Edwards On the Campaign Trail II

Last night, Rev. Reggie Longcrier pastor of Exodus Missionary Outreach Church asked Sen. John Edwards:

"Sen. Edwards has said that his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree: it was wrong to use religion to justify slavery, segregation and deny women the right to vote. So, why is it still acceptable to use religion deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?"

This question came a few days after Edwards' wife told Salon.com that her husband's stance is rooted in his understanding of the Bible (see previous BibleBending Post). To his credit, Sen. Edwards responded by cutting to the crux of the question:

"I think Rev. Longcrier asks a very important question which is, fundamentally, whether it is right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we are president of the United States. I do not believe that's right. I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue."

Rev. Longcrier, who was in the audience, had the chance to tell Edwards that he did not hear the response he would like.

So Edwards elucidated:

"I have been asked a personal question ... do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage? The honest answer to that is: I don't. But, I think it is absolutely wrong as president of the United States to use that as a basis for denying any one their rights. And I will not do that when I am president of the United States."

Lest it appears that I am discouraging straight-forwardness and begging for more platitudes: kudos to Edwards for his candidness. However, do I detect a little cognitive dissonance in Edwards' world view? He personally believes that gay persons should be (borrowing his phrase) denied one of their rights while believing that a president should never do so. Some body stop me! I want to refuse to give gay people their civil rights. Quick! give me the presidency!

Behold, the murky waters of a biblically-based world view. Squint and blink and try to figure out what the Bible says. Then soak it up and walk around bloated with biblical passages for a while in order to discern what the Bible means. But you're not done yet. Stand on your head and figure out what the Bible means to you personally. Will you be able to eat hot dogs? Accept a blood transfusion? Celebrate your birthday? Use condoms? Shave your beard? Own slaves? Hang out with menstruating women? Sleep in on Saturday or Sunday? Wear a mini skirt? Brush your teeth? Allow gay people to marry? After more "personal conflict," decide what the Bible would mean to you if you were president. By this time, if your Edwards, the presidency has made null and void the process that came before it.

No wonder politicians prefer to talk about "hope" and "change" and "strength."

On the Campaign Trail

Yesterday, Salon published an interview with Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards. She discussed her choice to confront Ann Coulter on Hardball, why poverty is a central theme in the Edwards campaign, why John is a better advocate for women's rights than Hillary, and her support of gay marriage--a position that differs from that of her husband's.

The difference, she implies, is in how they read the Bible:

Salon: But your husband feels differently; he's a civil unions guy.

Elizabeth: Well, I think it's a struggle for him, having grown up in a Southern Baptist church where it was pounded into him. I was raised a Methodist in military churches. Poverty was talked about; I don't remember homosexuality ever being mentioned. And I don't think that Christians who aren't engaged in a political campaign ever talk about it. They talk about poverty and other issues talked about in the Bible. But in churches, in political season, there's plenty of ginning up this issue.

The Changing shape of the Bending Bible

Christianity in the U.S. is evolving.

An early start to the 2008 presidential election and the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell last week brings this evolution into new focus. What does it mean that the leading GOP presidential candidate, Rudy Guiliani, is pro-choice? What does it mean if a large number of Christians are beginning to support a liberal Christian Democrat, Sen. Barack Obama? Will Christianity play a similar role in redefining the Republican platform as Falwell's Moral Majority did in the 80's?

An article today in the New York Times suggests that the baby boomer generation is seizing this moment of transition in the U.S. to shift the Christian focus away from issues such as abortion and same-sex marriages to issues such as global warming and the AIDS epidemic. It is the laid-back style of Rev. Rick Warren and Rev. Bill Hybels rather than Pat Robertson and James Dobson who are rousing the social and political energy of Christians.

Young Christian activist such as Gabe Lyons, are not as interested in influencing politics. "I believe politics just isn’t as important to younger evangelicals as it has been for the older generations because we recognize from experience that politics does not shape the morality of a culture,” Lyons told the NYT. “It simply reflects what the larger culture wants.”

With that view in mind, Lyons has founded the Fermi Project, a "broad collective" of Christians collaborating to incrementally shift "the conscious of the culture over time." Fermi's projects include Rwanda Clean Water and Advent Conspiracy, which hopes to alter the way Christmas is celebrated by "resisting the empire when they tell us to buy more and more for ourselves [and] re-distributing our wealth so others can see the greatness of God's gift Giving ourselves relationally just as he gave himself."

In a short essay entitled Influencing Culture: An Opportunity for the Church (PDF), Lyons lays out the "cultural mandate" that Christians have to "restore God's creation." He argues that because the Seven Channels of Cultural Influence (business, government, media, church, arts & entertainment, education and the social sector) produce the ideas that shape the moral fiber of a nation, Christians should claim a stake in every avenue of cultural influence. Just like the "Homosexual Movement" tapped into all channels of cultural influence to shift the cultural perception of homosexuality as "abnormal and abhorrent in society, to being an acceptable and normal alternative life-style" so should Christians utilize all cultural means available.

Lyons' insight are hardly innovative and certainly not new (as a cursory glimpse at the history of Western civilization would quickly prove) but, as the NYT article highlights today, at this moment in U.S. history they feel new.

Unfortunately, Lyons' essay is vague on the details of the cultural shifts he has in mind as though Christians speak with one mind when converting the Bible into an idealistic social model. Any reader of Bible Bending would know that that is hardly the case. Still, the enthusiasm for innovation seems genuine. I for one look forward to watching this evolution. As Matt Drudge would say: Developing...