, then, have a unique obligation; not to vie for power, but to contribute to ongoing public debate by questioning leaders and by speaking up for those who have no voice in the public square.

Third, Centrist Christians must motivate church goers towards expressing diverse religious attitudes. The ecumenical body of believers must not stand idly by while the power mongers vie for a theocracy in America. In his courageous book, Spirit Ethics, Paul Jersild remarked, "The life of politics is fundamentally an ongoing debate over values, and churches bring a distinctive voice to that debate." Therefore, motivate your church through round tables and small group discussions. You may even want to write your local newspaper or actually go downtown for a chat with other religious and political leaders in your community. Together, we can pull faith in the public square off of the ground, dust it off, and let it show us the richness of being both religious and American.

Open Letter to Governor Perry and Texas Legislators

2005-06-07T08:22:00.000-07:00

Concerned Christians Ask Governor Perry to Call a Special Session to Solve the Public School Financing Crisis

Governor Perry and State Legislators,

As a matter of social justice for all Texans, we urge you to call a special legislative session to deal exclusively with the crisis in the funding of Texas public schools. We also ask that you show leadership during this session by working closely with the legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, to create a solution that is beneficial and just for ALL Texas children.

We recognize the difficult decisions that will be debated and discussed during this special session, yet we realize the negative impact on our state if a resolution is not adopted. We also encourage you and the legislators to set aside personal and political ambitions to deliver a comprehensive and just funding policy for ALL Texas children. While the state legislature continues to avoid a solution, Texas children continue to suffer from this crisis:

Texas ranks at or near the bottom of all states in high school graduation rates according to a US Census report released in 2004.

Texas has 4.2 million public schoolchildren, with 52 percent classified as economically disadvantaged and 15 percent as English language learners.

Of the state’s 1,041 school districts, there are 134 high-wealth districts, which serve only 500,000 students. The rest of the districts educate the remaining 3.7 million students.

Though the state provides $12 billion of the $30 billion spent on public schools, it has reduced its contribution to public schools from 60 percent to 38 percent of their total expenditures since 1993.

Locally, districts such as the Fort Worth ISD have eliminated all of their ‘fat’ with prior year cuts totaling $33 million and now will be going into ‘muscle’ with its proposed cuts of $18 million dollars for 2005-2006. Unless it gets more state funds, the district will drop 56 people in instructional support, 10 library clerks, 15 school nurses, 40 maintenance employees, 15 custodians, and 50 campus monitors according to its Status Report for 2005-2006.

The time has come for the Texas legislature to bring a solution before the people. Bring legislative leaders together and work with both Democrats and Republicans to create a plan that will justly tax Texans to solve the state’s school funding crisis. As you said in a press conference on May 31, school finance should be resolved at the state house and not the courthouse. We should not leave this vital issue in the hands of the state courts.

Let’s solve the problem together now and show we really care about all of our Texas children!

Sincerely,

Click Here to Sign Your Name

What can we learn from Waynesville? R. Mitch Randall

2005-05-26T09:24:00.000-07:00

What can we learn from Waynesville?
R. Mitch Randall
Pastor, First Baptist Church Bedford, Texas
May 2005

As the nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina walked out of the meeting, some of their fellow brothers and sisters actually cheered their departure. Immediately following their agonizing walk out the church doors, cheering members within the building promptly removed their names from membership roles. What was their sin, you might ask? Well, it was NOT idolatry, the embezzlement of church funds, or the rejection of the Triune God. Their great and grievous sin was their audacity to vote for a Democratic candidate for president. Shortly after the tragedy of that day, the pastor at the center of the controversy resigned from the church and left a community of faith splintered.

Since that fateful and frightening day on May 2, there has been much written and said about the situation at East Waynesville. There have been outcries and warnings sounded by people of faith from all across party and denominational lines. Most thoughtful Christians understand the terrible ramifications that would be caused by permitting churches to endorse political candidates or parties. Most thoughtful Christians comprehend the dangers that the church would face by allowing the state to reside within church sanctuaries. Most thoughtful Christians will tell you that what went on at East Waynesville was a heinous act by a misinformed minister. Most thoughtful Christians would tell you…or would they?

While much has been debated concerning the ideologies and theologies of what took place at East Waynesville, I personally find the situation alarming for another reason. It seems evident, WE ARE A FRACTURED SOCIETY. The slogan “Red State – Blue Sate” seems trivial; a simple way for news organizations to manufacture controversy. However, this modern era schism seems awfully real when you examine the discourse within our society. I have learned what we say and what we do are two different things. I recently had an acquaintance tell me that he thought it would actually be easier for him to be a homosexual within his church than to be a Democrat. “At least they would love me enough to try to get me to repent,” he told me. “Being a Democrat is a hopeless cause,” he added.

Of course, there are others who think the very same way about Republicans. There seems to be this huge wedge being driven deep within this country. And with the evidence of East Waynesville and my friend’s remarks, it tells me that wedge has another target…the local church. Granted, there have been other issues within our history that divided us as a people, even within the church: slavery, civil rights, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Clinton Impeachment, and others. However, this current wedge is not driven by any certain issue but by a narrow minded ideology and theology that seeks conformity over cooperation.

If this narrow-mindedness continues to grow at the rate it currently holds, the fractures within our country will widen and the story of East Waynesville will be more common place. Our country is currently being taken to a destination that none of us should want to go. Instead of churches filled with diversity and uniqueness, churches will be empty shells where likeminded individuals will argue among themselves over who’s right and who’s wrong. If there were one thing we can learn from East Waynesville, let it be this…our country is breaking in two, but it is not too late to mend the fracture. Let the church be a place of healing and not a place of division.

Where are the prophets? JC Baker

2005-05-26T09:22:00.000-07:00

Where Are The Prophets?
By J.C. Baker
Pastor, First Baptist Church, Weinert, Texas
May 2005

What kind of sermons are you hearing each Sunday in your church? What challenges are heard from the pulpit? If your church is like many others, you get a steady diet of sermons that describe our need for salvation, Christ’s sacrificial death on our behalf, and the glorious afterlife that death offers. When many pastors get around to addressing the social issues of this life, they often portray an ultra-conservative perspective that has an extremely narrow view of reality. Yet, such a narrow worldview is not representative of the majority of Americans and certainly not the majority of American Christians. Why, then, are our pulpits silent when it comes to addressing social issues from a progressive perspective?

When political landscape of Ancient Israel became increasingly dominated by wealthy elites, a brave group of men, and perhaps women, stood up to confront unjust social policies and to announce God’s displeasure with their treatment of the marginalized as well as foreign policies that were leading Israel down a perilous path. These prophets applied scriptural insights to their culture, as they called for repentance and renewal. Their powerful message was equal treatment for all, regardless of race, income, or lifestyle. They called for the people of God to embrace this brave and bold message.

Where are these brave men and women in our culture? Where are our modern prophets? No doubt, they are out there, speaking regularly against unbiblical public policy and the need for social justice. Unfortunately, these brave individuals are few in number, while those who support such policies remain outspoken and passionate. Our culture needs pastors who will address the societal implications of the biblical message and confront policies and legislation that runs counter to that message. While pulpits across our nation remain silent on such issues, threatening legislation and policy initiatives move forward.

The reasons for this silence are numerous. Many pastors refuse to address social issues because of the possibility of creating conflict in their churches. Others are not sure where the line between church and state is drawn. Still others maintain that the church should not engage in “preaching politics.”

Nevertheless, the gospel of Jesus the Christ DOES have societal and political implications. The Bible contains many commands and exhortations that carry political overtones. Furthermore, we must defend the legal separation of church and state, but that separation does not preclude us from applying the biblical message to our culture and government. Indeed, conflict may result from such proclamation, but conflict can be a source of growth and enlightenment.

Our pulpits cannot remain silent! We must proclaim the progressive voice of the Christian faith that advocates love, justice, and mercy. We must stand with the prophets of old, calling God’s people to repentance and renewal. We must educate our congregations on the social and political implications of the biblical message and challenge them to become involved by contacting governmental officials to express their views.

We can change the religious conversation in our country by offering an alternative expression to the Christian faith. This cannot be accomplished, however, if our pulpits remain silent. Pastors must speak with courage to confront unbiblical legislation. Church members should encourage their pastor to address topics that are important to them. By working together, we can learn to follow God more fully and to bring about change in our communities and nation.

_________________________

Addressing Issues in the Church
Practical Advice for Pastors

After reading the previous article, you may be convinced of the need to address social issues in your church. Yet, one of the major obstacles pastors face is simply getting started. To help you begin, we have compiled some practical ideas that have been used in churches to address social issues.
1. Start a study of the book Amos on Sunday nights. Amos’ context closely resembles ours and the text will enable you to address several contemporary issues.
2. Do a topical study on social issues important to your congregation on Sunday nights. Begin with an introductory sermon to help them see the importance of discussing such topics, then ask them to write down one or two topics they would like to study.
3. If you have a mid-week prayer service, point out important social issues for your congregation to pray about. Suggest they reflect on the biblical message and ask for the spirit’s leadership as they pray.

CFC Small Groups James Hassell

2005-05-26T09:18:00.000-07:00

Small CFC Groups Equals Momentous Changes
James Hassell

How refreshing to gather in Abilene, Texas on April 25. Students, professors, and church leaders met at a local home to discuss the values and the goals of Christians for Change. An atmosphere of friendship developed, and dialogue ensued pertaining especially to issues of communication within the organization of CFC. In fact, the recently updated Ministry Plan for CFC states, “Through writing, speaking, and interactive forums we plan to create momentum for dialogue in the public arena that includes a Christian viewpoint on issues that affect the lives of ordinary people each day.” Therefore, developing small groups of persons interested in CFC may affect your churches and communities in a variety of momentous ways.

And so the question arises, “How do I begin a CFC small group?” First, ascertain the dynamics of the congregational/community context in which you find yourself. Is there a need for a more consistent biblical viewpoint on religious, political, and cultural issues? Are there folks in your sphere of influence who identity with either the political left or religious right?

Second, as you relate to your context, begin “talking up” your desire to dialogue with Christians of all denominational or political persuasions. After visiting with students at Logsdon School of Theology about CFC, I noticed that not everyone was on the same page politically or denominationally. Yet, a general desire arose for genuine conversation about commonality on various pertinent issues. Centrist Christians may act, then, as peacemakers—those persons who pull the two extremes of thought towards more common ground.

Third, plan a meeting with interested persons. Meet at a home, a coffee shop, or even at a church in your area. Be creative and proactive! Also, begin to lay the groundwork for conversation concerning a Centrist Christian response to the divisive issues of our day.

If you are interested in developing a curriculum or an action plan for your CFC Small Group, please email us! We can use our email and blogging assets as valuable tools of communication to proactively develop CFC Small Groups. Each small group takes on its own unique personality. Therefore, let us strive to initiate and develop dialogue from a Centrist perspective in our churches and campuses.

Book Review by Dwight Robarts

2005-05-26T09:16:00.000-07:00

A Review of Jeffrey Marx. Season of Life: A Football Star, a Boy, a Journey to Manhood. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.

Reviewed by Dwight Robarts.

National Public Radio recently interviewed Tom Mortenson of the Pell Institute. He said that this year universities would award two hundred thousand more bachelor’s degrees to women than to men. He further noted that the United States suffers the highest male incarceration rate in the world; as well as declining labor force participation by men, declining male voting rates and a decline in adult male engagement with the children they father. In my own church, the fastest growing segment of our congregation is our twenty-somethings, but the women members of that group far outnumber the males. Where are the men?

Joe Ehrmann has wondered the same thing. Ehrmann, the subject of Jeffrey Marx’s book, Season of Life, played professional football for the Baltimore Colts and the Detroit Lions during the seventies and early eighties. Not long after his pro career began, he suffered the painful loss of his younger brother to cancer. This led to a conversion and seminary study and then urban ministry in Baltimore after his playing days were over. While his ministry tackled poverty, racism, drugs, crime and illiteracy, he eventually concluded that these were symptoms. “They’re symptoms of the single biggest failure of our society. We simply don’t do a good enough job of teaching boys how to be men,” he told Marx. Ehrmann believes that our failure to teach men to be men is at the root of much of our society’s social ills. Ehrmann wants to redefine masculinity. Popular definitions of manhood have to do with the three B’s- ball field, bedroom and billfold. Men demonstrate their masculinity by athletic prowess, sexual conquest and material acquisition. Ehrmann defines manhood in relational terms including the capacity to love and be loved, to accept responsibility, to lead courageously, to commit oneself to the cause of justice on behalf of others and to live empathetically.

He and a friend volunteer their services as coaches of a local high school football team. Practice begins with the coaches asking the players, “What is our job?” The players respond, “To love us.” And, “what is your job?” The coaches ask. The players reply, “To love others.” One of the team rules is that if a football player goes into the cafeteria for lunch and sees any student eating alone, then that player must invite the student to sit at his table with his friends or sit with the student. This is football?

If coaches, youth ministers and church leaders practiced Ehrmann’s principles, we might raise a few more good men and we might find a more just world.

Gambling: A Bad Bet, by Dr. John Thielepape

2005-04-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

In a rare display of bipartisan sanity, state party leaders and elected representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties stood together outside the Texas capitol building to rally against proposals in the Texas Legislature to expand legalized gambling in Texas. They arrived at this destination by different routes, but agreed in the end that gambling would be a bad bet for the Texas economy.
Conservative Republicans oppose the expansion of gambling on moral grounds, while the Democrats accuse the Republican leadership in the Legislature of passing an education bill without funding details. They believe that gambling revenue will be used as a carrot to lower property taxes. The great irony of this debate is that gambling revenue is being promoted as a way to fund education for Texas children. A recent study by Texas Tech University (tables at the end of that study) showed that gambling activity is lowest among the better-educated and highest among the most poorly-educated. One must wonder how well educated gambling proponents truly want our children to become.
For an analysis of the impact of gambling upon communities and the social costs related to gambling expansion you can look to the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Texans Against Gambling, and the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission. Time after time, gambling is promoted as a way for state governments to ease pressure on their budgets, but the payoff is much like sitting at a casino table or slot machine. The only people who really profit from gambling are the people running the business.
How should we look at legalized gambling from a Christian perspective? Let me suggest a couple of ways. If Christians truly want to be a redemptive element in society then we must consider legalized gambling from the standpoint of justice. Many people are tempted to believe that since they do not gamble themselves then they should not interfere with those who desire to gamble. Studies indicate that 66 to 80 percent of gambling revenues are taken from the 10 percent of the population that gambles most heavily. Studies also show that lower income persons spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on gambling. Casinos and lotteries exploit the hopes of people who can least afford to lose, when the only guaranteed winners are those who control the games.
Christians should also look at gambling from the standpoint of stewardship. Christians who can afford to lose small amounts of money while gambling may believe that they are engaging in a harmless leisure activity. Yet, behind the scenes casinos use these profits to further exploit the addicted and the desperate. Furthermore, every dollar spent in a casino adds to the social cost of the addiction, bankruptcy, and crime caused by problem gambling. We must ask ourselves if we are making wise use of the resources with which God has blessed us when we use them to support an industry that provides a negative value to our society.
Those outside of Texas may think that this does not affect you, but in 2003 voters in 30 states faced 45 different proposals to expand legalized gambling. Although only 3 of those proposals passed, gambling proponents continue to promote gambling revenue as a painless alternative to tax increases. Make no mistake; gambling brings plenty of pain and cost. Responsible Christians should consider reminding legislators that it is poor public policy for a State to make losers out of its citizens, to allow its most vulnerable citizens to be exploited, and to balance its budget by increasing the burden on local agencies.

Life and Death, by R. Mitch Randall

2005-03-22T08:31:00.000-08:00

I can’t even begin to imagine. Trying to make a life and death decision concerning for my wife would be an incredible internal struggle that is quite honestly unfathomable. Of course, that is exactly the case with Terri and Michael Schiavo. Since suffering brain damage in 1990, Terri has been in a vegetative state, according to state appointed doctors, without any hope of recovering. Her husband has been faced with the decision of removing a feeding tube that would not sustain her current state of vegetation. Able to breath on her own, Terri would eventually starve to death in a matter of weeks.

As many politicians rush to the sides of Terri’s mother and father, who wish their daughter to be kept alive even in a vegetative state, I cannot help but be amiss to the quandary before us. As medical technology has progressed within history, the line between life and death has shifted. Therefore, we must ask, at what state of human life does the closest living relative decide that death is an appropriate answer to the circumstance? Also, when one is unable to decide for themselves through natural choice or living will, who is given the right of choosing for the afflicted? The spouse? The children? Mother and Father? Government?

In an attempt to address these questions, and I’m not certain there are any right answers here, let’s first discuss the issue of medical technology. Since the reality that people progress towards death by many different means and an ability to sustain life beyond natural selection exists, there has been the quandary of deciding who lives and who dies. The argument that all life must be given an opportunity to thrive falls short of reality. As the first wave of the bubonic plague swept across Europe, the medial community was faced with decision after decision about who lived and who died. Even today, in the midst of a terrorist scare, our own government places the worth of life in a priority need, making immunizations against biological warfare available to a select few. Making the argument that all life is treated equal is not a valid reality to the true reality that exists. Even in today’s incredible medical environment, there are decisions made concerning whether life is sustained or ended based upon medical priorities and economical shortcomings. Granted, this is a difficult task for any one trying to approach this with a caring heart. Unfortunately, these realities exist and decisions must be rendered…even when they are decisions of life and death.

Secondly, the decision of ending the life of a loved one begs the question at what point must that decision be rendered? Some argue that there is a difference between the sanctity of life and the quality of life. Their argument pertains that all life – no matter the condition of that life – be held the same privileges as normal human activity. Yet, the reality exists that there comes moments in life when others must make a decision regarding the future of another human being, as with the case of placing the elderly in nursing home care. And in extreme cases, like the Schiavo case, there comes moments when a decision of life and death becomes immanent.
A larger question regarding this specific issue must be the uneasiness many humans have with mortality. The reality exists that no matter what we proclaim about life after death, the human tendency is to live and avoid death. Yet, the Christian tradition has been that in Christ Jesus there is no fear of death. Unfortunately, the reality does exist that people live on the verge of death. And when those moments arise, there are decisions to be made that are not as clear as many would like us to believe. However, in the light of Christ Jesus, death should never be something we fear but something we accept as a natural passage towards another eternal existence leading us towards our heavenly dwelling.

Finally, another question has to do with the ability of authority. In other words, where does the authority lie when decisions must be made concerning life and death? In this specific case where a husband is trying to invoke what he claims is a spousal wish, there seems to be some confusion according to the federal government. The federal government seems to conclude that marriage, when a decision is made contradictory to a political viewpoint, is trumped by governmental meddling. While politicians stood on the floor the House and Senate railing against the decision of a loving spouse, they spouted not a word several weeks ago for a child in Houston, Texas whose economically poor mother was trying to keep her son alive by any means possible as well. The hypocrisy of life value is not lost. It seems politicians have values only when they are politically advantageous. With the actions of this past week, our federal government has shown us that not all are created equal in the eyes of God. Some are more important, especially when those causes help them garner votes with their constituents. Again, we should expect more from our government, than using the most difficult circumstance imaginable, for their political advantage.

As of this morning, a federal judge ruled that Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube would not be reinserted. In what should have been a very private matter within a family, the situation has been politicized and manipulated. My heart goes out today for Terri, Michael, and Terri’s parents. It is a most grievous and painful situation that garners many emotions. May the Lord be with them.

Ecological Responsibility, by R. Mitch Randall

2005-03-17T11:36:00.000-08:00

Leviticus 26:34 34 Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbath years as long as it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its Sabbath years.

The United States Senate has set into motion a policy that has the potential to rape the natural resources of our country. The Associated Press reported yesterday that a majority of the Senate passed a bill that would allow oil companies into the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. While the current administration quickly applauds such progress, one must carefully question the theological application of this progress.

American Industry has been a great attribute to our way of life. America has been built on the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of people creating and discovering new markets. Yet, American Industry has the tendency to pull natural resources without the thought of any ecological consequence. The western world has become a consumer driven nation, from our fast food meals to our natural resources. Few in our country consider ecological policies as moral issues.

However, after a careful reading of the Old Testament passages that speak about the importance of Sabbath – a moment of rest – one must reconsider the issue. Jürgen Moltman speaks of an ecological ethic that reclaims the importance of the Sabbath for the earth. Old Testament teaching clearly instructs the importance of allowing the land to rest. Where most industrial policy fails is in its intention of pulling resources without any regard to a Sabbath rest for the land.

If oil companies are allowed to invade natural resources without any regard to an ecological ethic, then our country will once again be putting our short term wants over our long-term responsibility. If we continue to pull the resources from this earth without allowing it, the God given right of rest, this living organism we call earth might begin to fight back. If not given its Sabbath by humanity, there is a possibility it will take it any way it can achieve it.

There is no doubt our country could benefit from alternative fuel sources from foreign oil, but acquiring resources without regard to the consequences is irresponsible. Why not give incentives to companies that produce alternative fuels and products that burn alternative fuels? There is something morally wrong when we have the means to produce alternative fuel sources and products, but refuse to encourage the progress. Americans must demand more from their government.

What are your thoughts?

Book Review (God's Politics), by Dr. John Thielepape

2005-03-15T11:40:00.000-08:00

God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It
by Jim Wallis
2005: HarperSanFrancisco, 384 pages
Reviewed by: John Thielepape

Since Jim Wallis takes on the two topics, religion and politics, that one should never discuss in polite company, God’s Politics should come with a warning label that the contents will prove hazardous to the self-righteous motives of any reader. The subtitle to Wallis’ book accurately reveals his criticism of both political extremes, the divide that exists between them and their relationship with people of religious faith. Wallis calls for people of faith to reclaim a prophetic role in the public debate, free from ties to either political party that speaks to issues from a consistently applied Christian ethic.

Wallis criticizes the political Left for its refusal to take seriously the viewpoints of religious people. Calling them “secular fundamentalists…who seem to have an allergy to spirituality and a disdain for anything religious,” Wallis believes that the Left needs to hear from the values and beliefs of religious people. Those who presume a liberal bias from Wallis may be surprised by his conservative challenges to the Democratic Party on abortion and to Americans United for Separation of Church and State on religious liberty. Wallis also believes that values should be at the center of the political debate as long as those values extend to an entire range of issues addressed by the implications of the gospel.

For the political right, which for Wallis has become synonymous with the Religious Right, he engages prevailing government policies and actions on a broad range of issues that include pre-emptive war and an empire-building philosophy, poverty, government spending, corporate scandals, capital punishment, and race relations. He is careful to define areas of agreement, such as the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from power, while expressing disagreement on the necessity of invasion to accomplish that task. Wallis believes that the Religious Right restricts the gospel to individual moral choices and sexual ethics and has become exploited by those who would use the gospel for their own empowerment.

In Wallis’ view, another option exists which reclaims a prophetic role for people of faith. This option takes a conservative stance on values, sexual ethics and personal responsibility while acting progressively on poverty, racial and gender equality, the environment, and peacemaking. Wallace seeks a common ground on issues where believers disagree, and a productive dialogue about issues where people listen to one another rather than simply trying to convince one another.

The shortcoming of God’s Politics is Wallis’ extensive use of his own experiences and writings as support material. While some of them add meaning, most of them could have been placed in appendices or linked to his website. They often make the book wander and place the focus too much on Wallis himself. In this writer’s opinion, he would have been better-served by expanding his use of the words of Christ and of the Old Testament prophets to support his views.

God’s Politics will be valuable reading to any person who has grown tired of the divisive nature of American politics and hopes for a more complete expression of the gospel in public discussion. While one may not agree with all of Wallis’ conclusions, serious readers will benefit from interacting with the questions that he raises. God’s Politics will challenge readers to apply a consistent faith to a broad range of public issues.

The Middle Way, by Dr. Bill Tillman

2005-03-14T07:51:00.000-08:00

I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone say, “The middle of the road—where you find dead armadillos and yellow stripes.” More than an implication is the middle is where ideas reside that are not going anywhere and anyone there with the ideas is cowardly.

Jesus talked about this phenomenon, the middle of the road--that is--and took a different slant on it. In the Sermon on the Mount he noted that the narrow way is the way that leads to life. The broad way leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13-14).

A legitimate interpretation of that passage is that Jesus’ identification of the broad way is that of identifying the widths of life by the extreme sides of life—for his context, the Pharisaical legalists and the antinomian types.

Life experience for me authenticates Jesus’ observation. When the hard issues of life come in upon us, the extreme edges of the conversation inevitably emerge. The extremists’ style is to yell down anyone who resists the extreme’s perspectives. Eventually, one or the other of the extremes attempts to dominate the conversation. The results--Jesus said it best--lead to destruction of something, someone; more heat than light on a matter; not a pretty picture.

Why do people join in on the extreme perspectives of issues? There are a number of reasons, I think. One, is that people really do, after all, want to care about issues, social issues, of life. As well, they want to count for something. Yet, extremists’ arguments call for little need of reflection—the issues, the dilemmas, the needed resolutions are put forward in one-two-three fashion. What could be easier?
Indeed, in contrast, the middle way takes undaunted courage. For the middle, narrow way will suffer under peer pressure and those who want formulaic answers. The extremes will make the narrow way a miserable way, if possible. Ironically, though, present must be the willingness to hear the extremes and even learn from them, but still steer away from them. Moreover, there is the promise of finding life, a filling, fulfilling version of it.

William M. Tillman, Jr.
T. B. Maston Professor of Christian Ethics
Logsdon School of Theology
Hardin-Simmons University
Abilene, Texas

Students and Change, by James Hassell

2005-03-14T07:49:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid, I remember some of my brother’s monumental high jinks. There was the time when that stink bomb just happened to accidentally roll from a parking lot into a Safeway store. There was the time when many of the Christmas trees in our neighborhood were salvaged from dumpsters and conveniently planted in the high school band director’s yard. There was the time one summer when some M-60s happened to erupt from the port-a-potty at a nearby school yard. Unfortunately, my parents learned of all these pranks, and my brother was severely reprimanded. Once, I asked my fuming dad about the motivations for one of my brother’s actions. My dad matter-of-factly replied, “It was just not the right thing to do.” Needless to say, I learned from my brother’s mistakes.

Unfortunately, many of the people in our nation who associate with the Religious Right and with the Political Left are pulling tremendous religious pranks on our culture. The bombs of a skyrocketing war debt hamper social change in America while no one seems to care. This is just not the right thing to do. The endless and fruitless debates over the Constitution, abortion, and homosexuality simply rip apart the fabric of fellowship within our country, while other issues like healthcare and poverty are silenced This is just not the right thing to do. The seams of America split wide open, and students—like you and I—stumble to find a voice. This is just not the right thing to do.

Christians for Change can be a primary outlet for you to express the nature of Jesus’ message—one of justice, mercy, and love. Students who are active in CFC will not only have ways of expressing their faith in Jesus through words, but they will take the Gospel in action throughout neighborhoods. It’s time that the intolerants of the Right and the Left listen to a hopeful message from a younger, Centrist generation. I invite you to mobilize today. Therefore, may the authority of Jesus’ words and sacrificial nature of Christ’s actions stir our hearts towards action as we place together our unyielding love for God with a love for one another.

Homosexuality, by Dr. Bill Tillman

2005-03-14T07:47:00.000-08:00

Homosexuality is one of those issues about which has become a theological, ecclesial, and political football. Most people have an opinion; but, the American culture has come to a point where there is more heat than light with regard to homosexuality.

The public debate swirls around entrenched arguments. The social context projects those who are all too eager to talk about homosexuality, whatever their position on the issue, creating a chasm into which will fall those who had rather talk about something else. The divisions are monumental enough so as to divide congregations, whole denominations, and large portions of the larger society. Polarization is the dominating social dynamic.

In too many cases, with Christians, the issue of homosexuality has been and is being used to put forward “the” Christian position. In too few cases is homosexuality viewed as a matter about which Christianity can be seen putting forward a style, even method, for dealing with controversial matters, whatever they may be.

What might that style or method include, then? The style should be marked, at least, by civility. Some Christians sound like raving maniacs—not someone of sound mind—when the issue of homosexuality comes into conversation. Somehow, those same Christians have convinced themselves that any method is appropriate to settling the issue of homosexuality, just because the issue must once and for all, finally be resolved. In other words, there are Christians who apparently think that because they are Christians, then uncivility can be appropriate as needed. The quality of being able to disagree with an attitude of essentially looking for reconciliation instead of division is a much needed quality among us. The ends do justify the means—resolutions marked by good values must be reached by methodologies marked by good values.

The style should also be marked by attention to human beings made in the image of God. Any issue is pretty easy to resolve into black-white, up-down, right-wrong categories when faceless masses are considered. Interestingly, on homosexuality—or divorce, or financial difficulties, or AIDS, or race—the issue tends to be handled differently for people as the issue takes on a face close to them. I am intrigued by those who deal with homosexuality with basically the only criterion or filter for seeing other people is that of sexuality. What does that say?

With homosexuality, as with many other social concerns with social divisioning potentialities, clearer biblical interpretation and application is needed. Contemporarily, essentially a proof-texting approach is in place, when and if the Bible ever does become a part of the discussion. Such an approach says a great deal toward the shallow regard with which Christians actually view the Bible, no matter what they say.

One of the assertions can make about the biblical revelation is that the people of God are to be willing to stand with the marginalized of their society. The contemporary setting has evolved into a context which is over against the homosexuals among us. That dynamic should immediately ask of Christians how homosexuals and any demographic minorities should be treated.

The issue of homosexuality must be kept in proportion to the rest of life. The argument “This is the most pressing issue of our time” has become so overused as to be of no use now. Homosexuality or any controversial issue can be given such priority so as to make the matter an idol—it is the reference point for how one arranges life. What an irony!

So, are we going to resolve the issue of homosexuality any time soon? Not at all; for there are too many dynamics already in place to work toward any degree of resolution. As we realize the resolution will be slow in coming, let us commit ourselves to act as Christianly as possible in the mean time. No doubt, such an attitude will bring the resolution sooner and better.

Religious Liberty, by James Hassell

2005-03-14T07:44:00.000-08:00

The word patriotism is in vogue these days. In fact, many persons of faith bandy the word about as if they hinge their entire Christian identity upon their expression of patriotism. While citizenship is an authentic expression of Christianity (Mark 12:13-17; 1 Peter 2:13-17), believers must be careful not to mistake patriotism for theocratic ideals. Therefore, every man and woman is free to exercise his/her religious ideals according to the dictates of conscience. Accordingly, to impede upon someone’s expression of religion in the name of patriotism does not reflect an accurate Christian ethic.

Religious liberty is championed by Christians in a number of ways. In fact, any number of contemporary political issues which face both the church and the culture hinge upon religious liberty. While these issues are too numerous to outline at this juncture, this author will highlight three primary actions that Christians may choose to undertake in championing religious liberty.

First, Christians should encourage religious diversity among the culture. A free flow of dialogical ideas enhances culture and discourages theological totalitarianism. Second, Christians should engage in political activity. Christians recognize that all persons are made in the image of God. Therefore, believers faithfully act to protect the rights and responsibilities of all people. Third, Christians should participate in the mission of God. The Good News may not be proclaimed if the church has to answer the state. Subsequently, patriotism, in reality, enhances freedom in our culture. Christians, then, must answer the call to advocate religious liberty.

Pre-Emptive War, by R. Mitch Randall

2005-03-14T07:21:00.000-08:00

For the first time in this two-hundred-year democratic experiment, America has been the aggressor of war. With loosely obtained information, and armed with a revenge based on fearful possibilities, America has embraced and implemented the war philosophy of the pre-emptive strike. On the heels of one of our country’s greatest tragedies, the war mentality, philosophy, and strategy of this country evolved. When the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, the tears of the world fell along with us. Justice was rightly sought as our country engaged in a pursuit of the evil-doers who struck.

Yet, somewhere during this search for evil, we began to drift off course from seeking justice to implementing pre-emptive war against ambiguous possibilities. While the reality existed that an evil dictator ruled Iraq with an iron fist, that dictator fit the profile of many other evil dictators in the global arena. Somewhere in the deserts of the Middle-East, our country lost our way.

From a policy view point, the pre-emptive war strategy implemented in Iraq is a loosely crafted policy that stands on speculation and the weight of victory. It opens the door for any administration, Republican or Democrat, to act on false intelligence and political capital. It places our brave soldiers in harm’s way on the possibility of false intelligence endangering their lives and mission. And finally, pre-emptive war cannot set a clear objective for measurable success, but it creates an ambiguous success on vague principles.

From a biblical viewpoint, I cannot believe that Jesus would embrace the pre-emptive war strategy. When teaching about defiance, Jesus taught that bold action can be taken without striking the aggressor (Mt. 5:38-48). For a moment, let’s imagine what Jesus might have said if he were a pre-emptive war supporter. Instead of saying, “Offer someone the other cheek,” he would have said, “Hit them first, before they have a chance to slap you.” Instead of saying, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” he would say, “Kill your enemies and pray that you’re right”. Ridiculous, don’t you think?

The more and more I think about it, we try to understand Jesus as some of his disciples tried to understand him during his earthly ministry. Some of them wanted a military Messiah that would mobilize the people and overthrow Rome, but Jesus knew that true change came from within the human heart (Rom. 12:2).

Through humility, sacrifice, love, and a boldness to stand up against the establishment, Jesus began the process of a new way (Phil. 2:5-11). The way of Jesus journey’s through the narrow gate and down the hard road (Mt. 7:14), where there is no room for a pre-emptive war strategy. The way of Jesus seeks to bring about change through a non-violent strategy that challenges the establishment while empowering the oppressed. The narrow road is through the heart of a person where ideas swim and movements born. Freedom does not begin with taking up arms from a pre-emptive war strategy, but begins when the human soul realizes that freedom means more than existing within a democracy or waving a flag. Freedom is about the release of worldly ideas and the embrace of a heavenly agenda.

Christians for Change, by R. Mitch Randall

2005-02-22T19:03:00.000-08:00

Dear Concerned Believer:

Last year’s elections revealed a sobering reality, the Religious Right of this country has successfully taken the helm as the predominant Christian voice on cultural and social issues. No other organization has been able to match their rancor and mobilization. While other organizations exist which do a splendid job of educating and informing the public on specific issues, there does not exist within the heart of this country a concerted ecumenical effort to proclaim and promote to the public a thoroughly biblical message that values salvation, freedom, reconciliation, justice, mercy, hope, and love.

For too long now, people of faith who consider themselves centrists or moderates in the political arena have stood on the sidewalk as the marching bands of the Right and Left have had their parades. However, there is an emerging and exciting movement beginning to surface among people of faith. If our country is ever to move away from the polarization in which we currently exist, then there must be an organization to enlighten, empower, and encourage the changes that need to take place in America. For those of you who are tired of the Religious Right speaking on your behalf and for those of you who feel you are not being heard by the political Left...then Christians for Change welcomes you.

Christians for Change is a network of thoughtful Christians who understand the message of Jesus Christ as being one of salvation, freedom, reconciliation, justice, mercy, hope, and love. We exist not to promote any political party, but to proclaim in the public arena the complete and life-giving message of Jesus Christ . Through our network of believers, we will bring a concerted voice of reason from the heart of this country. If this country is ever to be transformed as Christ Jesus once envisioned for the world, then it will have be transformed...not through Washington D.C….but through the hearts and minds of common people who work hard, raise families, and live out a sincere vision of Christian discipleship.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, we invite you to come and be part of an emerging movement that will shape our country’s future for many years to come. Already, many prominent names have expressed interest in this incredible endeavor. We would like for you to add your name to our growing numbers. If you would like more information regarding Christians for Change or would like to support our efforts, email me at rmr@christiansforchange.org or write to PO Box 2140, Keller, TX 76244. On June 29th, 7:00 PM, at First Baptist Church Bedford, TX, we will hold our first annual meeting. We welcome your thoughts and input for this historic meeting.

Respectfully,

R. Mitch Randall
Director