I’m trying out a new polling feature provided by WordPress. Who do you think won the Third Presidential debate?

“How are you doing today, sir?” a European missionary asks his neighbor.

“Good,” he replies. “Any day without a war is good.”

No, these are not the words of a man who saw the carnage of war as a soldier on the battlefield. These are the words of a man who was only a child during World War II, but who remembers the horror of battles being fought in his own backyard. His thoughts about “a good day is one without war” are echoed throughout Europe, as my recent visit to Moldova reminded me.

Though the War in Iraq continues to be unpopular in Europe, I am convinced that most Europeans are not actually dismissing the merits of this particular war. Instead, they are reacting to a general impression of American foreign policy as constantly flexing its military might. Put simply, many Europeans believe Americans are too quick to rush to war.

Share these insights with many Americans, and you hear some good reasons why preemptive strikes might be necessary. Had we preemptively struck Hitler, we could have avoided World War II. Had we preemptively struck Russia, perhaps the Cold War would never have taken place. War is a sad and sometimes inevitable reality. We see the stark reality that sometimes we must not only talk about peace, but actually fight for it.

Americans tend to be more open to the idea of war, and Europeans seem to be knee-jerk in their immediate opposition. Therefore, many Americans see Europe as naïve and hopelessly pacifistic in its orientation. We do not understand why there is so much talk and so little action. We think that Europeans would let evil run wild, and that their reticence for war to solve worldwide problems is rooted in dangerous passivity.

But there is a reason why Europeans tend to be more pacifistic: History.

World War II was a necessary war – even a just war, we would probably agree. In World War II, we saw the best of many young Americans die. We know that the war came with a terrible price.

But the war was not fought on our terrain. Yes, the war snatched away some of the best of our youth, but it did not destroy our country. (In fact, some historians believe it was the War that lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression.) On the other hand, Europe was in ruins after World War II.

Talk to older Europeans and you will quickly discover that they see life as “before” and “after” the War. Our national consciousness is not shaped by war fought within our borders. Europe’s is.

The great cathedrals that crumbled, the art museums that were razed to the ground, the villages that were burned, the cities that were bombed – not only did Europeans lose the best of their young, they saw much of the greatness of their culture destroyed. Destroy a nation’s cultural artifacts and you destroy something deep within a nation’s psyche. Destroy a nation’s infrastructure, and you destroy the country’s sense of security for decades.

For Americans, war is something done somewhere else. For Europeans, war destroys more than just human life; it also puts an end to human flourishing. It is no wonder that Europeans are more pacifistic in outlook. They have seen the destruction of war up close.

Many European evangelicals are also deeply pacifistic and regularly challenge their American brothers and sisters on issues related to violence. Tomorrow, I will follow up with a few thoughts as to why evangelicals tend to see non-retaliation as a more central theme in the teachings of Jesus than we do.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

The vice-presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin.

The first presidential debate between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. Click here to see the transcript.

Related Articles:
Funniest Campaign Moments of Election 2008
Yes We Can? What Our Campaign Slogans Tell Us About America
Clinton Lashes Out at Pro-Lifers
Why We Are Pro-Life
Social Security Crisis’ Dark Side: Abortion
Letter to Bill O’Reilly Regarding the Desecration of the Sacrament

The 2008 presidential campaign is heating up. The parties have chosen their candidates. The candidates have chosen their running mates. And both the Obama and McCain campaigns have adopted certain slogans designed to express the attitudes of the candidates.

“Yes We Can” has become the mantra of the Obama campaign.

“Country First” has become the tagline for the McCain camp.

No doubt these easy-to-remember slogans will help the strategies of both campaigns. But Christians should carefully consider both the commendable and condemnable aspects of these sayings.

Take Obama’s “Yes We Can!” – obviously designed to be motivational. The crowds can chant it whenever they want. Yes, we can win this election. Yes, we can take back Washington. Yes, we can make the changes we need in our society. The slogan works at multiple levels. It is simple, yet has the ability to rouse voters to action.

The commendable aspect of Obama’s “Yes We Can” is its appeal to personal responsibility. In other words, quit waiting around for someone else to bring change. We need to get involved. We can make a difference!

But “Yes We Can” has a downside. When it comes to the problems that Obama describes on the campaign trail, the phrase “Yes We Can” is untrue. Despite the appeal to personal responsibility, the Obama campaign seems to be promising that the government can and will solve the problems of America. The government can solve the health care crisis, the energy crisis, end the war, and bring about lasting peace. With enough faith (in ourselves and in Uncle Sam), we can change the world.

The problem is, no matter how hard we try to solve all the problems of the world, “No, We Can’t.” We are not the change we have been waiting for. True change began the morning a Jewish Messiah from Nazareth walked out of a borrowed tomb, just three days after being crucified.

Christians should work to make the world a better place and announce the reign of Jesus Christ. But our work for a better world does not mean that we accept the utopian dreams that a presidential candidate dangles before our eyes.

“Yes We Can” may be a brilliant political slogan, but it ultimately feeds the idolatry of American self-sufficiency.

What about McCain’s newest slogan? “Country First.” McCain’s slogan strikes against the “Me First” attitude that reigns among most Americans today. McCain seeks to call us back to a sense of duty and patriotism, a willingness to put others ahead of ourselves. This emphasis on serving others is commendable.

But, as several Christian leaders have pointed out, Christians must be wary of the call to putting “Country First.” After all, the earliest Christians were thrown to the lions for refusing to say such a thing. They believed that putting “Country First” was idolatrous. The temptations were many: Just a pinch of salt before the altar of Caesar… just a brief recognition that Caesar is Lord… just a little acknowledgement of civil religion.

As a concept, “Country First” is better than “Me First;” that’s for sure. But for the Christian, there can be no “Country First” - only “Kingdom First.” After all, Jesus did not tell us to seek first our country and its form of righteousness. He told us to seek him. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus – not the President, U.S. foreign policy, or patriotic duty.

Putting the kingdom first means that our supreme responsibility must be following Jesus, making disciples, and showing the world through our words and deeds that he is the true king. We serve King Jesus whenever we serve our local church, help others in Jesus’ name, share the gospel with those who do not know Christ, and submit to God’s will. Putting the kingdom first means we sacrifice for Christ’s kingdom.

Christians should be willing to put their duty to country ahead of their own interests. Senator McCain is right to encourage American citizens to live for something bigger than themselves. But American Christians are called to live for something bigger than their country. After all, we are Kingdom People – citizens of a kingdom that will never fade away.

This election, as the Obama campaign rises up and chants, “Yes We Can!”, let us as Christians respond with “Yes He Can… and will!”

As the McCain campaign launches a message about putting “Country First,” let us as Christians continue to put the “Kingdom First” and use this election season as an opportunity to spread the news about Jesus’ reign.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Related Articles:

Funniest Campaign Moments of Election 2008 (So Far)

Saddleback Forum Video and Transcript

The 2008 Presidential Campaign continues to increase in its intensity. If you’re like me, you might enjoy some of the lighter moments of this campaign. So, take a deep breath, stop watching the polls, and have a good laugh. Here are some Election 2008 “outtakes” in which the candidates make some hilarious mistakes.

Ouch! Obama slips up and talks about his “Muslim Faith” instead of Christian faith in an interview on ABC.

John McCain promises to veto beer. Prohibition anyone?

At a campaign rally, Joe Biden tells wheelchair-bound Chuck Graham to stand up. I know people say Obama is a Messiah, but this might be a little too much!

McCain claims Putin is President of Germany.

Terry Moran on Nightline goofs up and says Barack Obama has two dads. Yes, that would definitely go down in the history books.

Obama has visited all 57 states of America.

McCain’s going after Osama to the gates of hell. I wonder if he’ll have that smile on his face once he gets there.

Barack Obama introduces Joe Biden as the next president of the United States.

McCain sings “Bomb Iran” and then tells reporters who question him to lighten up and “get a life.”

Obama gets lost without a teleprompter.

If you have other funny moments from the 2008 campaign that you think should be included on this list, send me the links!

For those of you who missed the Leadership and Compassion Forum, hosted by Rick Warren at Saddleback Church on Saturday, August 16… here are the videos from the evening, featuring both John McCain and Barack Obama answering questions from Pastor Rick Warren. (You can access the full transcript here and a nice side-by-side comparison of the candidates’ answers here.)

BARACK OBAMA WITH RICK WARREN AT SADDLEBACK CIVIL FORUM

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

JOHN MCCAIN WITH RICK WARREN AT SADDLEBACK CIVIL FORUM

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Related Posts:
McCain / Obama Debate Video & Transcript
Funniest Campaign Moments of Election 2008
Yes We Can? What Our Campaign Slogans Tell Us About America
Clinton Lashes Out at Pro-Lifers
Why We Are Pro-Life
Social Security Crisis’ Dark Side: Abortion
Letter to Bill O’Reilly Regarding the Desecration of the Sacrament
Death of a Dictator

Should a pastor pray in Jesus’ name at a civic event?

Mark Roberts says “yes,” although he believes praying in Jesus’ name does not necessarily mean one will use that phrase at the end of a prayer. Mark goes on to explain his own practice of praying at civic events and his reasoning for not including the name of Christ.

When I have prayed in public, secular gatherings, I have not said “in Jesus’ name” because I knew that many of the people whom I was leading in prayer were not Christians. My goal was to include through my words as many people in the prayer as possible. I wanted all who had gathered to be able to pray with me, to join me in the “Amen” without hesitation. I didn’t want to leave some people out if I could help it.

I respectfully disagree with Mark’s practice. (And I do mean “respectfully.” I enjoy Mark’s blog and have benefited from his scholarship. It is difficult to judge a person’s “tone” when blogging, so let me say at the outset that my disagreement is intented to be expressed in brotherly love and with admiration for Mark’s ministry.)

First off, let me state my agreement with Mark’s belief that praying “in Jesus’ name” is more than a magic phrase we attach to the end of our prayers. Yes, praying in Jesus’ name means praying under his authority and according to his will. Mark is right to point out the danger of letting the words “in Jesus’ name” become a mere tagline at the end of our prayers, intended to bless whatever we’ve requested.

But I have trouble with Mark’s reasoning when it comes to civic gatherings. As stated above, Mark wants to make sure that he can include as many people in the prayer as possible. Though he writes that his public prayers are brief and are addressed to God (not to the people in the audience), he still exhibits a curious preoccupation with his audience if he is willing to forego the mention of Jesus’ name in an attempt to be inclusive.

What bothers me most about Mark’s explanation is his willingness to praying distinctly Christian prayers at interfaith funerals, where “representatives of different faith traditions pray ways that are consistent with their own religious convictions.” In other words, when there are more faiths represented and each minister is expected to pray accordingly, Mark does so.

Mark’s post on this subject reminds me of a conversation I once had with an Eastern Orthodox priest in Louisville. We were talking theology over coffee one morning when the priest recounted a similar experience. He had been invited to pray at a civic gathering, but the organizer had instructed him to not pray anything “distinctly Christian” and to avoid mention of Jesus’ name.

The priest asked the organizer, “What kind of prayer do you want me to pray?” 

The man replied, “Something generic.”

The priest answered back. “Then you’ll have to find someone else. I’m not a ‘generic priest.’ I am an Orthodox priest and if you invite me to your function, I will pray as a Christian.”

The organizer of the event backed down and my friend was able to pray as he wished.

I admire Mark’s sensitivity in not wanting to be divisive. Certainly we should avoid “preaching” in our public prayers. It is counterintuitive for a tone-deaf Christian minister to try and ram Christian doctrine down people’s throats during a civic ceremony.

But Jesus is divisive. Mark hopes that as many people as possible will be able to say “Amen” at the end of his prayers. But if the people in his audience are not believers in Christ, their “Amens” and their prayers are in vain. What kind of agreement do we have in our prayers with unbelievers if we are not agreed on the identity of God – the One who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ? 

Furthermore, the fact that Mark prays in Jesus’ name at interfaith services simply compounds my initial unease with his proposal. The idea that the mention of Jesus is less offensive when offered alongside prayers from Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu religious leaders simply reinforces the pluralistic, secularized assumptions of our culture that all religions are equal and valid.

I am not questioning Mark’s sincerity or his fervent faith in Christ. I am questioning the prevailing assumption in our culture that would have us celebrate our faith openly as long as we are celebrating other faiths at the same time or would have us mute our specific beliefs whenever the secular realm demands “generalities.”

When I am invited to pray at public events, I do so graciously. But I consciously tweak the last phrase of my prayers from “through Jesus Christ our Lord” to “through Jesus Christ the Lord.” That way, I have declared the lordship of Christ openly and publicly, without giving false hope to those who are not living under his reign. I feel it is the only honest way for me to pray at civic gatherings. So far I have not heard any complaints. But if someone asks that I pray more “generically,” I will follow the example of my Orthodox friend and suggest they find a “generic” minister.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Watch the above video and you’ll see how former President Bill Clinton responds to a group of pro-life activists in the crowd. Dismissal. Sneering. And a clear evasion of the issues at stake.

Clinton argues that pro-lifers want to criminalize women and their doctors. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue at stake is not who will we prosecute but who will the Law protect? Does the unborn child have a right to live? (Notice how Clinton turns away from the “Abortion Kills Children” sign.)

The abortion-rights arguments are beginning to lose their grip on the American public. Because of the progression of the pro-life cause, many politicians now speak of abortion as a “tragic choice” and clearly affirm the importance of reducing the number of abortions. (Hence Clinton’s contention that he did more to reduce abortion than the “hot air” of the pro-life movement.)

I encourage the Democrats who are pro-choice and find abortion “tragic” to back up their rhetoric with substantial legislation. 90% of women who see their unborn child on an ultrasound choose to keep the baby and refuse to go through with the abortion.

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and even John McCain) are truly serious about reducing the “tragedy” of abortion, why don’t they propose legislation requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion? After all, a woman should be informed about any medical procedure, especially one that may have emotional repercussions. An argument against the ultrasound law is ultimately an argument against science, against better medical advice, against the idea that a woman should be able to make a well-informed choice.

Let’s redirect some of the money that goes to paying abortions into paying for ultrasounds. We could substantially reduce abortions in no time, and without touching Roe vs. Wade. Then, President Clinton can indeed boast about resolutions that are more than “hot air.”

Will this happen? Not a chance. Eloquent words about the abortion “tragedy” translate into empty commitments to “choice.” Backed by the powerful abortion lobby, the pro-choice politicians are not advocating a well-informed woman’s right to choose. They are for restrictionless abortion.

We will not see ultrasound legislation because for many politicians, losing the support of the abortion lobby is a greater tragedy than the loss of another generation through the slaughtering of the unborn.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Related Articles:
Why We Are Pro-Life
Social Security Crisis’ Dark Side: Abortion
Do Not Kill 

Do you opt out of paying the Self-Employment (Social Security) tax? Or do you pay into the system?

If you opt out, why? If not, why not?

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on paying social security taxes.