Am I a liberal or a conservative?

In my little "about me" blurb, I describe myself as a "progressive evangelical Christian." This can be confusing since the word progressive is often taken to mean liberal, whereas evangelical is often used synonymously with conservative. Defining these terms gets tricky even before we grant that someone can be theologically liberal but politically conservative or theologically conservative but politically more liberal. So instead of opening a semantic can of worms, perhaps the following indicators will help to place me somewhere on the theological-political landscape. I report, you decide.

20 REASONS TO CALL ME A "LIBERAL"

1. The thought of living in the Bible Belt freaks me out.

2. I am not always proud to be an American.

3. I tend to vote for Democrats in state and national elections.

4. I enjoy listening to NPR on a regular basis.

5. I believe government agencies and publicly funded non-profit organizations have a significant role to play in preventing and alleviating poverty.

6. I believe human-induced climate change is not only real, but will have significant impacts if not mitigated by reducing emissions, hitting the poor the hardest.

7. I believe our nation urgently needs comprehensive reform in both health care and immigration policy.

8. I am morally opposed to preemptive war.

9. I am against the use of state-sponsored torture (including waterboarding).

10. I am opposed to capital punishment.

11. I believe there is great value in inter-religious dialogue and ecumenical collaboration for the common good.

12. When it comes to Christian political punditry, I'm more sympathetic to the Jim & Tony of the evangelical left (Wallis & Campolo) than the Jim & Tony of the evangelical right (Dobson & Perkins).

13. I believe the earth is (a lot) more than 10,000 years old.

14. I'm more likely to purchase books published by InterVarsity Press than Crossway.

15. I believe Scripture teaches that God calls and gifts women to serve at every level of church ministry leadership.

16. On the international front, I believe issues such as human trafficking, clean water/sanitation, food security, fair trade and debt cancellation deserve our attention.

17. I support the UN's Millennium Development Goals, which include halving extreme poverty and global disease by the year 2015.

18. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

19. I believe gays and lesbians should be legally protected against hate crimes committed on the basis of their sexual orientation.

20. On gun control, organized labor, energy independence and tax policy, my views tend to be left of center.

20 REASONS TO CALL ME A "CONSERVATIVE"

1. The thought of sending my kids to public school freaks me out.

2. I consider it a blessing and a privilege to be an American citizen.

3. I believe it's a good idea to abstain from sex outside of marriage (teenagers and grown-ups alike).

4. I am very concerned about the effects of Hollywood, MTV and video games on children.

5. I am opposed to physician-assisted suicide.

6. I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana use.

7. I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research.

8. Like all forms of domestic violence, I believe abortion is a tragic and immoral.

9. I believe there really is such a thing as absolute Truth with a capital 'T.'

10. I do not believe all religions are different paths to the same destination.

11. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, God in the flesh and is the only Name by which we can be saved. Through His crucifixion, death and bodily resurrection, He has saved us by grace to reconcile us to God (which is very good news for sinners like me).

12. I believe the Bible, God's inspired Word, is authoritative and without error in all that it teaches (when interpreted correctly).

13. I believe Scripture teaches that marriage is a lifelong, monogamous covenant between a man and a woman.

14. I believe Heaven and Hell really exist.

15. I believe Satan (the Devil) really exists.

16. I believe prayer really does makes a difference.

17. I wholeheartedly believe in miraculous gifts such as divine healing, prophecy, words of knowledge, speaking in tongues and deliverance from evil spirits.

18. I affirm the often-trivialized concepts of "spiritual warfare," "attacks of the enemy," "prayer warriors" and "hedges of protection."

19. I have been known to lift my hands and act "shallow and emotional" while singing modern praise and worship choruses.

20. I'd rather spend money on a David Crowder concert than attend a free lecture by Phyllis Tickle (true story). Christian rock trumps mainline Protestant intellectualism once again.

Is Afghanistan Another Vietnam?

I was born after the Vietnam War ended, but it's not like American involvement in foreign policy quagmires is a thing of the past. In his big speech Tuesday night, President Obama offered 3 reasons why the current war in Afghanistan is different from the Vietnam War:

1) "Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.

2) Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular
insurgency.

3) And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border."

Sitting in rush hour traffic yesterday, I heard an NPR interview with Gordon Goldstein, an international affairs scholar who acknowledged Mr. Obama's points as fair ones, but proceeded to list 4 key "strategic parallels" between Afghanistan and Vietnam:

1) "Both Afghanistan and Vietnam are small powers that have been historically extraordinarily resistant to the efforts of large powers to impose order.

2) Both Vietnam and Afghanistan had corrupt and ineffectual regimes.

3) Both Vietnam and Afghanistan have contiguous border countries, through which support and sanctuary for an insurgency flows and fortifies that insurgency.

4) But most importantly, the parallel, really, that drives Afghanistan and Vietnam is in the realm of military strategy. In Vietnam, it was a strategy of counterinsurgency and clear and hold. In Afghanistan, General McChrystal has called for a strategy of clear, hold and build. So there are some parallels that I do not think can be easily dismissed."

So now that we've established there are both similarities and differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam, what should we make of Mr. Obama's war plan? In his Washington Post column today, E. J. Dionne describes the President's attempt to find middle ground as a "Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right."

I'm not sure I like the taste of this porridge.

Manhattan Declaration: Where are the moderates?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the Religious Right's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Energized by the backdrop of President Obama's first year in office, an ecumenical but familiar group of influential conservative Christians (including prominent Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Evangelical leaders) have reasserted the primacy of abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty as the three foremost political issues that matter above all others.

If you haven't yet read The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, here's the full text and list of 145+ original signatories, which includes names like Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Al Mohler. This excerpt provides the basic gist:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

I suspect where one stands on the Manhattan Declaration likely hinges on how one would answer the question: Should abortion, gay marriage and religious freedom be placed at the very top of a "hierarchy of issues" (to use drafting committee member Chuck Colson's term) when it comes to public policy concerns facing Christians?

So far, the Manhattan Declaration has received mixed reviews. Bloggers over at First Things can barely contain their enthusiasm for it, while others like Dan Gilgoff have said it "reads like a throwback to the culture wars of the 2004 election." Regent College theology professor John Stackhouse calls it "strangely useless" while Jonathan Merritt, founder of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, says the statement is unlikely to "sway a new generation of Christian leaders who take a broader view of cultural issues facing us today."The document's backers point to the diverse range of theological perspectives represented by its signatories, not everyone in the evangelical world who typically contributes to these types of ecumenical public policy collaboratives has endorsed the Manhattan Declaration. A handful of names like Ron Sider, Cornelius Plantinga, David Neff and Richard Mouw notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be much support from evangelical "moderates" who were instrumental in drafting last year's Evangelical Manifesto and 2004's For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, both of which called for a broadened platform including issues like creation care, poverty alleviation, racial reconciliation, human rights and peacemaking. Those who have endorsed both the Manhattan Declaration and the Evangelical Manifesto (Timothy George and Leith Anderson for example) appear to be the exception.

So where are all the moderates?

Noticeably absent from The Manhattan Declaration's signatories are respected scholars like David Gushee, Jim Skillen, Mark Noll, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stephen Monsma, J.P. Moreland, Os Guinness, Dallas Willard and Darrell Bock, not to mention other influential evangelical voices like Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Bill Hybels, Gary Haugen and Rich Stearns. This doesn't mean Manhattan isn't an amazing feat of coalition-building across Evangelical-Catholic lines (Neuhaus would be proud), but such a narrow range of policy emphases might explain why many, including yours truly, are reluctant to sign on.

It looks like the culture wars are back, folks. Man your battle stations.

Further Questions on Torture and Abortion

As a follow-up to my previous post on torture and abortion, here are some of my questions for those who oppose one but defend the other.

Questions for those who are anti-abortion but believe torture can be justified:

1. If abortion is immoral (in part) because the procedure deliberately inflicts severe pain on a pre-born human being, why is it permissible to deliberately inflict incredible physical and psychological pain on a prisoner while torturing him or her?

2. If abortion is truly "worse than slavery" (an outlawed form of torture) as many pro-lifers say, should women who obtain an abortion be treated as criminals on par with someone who is found guilty of owning slaves?

3. If torture can be justified for pragmatic, utilitarian reasons (i.e. to prevent terrorism and save lives), what's wrong with the pragmatic, utilitarian reasons for abortion (i.e. to prevent poverty and unwanted pregnancy)?

Questions for those who are pro-choice but anti-torture:

1. If torture is immoral (in part) because it inflicts cruel, degrading and traumatic pain on a human being, why is abortion not also immoral, particularly in cases where the pre-born child has developed to a stage where trauma and pain can be experienced?

2. Why should prisoners of war have a greater right to life and dignity than pre-born children? Is one more human than the other?

3. If abortion is a matter of personal choice, why shouldn't torture be a matter of government discretion on a case-by-case basis?

Torture, abortion, and partisan ethics

I believe that as followers of Jesus, Christians must hold to a consistent ethic of human life. Scripture teaches that all human beings have been created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and therefore, every person, whether young or old, rich or poor, strong or weak, saint or sinner, bears the imprint of the Creator. Human rights and dignity, yours and mine, are ultimately derived from the One who loves us "with an everlasting love" (Jeremiah 31:3). Consequently, people are not cosmic accidents or disposable commodities to be bought and sold, used and discarded. If we indeed believe that life is immeasurably precious to the God who created it, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful in situations involving the choice to purposefully harm, wound or terminate another person's life.

Interestingly enough, the convoluted realm of American politics reveals a peculiar dynamic where opposing sides in the culture wars profoundly disagree on the question of which lives should be defended as sacred and which ones are more disposable. Conservatives are generally opposed to abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and genetic engineering, but are more likely to support the use of preemptive military force, capital punishment and torture, including water-boarding (see diagram at right) and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." The liberal end of the spectrum often opposes capital punishment, war and torture, but is more likely to defend abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as matters of human rights. Is it just me or does anyone else find both sides to be inconsistent?

Two of the most contentions issues concerning the sanctity of human life in recent years have been abortion and torture. A Pew Research poll conducted earlier this year revealed that 62% of evangelical Protestants (my own faith tradition) believe "the use of torture against suspected terrorists to gain important information" is often or sometimes justified, whereas only 16% say it's never justified. It's especially disturbing that evangelicals are more likely to support torture than any other religious group in America including Catholics, mainline Protestants and those without any religious affiliation. The poll also found that those who attend religious services at least once a week are much more likely to support torture than those who seldom or never attend religious services. This is lamentable at best and shameful at worst.

When it comes to abortion, the statistics are flip-flopped. According to a separate Pew Research poll, evangelical Protestants remain the group most adamantly opposed to abortion, with well over 60% saying the procedure should be illegal in most or all cases. It's not difficult to find conservative religious organizations lobbying against abortion or liberal groups lobbying for the end of torture on religious grounds, but it's rare to find those who believe both practices are immoral. Opponents of abortion claim that it harms a sacred life and violates the dignity of another human being, a line of reasoning also used by those who oppose torture. Those who are "pro-life" seem the most likely to defend torture, but those against torture seem the most likely to defend abortion. How can this be?

The problem with our culture war categories of right vs. left is that everyone gets divided into two flawed packages of partisan platforms from which we assume the "other" side cannot possibly be correct about anything. We've confused Christian ethics with partisan ethics, deflecting every criticism along the lines of "Well, the other side clearly has it wrong on [fill in the blank: abortion/torture] so why should we listen to what they have to say about [torture/abortion]?" Have evangelicals considered the possibility that both torture and abortion are wrong on largely the same grounds, namely, the inherent dignity of human life created in God's image? Must we choose between the human rights of pre-born children and the sanctity of a prisoner's life? Aren't they both human? When the protection of a sacred human life conflicts with other important goals (national security or women's rights for example), do the ends justify the means?

Cue responses from conservatives defending torture and liberals defending abortion...

Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians: Will This (Finally) Be The Year?

When it's all said and done, 2009 could be a special year for Native Hawaiians.

Thanks to President Obama's recent endorsement of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S.1011), better known as the Akaka Bill, Native Hawaiians are closer than ever to gaining federal recognition status comparable to Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. Once Congress returns from its August recess after Labor Day, the bill is expected to clear the Indian Affairs Committee to be voted on by the full Senate. In addition to Mr. Obama and all four of Hawaii's Democratic representatives in Congress, the bill is supported by a diverse range of public officials and organizations here in the islands including our Republican Governor, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the editorial boards of both the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin.

[If you're not familiar with the Akaka Bill, here's a helpful article and timeline from the latest issue of Maui No Ka 'Oi magazine summarizing the nearly decade-long efforts of Senator Dan Akaka to pass this bill, as well as the opposition coming both from conservatives who say it goes too far and activists who don't think it goes far enough.]

As someone who interacts daily with low-income families receiving public assistance on Oahu's Leeward Coast, I can personally attest to the disproportionate socio-economic hardships experienced by the Native Hawaiian community. Measurements of poverty, homelessness, incarceration, obesity, infant mortality and other indicators of well-being reveal that Native Hawaiians are at a clear disadvantage in relation to other ethnic groups comprising Hawaii's multicultural landscape. But this isn't about pity, class warfare or bleeding heart sentimentalism. It's about acknowledging a systemic social injustice and creating a framework for reconciliation. It's about respecting the history, culture and dignity of an indigenous people group who inhabited these islands long before America's manifest destiny came ashore.

Being a locally-born hapa haole, I understand that while Hawaii is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the nation, we are by no means "colorblind" to the beauty and diversity of many cultural heritages. So how exactly are Native Hawaiians different from Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Filipino-Americans and hapa haoles like myself? The answer is quite simple: They are indigenous. They are the original inhabitants of lands that later became part of the United States. You cannot say the same about any other people group in the islands today. It is a simple historical fact that a fully independent monarchy exercised sovereignty in Hawaii centuries before it became a U.S. territory. As I see it, this places Native Hawaiians in the same category as Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. If you disagree with this comparison, you will probably oppose the Akaka Bill.

But given the reality of federal recognition for 561 Native American tribes (Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc.) and Alaska Natives, there are only three positions available if you are opposed to the Akaka Bill:

1) You could argue that indigenous people groups are no different from other ethnic minorities and therefore none of them (Native American tribes, Alaskan Natives or Native Hawaiians) deserve any special federal recognition. This view would require Native Americans and Alaska Natives to be stripped of their semi-autonomous status, including the right to form domestic dependent "nations within a nation." In addition to losing their powers of self-government, 561 tribes would be denied access to benefits, services and protections currently in place. Or...

2) You could argue that Native Americans and Alaska Natives deserve recognition, but Hawaiians somehow do not. This view would require you to ignore the similarities between the lands taken away from Native American tribes and the overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy in 1893, in which power was seized at gunpoint from a self-governing indigenous people group. The U.S. government's 1993 Apology Resolution admitting wrongdoing in the overthrow of Queen Lili'oukalani makes this argument even harder to defend. Or...

3) You could argue that in order to turn back the clock on the injustices of American imperialism, everyone should be sent back to "wherever they came from." This all-or-nothing view would presumably require Caucasians to be sent back to Europe, Asians back to Asia and so forth. Some Hawaiian sovereignty advocates are demanding the United States to completely withdraw from Hawaii, but this essentially requires secession from the Union, something that is neither realistic nor beneficial in my opinion.

Since I disagree with all three options above, I support the Akaka Bill. It is not a silver bullet solution to the complex disputes over ceded lands and entitlement programs, but Native Hawaiians are far better off with federal political recognition than without it. Until they are validated on par with other indigenous people groups, attempts to improve conditions for Native Hawaiians (through Kamehameha Schools for example) will always be threatened by lawsuits and accusations of "race-based" discrimination. The way forward through these convoluted realities is not an endless barrage of litigation, but the establishment of a legal framework allowing Native Hawaiians to form their own nation within a nation (while still under the authority of federal and state laws) so that a new dialogue can begin.

Enacting the Akaka Bill is not the final goal, but the starting point.

Should government stay in the "marriage business"?

From the pages of Time magazine to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and everywhere in between, I've heard numerous calls for government to "get out of the marriage business." The heated national fracas over gay marriage has caused some to question whether government should have anything to do with marriage as a social institution. If I may paraphrase, the argument usually goes something like this:

Marriage is a church issue, not a state one. Since marriage is a private agreement between two individuals, it should not be subject to government interference. Just as one's personal religious beliefs should not be a matter of public debate, neither should someone's marriage. If the government doesn't regulate people's baptisms, confirmations, Bar Mitzvahs or other religious ordinances, what gives them the right to meddle with marriage? Most of the political-religious controversy surrounding same-sex marriage could be resolved if the government would simply stop issuing marriage licenses. This would allow states to maintain religious neutrality by not promoting or discouraging any form of relationship over another. People could define their relationships according to their own beliefs, religious or secular.

The appeal of this reasoning plays well in today's post-religious climate. Most people don't want the government telling them what to believe, who to love or how to behave in their private lives. Ceasing the government’s role in the recognition of marriage, so the theory goes, would be a way to validate gay partnerships in the civic square while protecting the religious freedom of churches and clergy. By simply removing the dreaded M-word from the vocabulary of government, we could all put away our bullhorns and go home happy.

Or could we?

These days, it's nearly impossible to discuss the civil-legal institution of marriage (namely, the kind of thing conferred by a marriage license) without opening a religious-political can of worms. Perhaps I'm naive to attempt such a feat, but instead of discussing the theological nature of holy matrimony (which in my Protestant tradition is a sacred, lifelong covenant uniting a husband and wife as "one flesh" in the sight of God) or adding my voice to the cacophony surrounding the politics of gay marriage (been there done that), I would like to address the following question: Is there any solid non-religious (dare I say "secular") basis for the government to issue marriage licenses?

The short answer is yes.

While some well-meaning libertarians and others see the elimination of civil marriage as a means of resolving the gay marriage controversy, this would create far more problems than it solves. It’s not that I believe government should be promoting a particular religious agenda or regulating what goes on in private between consenting adults. Nothing could be further from the truth. My concern is that political bickering over the issue of same-sex unions has caused us to lose sight of marriage's much broader sociological purpose beyond religious ceremonies and warm fuzziness shared between committed partners, gay or straight. In the public square, marriage is not merely about religion or sexual orientation. It's about the fundamental need for societies to gauge the comparative significance of human relationships.

To put it bluntly: Marriage provides a measuring stick we cannot do without. We can tweak it, re-think it, re-name it ("civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" anyone?) or re-define it however we think best, but until we decide that drinking buddies and pen pals should receive the same benefits and protections as couples who have pledged a lifetime of commitment to each other, government will always play a role in the so-called "business" of civil marriage. Even if marriage licenses were abolished and replaced with civil unions as some have suggested, I suspect most of the voices so loudly engaged in the gay marriage standoff would quickly re-direct their energies to the laws governing civil unions.

Let's say the government stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and as an alternative to civil marriage, couples could create their own private contracts that would be enforced through contract law. Administering pensions, inheritances and custody battles would become more difficult, but not impossible. The bigger question would be how to legally distinguish between those who wanted an “old school” lifelong partnership type of arrangement (gay or straight) versus a pragmatic contract between drinking buddies who wanted to save money on health care coverage. Without the draconian categories of "single" and "married", what other simple criteria would employers and health care providers use to determine the seriousness of a relationship and consequently, who qualifies for benefits?

For example, if I signed a private civil contract with one of my friends who has a terrific health care plan or education benefit for "spouses", would his employer be willing to cover my medical expenses and pay for my grad school tuition since we signed a similar contract to the married couple next door? Would such a contract excuse me from testifying in court against my friend, as married couples are? If I were to obtain a “divorce” or terminate my contract with him, could I sign another contract with one of my international friends to secure U.S. residency for them, as married individuals can? What about those employers who actually DO want to provide certain benefits to an employee’s spouse (defined in the old-school, marriage license sort of way) instead of just a drinking buddy or casual acquaintance? If there were no civil marriage, would such an employer be guilty of discrimination for offering "special" benefits to certain types of contract signatories and not others?

As a deeply religious person who cringes at the conflation of God and country, I can understand why some people would like to throw the civil marriage baby out with the political bathwater. But just because the word “marriage” (a perfectly good and practical concept, even for non-religious folk) has become associated with culture war carnage does not mean government recognition for lifelong partners is a bad idea. Judging by the eagerness of gays and lesbians to obtain government validation and not merely sign a private contract, maybe there is something special about marriage licenses after all.

Is Jon Stewart a prophet? I think not.

As a loyal subscriber to Sojourners magazine for nearly 5 years, I've seen a wide range of personalities and social activists covered in its pages. Even so, I'm thoroughly baffled as to why potty-mouthed fake newsman Jon Stewart was selected to grace this month's cover for the award-winning Christian publication whose stated mission is to "articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to inspire individuals, communities, the church and the world."

Here's the best explanation I've come up with so far: Jim Wallis really, really likes him.

Sojourners' founder and editor-in-chief opens the interview by likening The Daily Show's host to an Old Testament prophet: "The Hebrew prophets often used humor, satire, and truth-telling to get their message across, and I feel you do a combination of all three." From that point on, the interview largely consists of Wallis trying to convince Stewart to 'admit' he's some sort of contemporary prophet/activist/sage while Stewart, with trademark self-deprecating wit, coolly deflects every attempt to conjure what simply isn't there.

Despite Stewart's insistence that he's actually who he appears to be, namely a successful TV personality doing his job attracting audiences in order to "sell enough Budweiser [so] that Comedy Central will let us stay on the air," Wallis remains unconvinced and tries in vain to frame him in the prophetic tradition of "speaking truth to power." The irony of it all is that Stewart recognizes his clear lack of prophetic/spiritual credentials even as Wallis continually offers him the mantle if he wants it.

Granted, Stewart's clever satire mocking politicians and 24-hour cable news coverage can be both entertaining and insightful when he's exposing the phoniness of Washington-style politics. And yes, The Daily Show still makes me laugh from time to time, although I'm starting to outgrow its crass humor and cheap laughs at the expense of religion. But last time I checked, Hebrew prophets in the Scriptures were not primarily comedians delivering applause lines for big audiences. They were typically unpopular and counter-cultural messengers who preached repentance and obedience to God.

In many ways, I fit the profile of a typical Sojourners reader. I'm a 20-something evangelical Christian who believes global poverty, the environment, human trafficking and health care access are the most pressing issues of our time, although abortion and gay marriage require healthy discussion as well. At its best, what has made Sojourners unique through the years is a commitment to Scripture-based activism, not commercial politicking cloaked in religious language. With all the untold stories of Christ-centered ordinaries doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God among the least of these, I'm not convinced we need to co-opt the bright lights and celebrity of a mainstream entertainer to build the mustard seed kingdom Jesus spoke of.

If Jon Stewart is the closest approximation to a modern-day prophetic voice Sojourners can find for its cover story, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

How (not) to Argue about Gay Marriage

I realize this is a hot potato, but I'm going to touch it anyway.

The gay marriage debate drives me nuts. It's not just the nasty rhetoric, hyperbole, stereotyping and name-calling spewed by both sides, which is sickening enough. It's that there's so little light to show for all of this heat. The wheels are spinning and the mud is flying, but the arguments are going nowhere. Those with strong opinions seem increasingly louder while moderate and ambivalent observers like myself have shrunk deeper into our turtlenecks, silently waiting for the subject to change. The multiplied effect of our silence is a conspicuous absence of temperate voices which only makes an already divisive topic even more polarizing. With few exceptions, hope for any type of mutual respect has all but faded while attempts at civil dialogue are quickly dismissed as cooperation with the enemy.

A perfect storm of sex, religion, fear and anger has clouded our capacity to think critically about both marriage and homosexuality. Thanks to the culture war's carnage, it's become objectionable to draw distinctions between sexual orientation and behavior, respect and agreement, tradition and homophobia, theology and public policy, civil unions and sacred unions, legal marriage and religious marriage. I don't claim to have these complexities figured out, but I've found little comfort in the narrow explanations that dominate the current discussion at the popular level (if you can even call it a discussion). As long as the battle lines are drawn this way, we can expect to see significant chunks of the population gloating over incremental victories (i.e. conservatives in California last year or liberals in Iowa and Vermont this year) while the opposing camp plots its backlash. When the backlashers succeed, roles are reversed and the cycle continues. Peachy.

So what are the rest of us to do while the extremes are slugging it out in the courtrooms of law and public opinion? Should we hide under our desks until it's safe to peek out from the rubble? Should we keep our moderate views under wraps while we wait for someone to give them a voice? Should we make friends with both sides and see who disowns us first? If I knew that sweeping the gay marriage debate under the rug would it make go away, I would do it in a heartbeat. Like I said, it drives me nuts. My preference would be to focus our intellectual and political resources on the economic crisis, global poverty, climate change, Darfur, health care access, education, energy independence, abortion reduction and a host of other areas where much more is at stake.

Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined. Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won't work in a thicket this tangled. So with the pie-in-the-sky objective of civility in mind, I've come up with a few recommendations to help each side argue their case more persuasively (for a change).

For those who oppose gay marriage:

1. Go easy on the slippery slopes, please. If legalizing same-sex marriage is truly a bad idea in and of itself, you should not need to bring in polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality or marriage to a tree/rock/can opener as reasons to oppose it. None of these are options where marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults, as is the case in Canada for example. Any valid points you make in favor of traditional marriage will be undercut if you start likening gays to criminals or psychopaths.

2. Acknowledge the problem of homophobia and the mistreatment of GLBT individuals. Whatever your position is on gay marriage, we should at least agree that it's not easy being gay. Verbal harassment, taunting, bullying and even physical violence are intense realities for many gays and lesbians, resulting in disproportionately high rates of depression and suicide. As an evangelical Christian, I believe my religious tradition needs to repent for the way we have often demonized the GLBT community. I have personally witnessed and read far too many stories of those who have rejected Christianity primarily because of the derision and animosity emanating from those who purport to follow Christ. Until homophobia is clearly and consistently rejected, it will undermine the case for traditional marriage.

3. Understand the difference between orientation and behavior. To use myself as an example, my behavior is a lot easier to change than my orientation. While I am certainly responsible for my sexual conduct, I can't remember ever "choosing" to become a heterosexual. However, just because I can't flip a switch to reverse my orientation, this doesn't mean my impulses and desires are impossible to resist. There are plenty of people, both gay and straight, who struggle with their sexuality but do not act on their desires. If altering one's sexual orientation were as simple as learning a foreign language or choosing a new career path, it's doubtful that very many would choose a life where they are looked down upon and treated as second-class citizens. Conservatives only make their task more difficult when they turn the gay marriage debate into a case against an orientation.

4. Don't scapegoat gays for problems caused by straight folks. The prevalence of divorce, out of wedlock births, absent fathers and single-parent households is largely the fault of heterosexuals, not gays. If us straight folks can't keep our marriages together or conceive children responsibly, how is that the fault of gays and lesbians? At the same time, the frequency of failed marriages does not mean that marriage is a bad idea, only that we need to take it more seriously. One of the best ways to "preserve and protect" traditional marriage is to accept responsibility for family fragmentation and let your actions do the talking.

5. Be prudent with your use of Scripture. This does not mean the Bible is off limits. After all, the great speeches of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln would be significantly weakened without their Scriptural allusions. However, resorting to "the Bible says so" prooftexting as a conversation-stopper can make it difficult to persuade those who don't take its words authoritatively. If you oppose gay marriage on the basis that homosexual behavior is sinful, be prepared to explain how it's different from other sexual sins mentioned in the Bible such as adultery, no-fault divorce, promiscuity and lust, none of which are against the law. Instead of regurgitating patronizing clichés like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," the better arguments for traditional marriage (like this one from David Blankenhorn) appeal to multiple cultures, religious traditions and civilizations throughout history that have seen the need to define marriage as an opposite-sex union.

Turning now to those who support gay marriage:

1. Please retire the "don't impose your beliefs on me" line. What's the difference between a belief and an opinion? What are laws, regulations and policies if not the expressions of "beliefs" about the ways things should be? Whether the controversy is gun control, greenhouse gas emissions, tax hikes or traffic laws, just about every political debate is driven by competing values. The arguments for and against gay marriage are no different as both sides appeal to various principles including tradition, equal protection, religion, sexual freedom, child welfare, biology, legal precedent and public opinion to name a few. Instead of trying to censor an argument without having to engage it, make your case for why it's a poor line of reasoning.

2. Acknowledge the civil purpose for marriage. More than just a public way to celebrate private love, marriage is a vital social institution that harmonizes the needs of children with the sexual desires of adults. Put another way, marriage provides the best context for the next generation of children (whose interests often clash with the sexual freedom of adults) to grow up in financially and emotionally stable homes. The most articulate proponents of gay marriage, such as Jonathan Rauch, recognize this. Instead of downplaying marriage as 'just a word', Rauch says that GLBT activists should "increase respect for the institution of marriage itself" and stress that gays will take their vows seriously if allowed the opportunity to marry. Whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, you should want the institution of marriage to thrive.

3. Recognize how culture war backlash can hurt your cause. Unlike other GLBT activists who want to the judicial system to override public opinion if necessary, Rauch says, "same sex marriage will work best when people accept and understand it, whereas a sudden national enactment, where it suddenly to happen, might spark a culture war on the order of the abortion battle." The Religious Right's influence may be on the decline, but their ability to rally around the gay marriage issue cannot be underestimated. Evangelicals, Catholics and other religious conservatives can organize very quickly when they feel the courts have circumvented the will of the majority. Persuading hearts and minds in the court of public opinion is no small challenge, but it is more likely to produce lasting gains.

4. Address the issue of religious freedom. While some Christian pastors fear they could be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will, most gays and lesbians are not too keen on getting hitched in a conservative church. Even so, the legalization of gay marriage brings up some valid concerns related to religious freedom that must be addressed. In Massachusetts for example, Catholic Charities of Boston quit providing adoption services in 2006 because state anti-discrimination laws forced them to allow married same-sex couples to adopt, which goes against church doctrine. In situations like these, guarantees of religious exemptions could greatly help to ease tensions and fears. The push for GLBT rights would encounter less opposition if churches and faith-based groups could be confident that they won't be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.

5. Don't let your anger get the best of your argument. According to a recent CBS poll, only about one third of Americans currently support gay marriage. Labeling the other two-thirds as "bigots" will not help to win them over to your side. As hard as it may be, resist the urge to return one evil with another. Calling all conservatives "bigots" only perpetuates the vicious cycle of backlash while damaging your credibility in the process. As Ghandi famously said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." If you want to live in a more tolerant world, begin by tolerating those with whom you profoundly disagree. Don't expect your arguments to be heard if you will not listen to the other side.

Book Review: The Future of Faith in American Politics

What comes to mind when you think of the relationship between evangelicals and American politics? Fervent opposition to abortion and gay marriage? The convolution of God and Country? Culture wars and single-issue litmus tests? Whatever the prevailing image, it can probably be characterized more by partisan reaction than carefully nuanced, non-partisan reflection.

Piggybacking on the groundswell of opposition to George W. Bush's policies on issues like torture, climate change and the Iraq War, numerous books in recent years have critiqued the strong ties between evangelical Christianity and the Republican Party. Among the most influential of these bestsellers has been God's Politics by Jim Wallis, which captured this wave of frustration and energized a younger generation of Christians (myself included) to pursue social justice and fight global poverty. Wallis has often proclaimed the decline of hard-line social conservatism with phrases like, "the monologue of the Religious Right is over." But with 74% of evangelicals voting for John McCain in 2008, is American Christianity really shifting from right to left or is something more subtle and less reactionary taking place?

Evangelical scholar David Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, argues for the latter in The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center (Baylor Press, 2008). He begins with a thoughtful and dispassionate survey of the political spectrum within evangelicalism: right, left and center. With surgical precision and refreshingly independent sensitivity, Gushee dissects and examines the strengths, flaws, key figures and organizations comprising each perspective. Based on his analysis of the evangelical right (including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention among others) and evangelical left (Wallis, and influential author/speakers Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren), Gushee observes that both camps lack the independence to offer a biblically consistent approach to political engagement.

Gushee concludes most evangelicals do not identify with the either partisan extreme. As such, they increasingly seek to think holistically about a broader range of issues, transcending the polarizing dichotomies expressed on cable news and talk radio. While the vast majority of evangelicals still take conservative positions on gay marriage and abortion rights, traditionally "liberal" concerns like reducing poverty, defending human rights, fighting HIV/AIDS, expanding health care access and promoting environmental responsibility have become important factors in the discussion. Pointing to the work of "centrists" like Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission, Rich Stearns of World Vision and Joel Hunter of Northland Church, Gushee makes a strong case that the moderate middle is the most fertile place for biblical reflection, inclusive dialogue and critical thinking to occur in the coming years.

What makes this book stand out from other works of its genre is a steadfast commitment to both political independence and Christian civility. Although Gushee and Wallis voice many of the same critiques of the evangelical right, Gushee is not preoccupied with vilifying Dobson and Pat Robertson or stirring up anti-Republican umbrage. The solution to a conservative imbalance is not a counter flood of liberal talking points, but a fiercely consistent allegiance to a different Kingdom altogether. For those who buy into the caricature that all evangelicals take their political marching orders from right-wing extremists, televangelists and Republican political operatives, the book reveals persuasive evidence to the contrary. Others may dismiss the concept of evangelical balance and moderation as the height of oximoronic naivete, but Gushee contends that loud voices on the extremes have actually deepened the movement toward a more thoughtful and deliberately independent centrism.

If you are hoping to be told (directly or indirectly) who Jesus would vote for, Gushee will disappoint you. If you want partisan ideology cloaked in religious language or political strategies for how to attract evangelical voters, this book is not for you. But if you're looking for tools and principles to biblically grapple with the thorniest public policy issues of our time, The Future of Faith in American Politics is a must-read. Even if you only read the sub-chapter addressing the tangled moral and ethical web created by the debate over gay marriage, those insights alone are worth the cost of the book. Those looking for a sober and reasonable introduction to the world of faith and politics will be inspired by Gushee's Christ-centered passion for justice and truth.

Simply stated, this is the best book I've read on the relationship between evangelical Christianity and American politics; a feast for the mind and heart. Gushee is a master at synthesizing scholarly observation with passionate biblical conviction and reflective humility in a way that is engaging, persuasive and leaves you hungering for a better world. Christians of all stripes: right and left, young and old, hopeful and cynical, engaged and apathetic, have something to learn from this groundbreaking work. Those seeking to understand the full spectrum of evangelical politics, including both the truth and hyperbole behind the stereotypes, will value this insightful and compelling look at the way forward.

Words to Ponder: My Favorite Snippets from the 2009 Inauguration Ceremony

Best snippet from Rev. Rick Warren's invocation:

"When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches and civility in our attitudes--even when we differ."

Best snippet from President Obama's Inaugural Address:

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

"To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect."

Best snippet from Dr. Elizabeth Alexander's poem:

"What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to preempt grievance."

Best snippet from Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction:

"Help us then, now, Lord, to work for that day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, when tanks will be beaten into tractors, when every man and every woman shall sit under his or her own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid; when justice will roll down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream."