Kony 2012. 

An injustice that had been hidden for the last twenty-six years was now exposed. Thousands of people peered into a world that was previously unknown, and realized that they could not ignore what they had seen. It was time to raise a cry against this horrific situation. It was a call to action.

This man, filled with a desire for power, chose the most innocent and helpless to carry out his evil goals and began to abduct children from their homes; brainwashing, enslaving, and mutilating them into his army. In the name of Christianity and under the twisted logic of “living according to the Ten Commandments”, the Lord’s Resistance Army was formed. Out of fear and the pursuit of power, the children were raped, ravaged, and often required to murder their own parents.

Much controversy has arisen since the release of these videos. People are concerned with facts, where to go from here, and how to do it well. To some, it is easier to think that our nation needs to mind our own business and feel no responsibility. To others, it seems totally hopeless to try to fix a situation so far removed from our geographic location and we wonder what can we really do? How can we really make a difference?

Kony 2012 Part II.

To be honest, I was not one of those 70,000 early viewers. As I saw this video plastered across Facebook, I chose not the listen. I almost wanted to avoid the knowledge. I didn’t want to hear what all the buzz was about. Eventually though, I had to know what was creating the stir and my heart was captured. And like so many, I can’t just sit by and leave it up to others to take action.

I look back a few thousand years at the Israelites in the desert, and see them miss it time and again. The grace of God. His wonder as miracles happened before their eyes, and yet again they would complain. They missed what he was teaching them, they missed what they were actually a part of. I always told myself, “I won’t miss it. I won’t be blind to the things God is doing, the movements he is shaping, the waves he is creating.” But I think we followers of Jesus, are missing it. We are so easily caught up in the rhythm and comfort of our daily lives, forgetting that the very foundation on which the throne of God sits is justice and righteousness [Psalms 89:14a]. It is uncomfortable to hear about monsters like Kony, to force ourselves to become educated, and then to act on the knowledge? What is required of me and how do I become part of this movement?

It does not matter who you are, your gender, religion, or political views – we all should be standing up for humanity; giving a voice to the silent, advocating for the oppressed.  Democrats, Republicans, celebrities, teenagers; they are all joining in the fight to free these children. The issue is not about Invisible Children, it is not about these videos on Youtube. The issue is our willingness to take what has been set before us. It is not a suggestion from our God, it is a requirement. It states plainly in Micah 6:8, “And what does the Lord REQUIRE of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Isaiah 1:17 repeats this great expectation for us, “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”

So here is our chance! In order for us to really help, to really take part in changing things, we must first educate ourselves. So take some time to learn how you can change the lives of thousands of children in Central Africa.

First and foremost, Christians must make sure that all of our words and actions are completely saturated in love.  It has become cliché for Believers to say that it is important that we show love to the homosexual community, but the collective actions of the Body demonstrate otherwise.  It is time that we demonstrate the love of our Savior by doing more than just talking about it.  Some relatively simple actions can go a long way in this manner.  For example, move the chapter about loving the homosexual community to the front of the book on gay marriage instead of leaving it tucked away in the appendices.  Put a little extra effort into finding different illustrations for our sermons instead of defaulting to an attack on “the gay agenda.”  And stop using the offensive comparison of gay marriage and bestiality.  Not only does this analogy lessen one’s credibility, but it is too easily defeated to be of any use.  In short, it may very well prove to be that the best way to love the homosexual community is to stop being un-loving.  We must love our neighbors more than we love our political agenda.  Winning the battle over marriage should not come at the cost of tarnishing the Bride of Christ.

Second, we must remember that marriage gets its significance by virtue of being an institution ordained by God, not by the rulings of legislatures or judges.  The state’s position on marriage is important, don’t misunderstand me, but of far greater importance is how the Church deals with marriage.  We should be far more concerned that the Episcopal Church recognizes gay marriage than we should be about the state of Massachusetts.  The holiness of marriage is not lessened by what a government rules.  It’s holiness is derived from the fact that it is a representation of Christ’s relationship to the Church, not from the tax benefits married couples receive.

In conclusion let me clarify that I am not saying this issue is not important.  Truly, it is hard to overstate its significance.  What I am saying, however, is that of far, far greater significance is the preservation of the Gospel message and it’s impact on a broken and hurting world.  Behind the policy debates, political posturing, and fear-mongering is a lot of broken, abused people (both gay and straight) that need to be shown the love of Christ.  Homosexuality is not the unforgiveable sin, nor is it damning in and of itself.  We are saved not based on our sexual orientation but by the atoning work of Jesus.  Let us not forget that the eternal souls of every single person involved in this debate is of infinite greater importance than whether or not the state recognizes same-sex unions. So, as you engage this debate, make sure it is in a manner that is in a manner that reflects the love of Christ.  There is more at stake than here than laws and court decisions.

In the last few weeks, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has taken considerable heat over his proposed federal budget. In defending his recommended cuts, Ryan has referenced his Catholic faith as one more line of support for his plan, an argument that has now drawn the ire of a collection of Catholics connected with Georgetown University.

They argue that Ryan has twisted Catholic dogma for his own ends, for true Catholics would never cut funding for government programs aimed to serve society’s poor. Arguing that the doctrine of “subsidiarity” obligates the federal government to continue funding welfare programs at the state and local levels, the Georgetown group accuses Ryan of valuing the teachings of atheist philosopher and author Ayn Rand over those of the Church. To help turn their wayward Representative around, this group condescendingly  gave Ryan a homework assignment: to read the Vatican’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church commissioned by John Paul II, “to help deepen [Ryan’s] understanding of Catholic social teaching.” That’s not a bad idea: let’s see what this document says.

The Compendium defines subsidiarity as the moral requirement that “all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies.” In this, the Georgetown group and others conclude that, as a “superior order,” the federal government must help individuals in lower-order societies who are struggling to survive. So,  the Georgetown group admonishes Ryan by saying, “Subsidiarity is not a free pass to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices.”

But neither Ryan nor anyone who has supported reducing federal spending down to sustainable levels has ever supported abandoning anyone. Instead, Ryan has focused on the very next sentence of the Compendium: “In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.”

This is the spirit of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution! The Compendium’s understanding of subsidiarity obligates “superior orders of society” to support lower orders, but only in such a way that “refrain[s] from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted.” The notion of reducing federal spending on welfare programs operates from the understanding that local-level programs (the Compendium’s “lower-order” or “intermediate social entities”) are better equipped, and indeed morally obligated, to meet the specific needs of their particular communities. For the federal government to do the job of local organizations is a violation of subsidiarity. And the Georgetown group agrees: “[subsidiarity] calls for solutions to be enacted as close to the level of local communities as possible.”

Solidarity in society is indeed important for subsidiarity to operate effectively, but “solidarity” need not refer to macro-level  decisions made by bureaucrats in Washington who do not fully understand what the individuals in rural Idaho, for example, actually need. Let Idahoans support Idahoans, Ryan is saying, for they know best what Idahoans need.

So, the Georgetown group’s reference to Ayn Rand is simply irrelevant. While it is certainly true that her doctrines of selfishness and anti-religion are antithetical to Christianity, that fact has nothing to do with Ryan’s budget. It is not selfish to stop spending money that you don’t have, nor is it unloving to allow those best equipped to meet someone’s needs do precisely that.

The most troubling element of this letter, though, is the resignation shown by this group of Catholics that government spending is the only possible way to help the poor and needy. The group says that subsidiarity “demands that higher levels of government provide help — “subsidium”– when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address…”; this is only partially right. Remember how the Compendium actually reads: “all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help” in such circumstances, not simply the government (emphasis added). It is astonishing that members of the largest, most organized, most well-funded religious group in the world would abdicate their own responsibility as members of the Roman Catholic Church to step in (as a “superior order”) and assist those in need. It is debatable whether individual welfare is the responsibility of the State; it is absolutely not debatable that the same action is indeed the obligation of the Church.

In Matthew 25, when Jesus charged his audience to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, he was not commanding them to create government programs. It is our responsibility as ambassadors of Christ to be His hands in the world. To shove off that calling onto the State is to be unfaithful to the work that God has given to us; as the Superior Order, the Church should always be supporting the poor. Rep. Ryan is right: let the State focus on what it can actually do given the funding it actually possesses.

Now, over a year later, most of the uprisings have come to some sort of conclusion. In many countries, the leaders and heads of state were deposed—as is the case in countries like Tunisia and Egypt. In other instances, resolution was achieved through outside intervention, like occurred in Libya. Some cases adjusted through domestic reform. Other governments successfully capped the uprising. Most all countries have reached a conclusion. But that is not the case for Syria.

Arab Spring first manifest in Syria in March 2011, as groups of protestors took to the streets. Escalating rapidly, the protestors passionately demanded greater democratic rights and less government corruption. They resented their current President Bashar al-Assad and called for the removal of his government—and consequently, the cessation of fifty years of Ba’ath party rule. The government responded with a violent crackdown, fighting the protestors with weapons and other gruesome measures of oppression. Al-Assad’s actions were nothing short of tyrannical, and he has been harshly criticized in the eyes of almost every developed country in the world. Simultaneously, the dissidents strengthened themselves into a more formidable counter-insurgency, and the violence heightened. Acceptable estimates suggest that around 10,000 Syrians (mostly civilians) have been killed in the past year, and many thousands more have been wrongfully imprisoned and tortured. Other stories tell of soldiers who have refused to brutalize or slay their fellow Syrians—and they too have been executed under al-Assad’s regime. Tragically, even UNICEF reports that over 500 innocent children have died and hundreds more have been arrested and tortured along with their parents. In short, the violence and suffering are horrific.

Amazingly, while the rest of the world has condemned al-Assad’s regime, their criticism is not followed by action. Most major supranational bodies and intergovernmental organizations have called for an end to the violence, including the Arab League (which expelled Syria from membership), the European Union and the United Nations (which has been unable to levy sanctions against Syria due to the infamously controversial vetoes from China and Russia). So, too, have many individual countries denounced the violence, like the United States, France, Egypt, Turkey, and a host of other countries in the developed world. Even most Middle Eastern nations, though initially supporting al-Assad’s regime, have joined the criticism of the Syrian government. But in spite of the blatant international criticism, no organization, no country has followed their words with tangible intervention.

The most serious attempt at peace has come from the UN’s special envoy Kofi Annan and his 6 point plan for peace. The plan enforces a cease-fire that has been in effect since April 12, 2012. The plan has reduced violence, but hot spots continue to erupt. Most people speculate that the attempt is only a temporary measure and that it will not solve Syria’s problem.

Is there hope for Syria? At this point, it seems intangible and imaginary. Any country that is capable of intervention has publicly declared that they will not do so because they do not have national interests at stake. And don’t get me wrong: I’m not a huge proponent of military intervention for humanitarian causes. It’s ineffective and inconsistent, too bogged down by the politics of national interest to be authentically humanitarian.  At the same time, though, the suffering of the Syrian people tells me that something must be done. These people need help.

Christians, I challenge you to pray for the people of Syria. Pray for hope, pray for peace. And don’t forget the responsibility that we have to fight for the oppressed.

There are a number of factors that make an ideological vote much superior to a policy vote.  Just to define terms, ideology is a person’s foundational political philosophy.  Policy is how that ideology is implemented.  In a few short months, President Obama and Mitt Romney will engage in a series of ‘debates’ to help the public decide who the superior candidate is.  I put scare quotes around debate because it really will function as a platform for each candidate to present his own plan and ridicule the other’s.  Policy will be discussed; ideology will barely be touched, much less debated.  At this point in the political cycle, there is an ideological war being waged with little discussion of policy.  This is where the real meat of the campaign is.  Currently, President Obama believes that the top income earners are not paying enough income tax, so he is out urging people to vote for him so he can make them pay their “fair share.”  Mitt Romney is promising to end Obamacare (barring a Supreme Court decision) stating that the American public should not be forced by the government to purchase health insurance.  Both these ideas are ideological in nature.  In his heart, President Obama believes that a strong Federal government can fix the ails of this nation.  Romney believes that limiting some aspects of the Federal government, especially in its interaction with business, makes for a stronger America.

The primary reason we must ignore campaign promises to a large degree is that they are mostly unrealistic.  Every candidate trots out promises to change the economy and improve the lives of Americans, but there are many steps that must be taken to actually implement those.  During the ‘debates,’ we will hear the President say that his plan for the economy will work.  Romney will criticize it and say that his plan is superior and vice-versa.  But how can the public really know?  Each will have his own economists, experts, think-tanks, interest groups, and supporters tell you how much better his plan is over the other.  This is precisely why America must vote on ideology.  Do you favor a stronger Federal government or weaker one?  Do you want a government that taxes the business owners at a higher rate or a lower rate?  Do you want to vote for a party that wants to fund and expand abortion or a party that wants to limit and defund it?  These are all ideological issues.

What about Independents?  Many Americans call themselves Independents or Moderates because they are dissatisfied with both Democrats and Republicans.  Their dissatisfaction is much understood considering how each party behaves most of the time.  To all the Moderates out there, I want to plea with you on ideology.  Being a balanced person in politics means nothing.  Our task as Christians is to identify what is true and good and act on it accordingly.  Christ never called us to live a balanced life.  Additionally, our voting system dominated by the two parties does not allow for a Moderate (mainly due to fundraising).  Moderates are fundamentally confused about their own ideology and are in a precarious position when it comes to consistency.  Perhaps the only redeeming quality of the two parties is that it’s easy to identify where Democrats and Republicans stand on issues like abortion, economic freedom, taxation, and many other important concerns.

Does policy ever trump ideology?  Well in some cases, truth requires us to enact policy that may extend beyond our own systems of ideology.  Ideologies are somewhat malleable as well.  But, the truth must always underpin our ideology, not popular opinion.  Abortion is a personal example.  I believe that abortion is morally wrong, so I advocate the federal government stepping in to combat this evil.  This goes against my preference for a limited federal government, but represents the truth that killing the unborn is wrong.

Pay attention to the next election.  Be an informed voter and determine the ideologies each candidate trots out.  Understand that candidates will make many campaign promises, but in the end, they will revert to their political ideology most of the time.  If a candidate makes a promise that defies their obvious ideology, just know that it most likely will not turn out the way he claims.

Question: What Should a Christian Think of Earth Day? Road 1: Religion of Environment Road 2: Concern for Creation

Religion of Environment - Chip Bishop

What is Earth Day?  It is a day set aside to reflect on the beauty of the earth and to make efforts to preserve it, and has contributed to one of the largest movements of our time: environmentalism.  It also has the potential to be one of the most aggressive affronts to Christianity and the Biblical worldview.

According to its founder, Gaylord Nelson, the mission of Earth Day is to recognize that the fate of the living planet is the most important issue to mankind.  According to the Bible, the mission of our days on earth is to recognize the depravity of man and this physical world and that our need for a savior is the most important issue to mankind.

It might seem like the two paradigms can coexist, that there is no need to quibble over definitions because we can live out our faith while enacting policies that preserve the world in which we live.  But this isn’t true for two reasons.  First, environmentalists are dramatically unbiblical in their philosophy and efforts.  Second, environmentalism as a first priority subverts the ability to adequately reach the poor and lost with the message of salvation.

1) Environmentalists propagate the myth that the earth was here before us and will remain after we’re gone: humans are visitors, trespassers exploiting the earth.  This is completely unbiblical, yet the Mother Earth mantra forms the foundation for much of environmentalism.  In truth, God is the Creator, the Provider, the one who allows us to master the elements to procure sustenance: the earth exists for mankind.

In fact, the earth is hostile.  If we didn’t work to subdue it, as God called us to, it would overwhelm us.  But just because something works against us does not mean we are able to utterly dismiss concern for it.  After all, God loved us while we hated him, living in sin (Romans 5:8).  We ought, then, to approach the earth with the intention to manage it well, and most efficiently use what God has provided.

This makes the case against a minimalistic view regarding earthly consumption, which is a popular phenomenon.  Numerous Christian groups even exist with the purpose of accomplishing such ends.  Indeed, a “Green Bible” was released a few years ago, literally highlighting every passage that references creation care.  It is an interesting concept, yet it risks being culturally relevant at the price of doctrinal integrity.

Some Christian environmental groups exist and, while perhaps well-intentioned, go too far in advocating for actions not supported in Scripture, or even truncate passages to support the integrity of their purpose rather than that of the Bible.  Placing any policy goal above accurate representation of Scripture instantly raises an alarm.  If God’s word must be maligned to support a Christian organization’s creed, something is amiss.

2) It is important to remember that God does not call us to make heaven on this world; he calls us to reach the lost so that they may join believers in the world to come (i.e. heaven).  When creation serves to enable that process, it should be celebrated, not forbidden.

Jesus himself, through whom all was created and is held together, cursed a fig tree.  He did this not to destroy but to make a point that would bring life (Mark 11).  By Christ’s example we see that the earth serves to provide lessons befitting a spiritual eternity.  The problem with mainstream environmentalism is that there is no reference point by which to make value judgments.  For Christians, it is the Bible.

Regarding environmentalism, Christians often don’t know how to address it.  On a spiritual level, we may feel uncertain how to Biblically connect faith-filled living with concern for creation. On a social level, we may be unsure how to live out our higher calling in the secular world with strategy, tact, and Christlikeness.  These are legitimate concerns that are difficult to resolve.  But believers, by our inaction, have ceded one of the areas where we ought to be the strongest.

It is important that believers recognize the wondrous creation around us, remarking as David did in Psalm 104, “In wisdom you made (all creation).”  Though creation is depraved and cursed to bear the burden of death (Genesis 3), and can therefore never be redeemed by the efforts of man, the marvels of God are enough that they alone can draw people to Christ (Romans 1).  Yet creation serves as a means not an end.  That’s the key difference between environmentalism and Christian stewardship.

- Chip is a regular contributor to FaithfulPolitics.org and works at a think tank in Washington, D.C.  This post was drawn from a previous article.

Concern for Creation - Keane Fine

As Christians fight tooth and nail defending the creation of the universe by an intelligent designer they also fight against care and concern for that same creation. As Christians read Bible verses riff with metaphors comparing God’s characteristics to the natural world he created they at the same time defend the destruction of these areas. As Christians sing worship songs from slides with background images displaying natural wonder, these same areas are slowly being poisoned.

The very first act of God recorded in the Bible was the creation of the world; an act which he said was good (Gen. 1:3). God then put us on this earth in charge of it to be its stewards and subdue it (Genesis 1:28). We are to put the earth to use, we are to use its resources and not just exist on the earth without touching it. However, that is not an invitation to participate in its destruction. When we learn that mountain top mining, oil spills, and destruction of habitats is damaging to the earth we cannot continue and use our stewardship over the earth as an excuse for our participation in its destruction. God said that when we are faithful with little he will give us much (Matt. 25:21). I cannot imagine that our stewardship for this world invites us to be offered stewardship over the new earth.

Our calling to reach the lost and care for the poor is not an invitation to discard all other things in place of this new goal, instead it is to effect all areas of our life. When habitats are destroyed it affects not only the plants and animals that are there but also the humans that have made their homes there. The destruction of food and water sources has huge implications for the poor and lost of the area. While some can afford to gain access to clean food and water many are stuck with what is available to them: dirty water or poisoned food. Our concern for them should cause us to be concerned about the area in which they live.

Let our love of God’s creation be a sign of our ultimate love for the one who created it and the one who came to redeem it.

- Keane is the cofounder of FaithfulPolitics.org and a graduate of Wheaton College.  He is a designer for Crossway Publishers and lives outside of Chicago.  This post was drawn from a previous article.

*Organizational affiliations are for identification purposes only.  The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the organization or of FaithfulPolitics.org.

Carroll has a unique perspective on immigration given his personal and professional history.  Though predominately raised and educated in the West, Carroll has Guatemalan ancestry, which grants him a unique perspective given his experience in both the majority culture and Hispanic culture.  Moreover, Carroll splits time between teaching posts at Denver Seminary and El Seminario Teologico Centroamericano (Guatemala).  While it is clear that this Old Testament professor has a foot in both worlds, he clearly states his personal feelings: “I care for [the United States and Guatemala], although I must admit my deepest longings are for my Guatemalan roots” (18).  I found this a rather odd admission, although it does not take anything away from the rest of the book.  In fact, Carroll’s overall presentation is balanced, thoughtful, and not driven by ideology.

In the Introduction, Carroll lays out his modest goal for this book: “My intention is to try to move Christians to reconsider their starting point in the immigration debate…It is designed as a primer for a more biblically and theologically informed approach to the topic” (19-20).  Chapter One is something of a whirlwind tour of the last 150 years of Hispanic immigration in the United States.  Included in this chapter is a discussion of the relationship between Hispanic immigration and national identity, economic realities, and the Christian Church.  This was the weakest section in the book, as I was reminded again and again that Carroll is an Old Testament scholar and not a sociologist, political scientist, or economist.  I was most troubled by Carroll completely leaving out the Constitution in his discussion of national identity (40).  As G.K. Chesterton once remarked, “America is the only nation ever founded on a creed.”  This historical reality also needs to inform the immigration debate, although it is ignored by Carroll.  After all, as American citizens, it is the Constitution and not ethnicity or race that provides us a national identity.

The strength of this book is found in Chapter Two through Chapter Four where Carroll analyzes the Old and New Testament passages relevant to immigration.  Chapters Two and Three deal with the OT concepts of hospitality, forced migration, hunger, and legislation.  Chapter Four addresses the NT passages on Jesus and immigration, sojourners, and Romans 13.  In addition to the exposition of biblical texts, Carroll also provides “Implications for Today” throughout each chapter.  One of the especially important passages Carroll highlights is the Creation account in Genesis 1 and the Christian understanding of the Imago Dei.  He rightly points out that every human being is created in the image of God, and this must always be the starting point for Christians in this discussion (67).  Chapter Five concludes with suggestions moving forward.  Again, Carroll avoids any partisanship and instead gives some broad principles for future Christian engagement.

Christians at the Border is an important book for Christians who want their political positions shaped by their Christian faith rather than the other way around.  Carroll succeeds in driving the reader to think about immigration first and most importantly, as a Christian.  This book should be considered essential reading for any Christian who wishes to engage this contentious issue for the cause of Christ.

Throughout the history of the Church one of the more controversial and confusing issues has been the interaction of grace and works.  It is no wonder that so much of the New Testament is devoted to these two themes.  So it is not hard to understand why Platt’s entrance into the foray of this debate stirred up some heated dialogue.  In Radical Together Platt clarifies his position by reiterating the importance of grace.  In a candid confession, he laments the fact that his passion for an active faith sometimes has prevented him from adequately emphasizing the centrality of grace, not works, in the Christian faith (Pg. 38). That being said, Platt is very firm in his resolve that grace in our hearts should extend to goodness in our hands (Pg. 16).

Another theme from this work that should resonate with many Americans is the importance of every individual.  Platt contends that far too often the American church has viewed evangelism, discipleship, and ministry as things for professional ministers, not something for everyone who claims the name of Jesus.  Instead, we need to recognize that the Church is to equip believers to do ministry, not to leave all the heavy lifting for professionals.  Platt draws our attention to the importance of every believer making disciples, who then go out and make disciples, who make disciples (Pg. 68).

The theme of disciple making is the golden thread that runs throughout all of Platt’s work, and is also a helpful clarification of his earlier book.  Many felt that the first Radical book drew too much attention to the works aspect of Christianity, some even going as far as to decry it as a revamp of the early 20^th Century Social Gospel movement.  In Radical Together Platt is crystal clear on the necessity of our actions being Gospel and evangelism centered.  An extended portion of the book is devoted to the importance of evangelizing the thousands of remaining unreached people groups in the world (Pgs. 84-86).  One of Platt’s passions is getting American churches to invest more overseas (he points out that most American churches channel 2% of their budget to overseas missions efforts), but he is clear that it is not just that we need to engage in issues of social justice, but rather in actively spreading the Gospel through our actions.

Many will critique Radical Together for some of its theological assumptions.  Platt’s eschatology centers on the notion of the second coming of Christ occurring after the whole world has been evangelized (Pg. 83), and he repeatedly asserts that our own actions can thwart the purposes of God in the world (Pgs. 8, 26).  But overall David Platt deserves a great deal of respect for having the courage to take on some of the materialistic assumptions of the American church.  It will always be easier to sit back and debate the theological underpinnings of the Church’s involvement in the world than to actually get in the trenches.  Even if someone can’t agree with the conclusions that Platt draws, Radical Together will at least encourage them to reevaluate their own efforts to fulfill the Great Commission.

Tebow is a Christian, and he’s unashamed to admit it.  In fact, he very explicitly demonstrates his strong personal faith almost every chance he gets.  But he’s not a broken record or a resounding gong on the matter.  He makes his views known while demonstrating decorum and focusing on the task at hand.  When pressed by reporters to talk about his political views at NFL news conferences, for instance, Tebow regularly turns the conversation back to football (of course, with an aside that he’d gladly talk about faith at another time).  This attribute has helped to elevate Tebow to a level anyone in the world – particularly those looking to persuade others of their views – would desire, to have even your enemies admire you.

There’s a term that has been formed to refer to those of the Tim Tebow style of evangelicalism: cosmopolitan Christians.  (Or, in the New York Times, a “Careful Evangelical.”)  While the title is a bit dull, it’s description is quite interesting:

They’re more media savvy than their forebears and they understand the importance of building bridges. They speak more about what they’re for than what they’re against. It speaks for that segment of the evangelical community that wants to spend energy on things for the common good rather than be a lightning rod.

D. Michael Lindsay, president of Gordon College, invented this term in his book, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, in which he describes how, in recent years, evangelicals have vaulted to leadership positions across America (from Capitol Hill to Hollywood to Fortune 500).  While many successful Christians would cite God for their abilities, most did not rise to power by wearing their faith on their sleeves but rather by bearing their faith at the core of their intentions and actions – and then being darn-good at their day job.

What makes this idea powerful is the notion that it shouldn’t be reserved strictly for Christians, or even to just the entire realm of religion.  The concept of living your life based on a set of principles that drive you while simultaneously seeking to not inflame others is an admirable trait in all walks of life.

In the extremely divisive sphere of election-year American politics, discourse based on actions rather than inflammatory language would not only be more pleasant, it would potentially be more productive.  If Tebow, and others like him, have found that it’s more effective to communicate the message of eternal significance by tempering their words with good decisions and actions, perhaps the rest of us trying to effect social change should take a page from their playbook.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Hold your impulse to load up Google for a moment and try to guess what you just read. It’s difficult to say whether this is the least-read portion of American law, but it is certainly among the least-understood. This is the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it is time that American Christians appreciate it.

See, an important concern for the Drafters of the Constitution was that the specific list of enumerated powers they granted to the federal government might one day lead to confusion over the scope of federal authority. Rather than restrict the given rights of citizens to those explicitly referenced in the Constitution, thereby allowing for the future possibility of institutionalized tyranny under the guise of “Constitutional silence,” James Madison proposed the inclusion of statement of clear recognition that the full scope of human rights are not defined by human government. Not only would this protect against the state being free to deny rights originally unconsidered by the Framers in Philadelphia, but it would free those same men from the burden of having to try and list every particular right that a person is bound to have; this concern developed into the Ninth Amendment. But since then, number Nine has been warped into a tool for precisely the opposite end.

Now, Amendment Nine typically finds itself connected to the infamous “necessary and proper” clause of Article I as a foundational premise in the argument to grow federal power. Going beyond the simple pragmatic concerns of the Elastic Clause, the Ninth Amendment offers a deeper justification for a bigger government: natural law and the public recognition of it. With the (correct) rationale in place that “citizens have more rights than the law specifies,” the conclusion is then drawn, “so, why don’t we codify some more of those unspecified rights, so that we can do something like protect them.” A recent example is the apparent “right to healthcare” that the Affordable Care Act was intended to safeguard; whereas the government is currently saying, “Amendment Nine (and other things) proves that such a right might exist, so we need to define it (and control it, provide it, etc.),” it would seem that the original point of the Amendment was more along the lines of, “Amendment Nine (and other things) proves that such a right might exist, so the government doesn’t have to and (arguably) should not try to define it.”

In part, this turn is a matter of empty election season rhetoric. Whereas desires can be proven gratuitous, and neglected needs can sometimes be justified, the language of rights necessarily carries the discussion into the ethical realm of right and wrong. The importance of a human right is embedded deep within the American psyche, so campaign promises will often drill down into that rich soil for the extra emotional purchase it can afford. The problem comes when suddenly every element of political and legal interaction is couched in rights language: when you flood a market with anything, its value plummets.

Human rights are a very real, very important thing – this is why we must not besmirch their character by casually labeling everything we want as such. Moreover, we must not limit the transcendent importance of human worth (as defined by the rights we are owed) to be guided by the public recognition of the State. The Framers recognized this, and included Amendment Nine into the Bill of Rights as an indication of their appreciation that no government can give a citizen a right, but rather that rights are something inherent to humanity. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, we are all equally “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights…” no matter what government we sit under. This should ring loudly in the Christian’s ears.

The Christian view of government should always recognize its subservience to God. It is a rather backwards view of politics to expect that the State should function as the source of our dignity and value (for what else do rights give us if not that?). Amendment Nine offers the explicit recognition that humans are worthwhile regardless of the government’s recognition of them as such, a statement that every Christian should whole-heartedly cheer. This also means that we can sleep soundly, even if the law of the land does not have a numbered statute detailing my right to something: the true source of such a right, if it really is a Right, comes from a Far Greater Being indeed.