Judicial nominees..."judgment" or "agenda?"

On March 17, 2009 President Obama announced a nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. According to an article in the Baptist Press, the nominee- Hon. David Hamilton, has ruled previously on matters like "prayer in Jesus' Name."

The Seventh Circuit also reversed a 2005 opinion by Hamilton in which he
ruled prayers in the Indiana legislature could not use "Christ's name or
title or any other denominational appeal." Hamilton sided with the ACLU's
Indiana branch, which filed the lawsuit.

"All [ministers] are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings," Hamilton wrote. "The individuals do not have a First Amendment
right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker's podium at the
opening of a House session to express their own religious faiths."

As I read this, I was reminded of the tired analogy of the "frog in the kettle." Place a frog in boiling water and he will jump out. Place him in cold water and turn up the heat gradually...you can boil him alive.

There is a subtle but real effort in our culture to remove beliefs that serve as distinctions. For an evangelical, to pray in a Name other than Jesus is an afront on the conscience...and is a fundamental departure from the closely held beliefs of our Founding Fathers that the government would not be in the business of regulating religious activity. If it were a Jewish Rabbi or a Muslim Imam who was praying, I do not believe the government should regulate the content of their prayers either. To assert though that a religious leader should subscribe to the philosophical leanings of the government...like an employee to an employer...is to fundamentally undermine the principle of Separating Church and State.

Any nominee to an appointment in the Federal Judiciary should respect the founding tenets of our nation and not show a repeated and proven track record of judicial activism... especially when "said activism" seeks to impose views commensurate with a radical departure from those founding tenets. To nominate such a person speaks to the judgment and/or agenda of
the one nominating.

"Chris, what do YOU think about the war?"

This was a question I was asked this week as I sat down with an old friend. Her question was genuine. I don't think she was looking for someone to make up her mind for her. She was looking for perspective. Here is what I said...and then some.

I personally don't like war. War is what happens when other peaceful options are exhausted or ignored. Wars cost lives. People put it all on the line and some die, many are scarred, and some never get over it. I look forward to the day when wars are "no more;" When men and women like my brother, my dad, and many of my friends don't have to leave their families and risk everything to keep people like me safe.

That being said...I believe we have an OBLIGATION as a nation to finish what we started. It is irresponsible to enter a country, dismantle a government (however tyranical), and then leave before restabilizing a government. Leaving a leadership vacuum invites a Darwinian (survival of the fittest) outcome to the ascension of power.

Some would say that we are only here because we chose to insert ourselves into a situation that did not involve us. Two comments:

First, I am not the President nor do I want to be him. I can only begin to fathom the gravity of the situation and the enormity of the weight of responsibility he must yield in making decisions. I make decisions everyday. I supervise employees and lead a volunteer organization of a few hundred people. The weight of those decisions are sometimes overpowering and all the time taxing. I find myself having to decide when there is uncertainty. (This is the nature of leadership...since there is nothing to decide when everything is certain.) Sometimes I get it wrong. Sometimes I choose the hard way. I have come to the point in my life that I try to make the best decisions I can based on the information I have. I solicit as much insight as I can and seek to carry out the decisions with all of my might.

Often times, there are people who are critical of my decisions. They have the benefit of hindsight (and the handicap of limited insight.) In other words, they don't know what I knew when called upon to decide...or they have the benefit of looking back on the results when determining if the decision was correct. It is the equivalent of deciding with a crystal ball.
Critics are a dime-a-dozen. Some have valuable critiques...but some just have opinions. When not critiquing, they spend recreational time explaining to their friends how they would have made a better coaching or playing decision on the football field. Truthfully, my perspective is always a little different too...when offered from the armchair rather than the sideline. God bless the President and his choice to lead. Right or wrong, he makes decisions everyday. That is what leaders do. The true character of the leader is displayed when he has to follow through on the decision...especially when others are throwing tomatoes.

Second, there is an inherent responsibility to get involved in situations where a higher ideal is at stake. We call a person courageous when he (or she) intervenes in the commission of a robbery to save a victim and/or apprehend a violator. We expect that getting involved is the normal response when we have the ability to help someone in need. We display selfishness when we say that we won't help another so we can better comfort ourselves. There is great responsibility in being the world's only superpower. "To whom much is given, much is required." Standing idly by while millions of people suffer or while an imminent threat against our allies builds, is not an acceptable response for a nation of character.

Ultimately, I choose to pray for the President and those who are fighting the war. I have rejected the desire to assert that my opinions are greater than really "smart people" who have more knowledge at hand than I. I choose to think for myself on the issue, rather than accept the "spin" of a broadcaster or organization/political party which has something to gain through sensationalization. I choose to "put my back into the effort" to bring success to the leader's approach...rather than offer idle criticism and archair observations while claiming to support the people involved. In other words, if the leader's approach fails...it won't be because I chose not to help it succeed.

Just my reflections. Your perspective is welcome as well.

Grace,

Should Christians Vote?

I was at a local pastor meeting today and was handed a packet on registering voters in the church. This...on the heels of the "civil forum" with the two Presidential candidates at Saddleback this weekend....and only a couple of weeks since I read a book which states that evangelicals have a reputation for being too political. So...the question, "Should Christians vote?"

Without digging too deeply into the issue, let's first ask, "What would Jesus do?" Well, He certainly would not vote since voting is frowned upon in an Imperial form of government such as the Roman Empire in the first century. The Scripture does say that all governments and leaders are appointed to their posts by God to fulfill a purpose that He has (1 Peter 2:13-15). So...it seems that it would be wrong to not vote...since the system of government is (at a minimum) affirmed...and arguably endorsed in Scripture. So...let's find an analogy that might help us better apply the principle in Scripture.

If the question were, "Should Christians feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, help those in need, or encourage the distraught"...we would say----certainly! Even if the end result was not necessarily to evangelize the recipient...the effort would certainly be seen as being a positive influence on our community (Matthew 5:13-16). Why should we view being a positive influence on the political process any differently.

Some might say that by being political, we fulfill the stereotype that some have of evangelicals...that they (we) are political activists furthering a "far-right agenda." Well, so what. It is not as if by not voting we are going to change the perspective. Let me offer this as a consideration.

As Christians, we should engage in the political process but not be defined by it. We are defined by something higher...our relationship with Jesus Christ. We should not be defined as anti-gay marriage, but as pro-marriage. Not as anti "choice," but as pro-life for every human...regardless of age, race, physical condition, or any other consideration such as the circumstances of conception.

Granted, whenever we stand FOR something, we are by default standing AGAINST something else. So be it. If Christians are misunderstood...so was their leader. We should be careful to be kind in how we communicate, but not eliminate the content of our communication...since our influence in the world is one of our greatest contributions.

For those who attend the church where I serve...this feels like the start of a good series....

I am interested in your thoughts.