Why I didn't attend Governor Perry's prayer rally

Below is an article I helped write for author Carl Medearis.

For the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of helping lead a delegation from the Middle East to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual event that gathers politicians and people of influence from around the world over several days. It's one of the few prayer events where you're as likely to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as you are to see Sam Brownback or Sarah Palin. It's my favorite week of the year. It's hard to put into words how inspiring it is to see Democrats and Republicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus -- and probably a few non-religious types thrown in the mix -- gathering together to pray and talk about faith. What's even more remarkable is the one person that every politician or religious leader agrees on: Jesus. From the opening prayer to the closing ceremony, and every workshop and roundtable discussion in between, the life and teachings of Jesus take center stage. As a follower of Jesus who believes in prayer, this is a prayer event I can sign on to.

Governor Perry's prayer rally last Saturday....

Not so much.

For the rest of the article: Click here!

"Not voting" as an act of prophetic resistance

Last week someone gave me a CD of a sermon by Lou Engle, a well-known charismatic preacher who's also a leader in the "Apostolic and Prophetic" movement. The sermon was entitled "Voting as an act of divine governance." I was so impressed by the title that I thought I should make the title of my rebuttal sound equally spiritual. If voting can be an act of "divine governance", then certainly not voting can be an act of "prophetic resistance." If I ever get to interact with Engle or any other leader of the "Apostolic and Prophetic" crowd, I wonder if my not-so-subtle attempts to co-opt their language would make them more likely to hear me out?

Sarcasm aside, I was deeply troubled in my spirit as I listened to the sermon. While I appreciate the fact that Lou Engle mobilizes tens of thousands of young people every year to pray for spiritual awakening in America, I often wonder if the prayers are misdirected. The underlying assumption is that if God were to answer our prayers, then we would be the ones with all the political power. The "we" by the way is very specific. It means "pro-life, anti-gay marriage" Christians. And the "pro-life", as you probably know, does not mean pro-life after the womb. It only means pro-life before the womb. You'll never ever ever ever ever hear these guys speaking out against innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of U.S. foreign policy. They also actively promote the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Now I guarantee you that they would tell you otherwise (after all, who wants to say they support ethnic cleansing?), but the reality is that every time a U.S. president asks the Israeli government to halt the expansion of Jew-only settlements--settlements built on home demolitions and private property land confiscations--they scream bloody murder.

For my friends that think of themselves as progressive evangelicals, if you think I'm writing this to make us all feel smug in our supposedly enlightened views of a "consistent ethic of life." Think again. Lou Engle did say something that got me thinking, and thinking hard. He said that if you knowingly vote for someone that sanctions murder, then you're just as guilty as the person you voted for. In the context of the sermon, Engle was saying that Christians have a kingdom duty to vote for anti-abortion candidates. Not voting is simply not an option in Engle's worldview. But the more that I listened to what he was saying, the more I felt that Engle was actually making the case for not voting.

I'll admit. I think of myself as sorta kinda "progressive" in my political views. A lot of evangelicals that think like me were appalled at the lack of respect for human rights demonstrated during the Bush Administration. We saw the hell and destruction unleashed on the Iraqi people. We saw Abu Graib, Gitmo, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, extraordinary renditions, the supporting of totalitarian regimes, and we concluded that it would be hypocritical to call ourselves "pro-life" and then turn around and vote for someone who supported things like torture and pre-emptive war. We justified voting for Obama, even though he was "pro-choice", because we honestly believed that from a human rights perspective he was the lesser of two evils.

Now that we know that Obama has continued many of the Bush policies, and in some cases has increased them (as in the case of drone attacks killing civilians), can we really say that we support a "consistent ethic of life" and cast a vote for Barack Obama in 2012? Might we be guilty of the same hypocrisy we accuse the other side of? I realize that one key difference is that most of us that voted for Obama weren't deluding ourselves into thinking that our vote was an act of "divine governance." But still, even if we recognize that our vote has absolutely zero to do with expanding God's kingdom on earth (after all, the Kingdom of God as revealed in Jesus is a non-coercive kingdom) voting is never morally neutral. So, thank you Mr. Engle. I may not vote in this next election because of you. May God lead us all to follow the dictates of our conscience in 2012.

Obama the most anti-Israel president in history?

Okay, this is just looney. Here's the latest e-mail I received from my good friends at the ACLJ.

Dear Aaron,

President Obama has talked about ''unwavering'' support for Israel, but we're seeing something quite different. As Congressman Mike Pence correctly put it, ''This Administration has become the most anti-Israel Administration in American history.''

It is imperative that we - as a country and as individuals - never falter in our support of the State of Israel.

As you know, we are at the International Criminal Court this week to defend Israel's right to sovereignty and the right of every free nation to defend itself from terrorists. The impact of this case is global. And now, more than ever, it's clear that we have a distinct and special role in standing with the nation of Israel and its people.

I urge you to read Jordan's latest online Washington Post article, ''Why Christian Conservatives are Israel's Ambassadors.'' It explores this critical issue and explains why the American Center for Law and Justice is so focused on protecting Israel and its future.

Once you read the article, please post a comment about why you support Israel at the Washington Post website.

I am truly grateful for you and other committed ACLJ members who have stood, and continue to stand, alongside us in support of Israel and its people.

As one of America's greatest and most trusted allies, Israel represents what we in this nation cherish most - democracy, freedom, and sovereignty.

Seriously Mr. Sekulow? Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history? Would you like to back that up please? Because last time I checked, Obama has increased military aid to Israel, increased intelligence cooperation with Israel on Iran, and strengthened trade relations between our two countries.

Gullible people are going to believe you.

Why?

Because the president's name is Barack Hussein Obama.

For an excellent article on Obama's support for Israel, click here!

Scary dream--could this really happen?

I just woke up from a dream. It was so frightening, I had to write it down.

I dreamt that I was watching President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton. They were surrounded by the secret service and all of the high up officials in the U.S. government. Probably a few cabinet members. I heard semi-automatic gun shots. I could see Bill Clinton and the others ducking for cover. It looked like Bill Clinton was a specific target. More gun shots. More ducking for cover. Then I saw President Obama attempt to give a press conference to reassure the nation that he and the officials with him were okay.

Boom!

A bomb goes off where the two presidents and the officials are standing. Both are unharmed but in the crowd of a hundred or so surrounding them, it was implied that some were killed.

By this time, I'm thinking that the nation is under a terrorist attack, probably perpetrated by Islamic extremists.

I look to the left and I see a massive crowd of people as far as the eye could see.

All white men.

All carrying Christian flags and bayonets.

All charging the White House.

I wake up.

I have no idea why I had this dream. I've never thought that the violent revolution strain in some of the tea party rhetoric is very realistic. Neither have I been concerned about radical reconstructionists (Christians that want to implement the law of Moses) taking over.

So why the dream?

Could it really happen?

The ACLU files lawsuit against President Obama over drone attacks

Last night I googled the words "drone attacks Obama" to verify if President Obama has indeed increased unmanned aerial drone attacks in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. Sure enough, not only has the president significantly increased these extrajudicial killings that also happen to kill a lot of civilians; it turns out that the ACLU has recently filed a lawsuit against the president challenging his right to carry out the attacks.

Just for kicks, I'd like to take a look at President Bush's human rights policies and see which ones have been continued under President Obama.

Extraordinary renditions? Check.

Militarization of Latin America? Check.

Fumigating crops in Columbia to fight the drug war? Check.

Threat of military force against Iran? Check.

Drone attacks against civilians in Pakistan? Increased.

Military aid to Israel? Increased.

What is striking about the President is that despite his smooth-talking in Cairo, despite the Nobel Peace prize, despite the never ending efforts of neo-con pundits to turn Obama into a first class whimp, the difference between Obama and Bush is a mile wide when it comes to rhetoric but an inch deep when it comes to reality.

Granted, Obama’s willingness to work with—as opposed to arrogantly dismiss—the international community on issues like nuclear non-proliferation and global climate change, along with his more respectful tone towards the Muslim world, has gone a long way to reduce the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that was so prevalent during the Bush years. Still, I wonder if Christians in the historic peace-churches will be able to honestly vote for a second term in 2012 and still have the right to call themselves pacifists?

While it may be true that a McCain/Palin administration would have been more bellicose and hostile to the rest of the world, at what point does voting for the lesser of two evils become complicity in acts of violence against others? Perhaps it’s a little early to ask this question, but the question still bothers me nonetheless.

Evangelical Leaders Support Reducing Nukes

Evangelicals Send Atomic Fireballs to Congress


For Immediate Release

April 12, 2010

Evangelical college presidents, denominational executives, pastors, veterans, professors, and missionaries are encouraging the Obama administration and Congress to engage in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea and to reduce US nuclear arsenals. Citing scripture, Jesus, and foreign policy experts such as George Shultz, they claim “overcoming the nuclear threat requires international cooperation” and “nuclear weapons are a moral threat” that must eventually be eliminated. For emphasis they provided Atomic Fireballs with their statement, saying “Atomic Fireballs are great candy, but terrible foreign policy.”

Their historic Matthew 5 Project statement, which “calls on our nation to be willing to talk with and listen to antagonists,” offers strong support for the “new START” treaty. The statement was sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all 535 members of Congress. Arguing that “Jesus is the realist,” the evangelical statement recognizes that even though “[t]he United States has crucial disagreements with Iran, Jesus does not say talks should be refused until we approve of the conduct of the adversary.”

The statement also refers to the policy recommendations of George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other conservative national security experts who are now recommending the elimination of nuclear weapons. “Nuclear weapons are a physical threat to the survival of human life on earth. Prominent national security experts have recently called for reducing and abolishing reliance on nuclear weapons, by verifiable international agreement, in order to enhance national security. This cannot be accomplished unilaterally; it requires international cooperation and verification.” The statement and broad scope of endorsements reveal the growing sentiment among American Evangelicals that the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons is both theologically necessary and politically possible.

After laying out their biblical, theological, and political cases, the statement culminates in a call to action that encourages American churches to engage in interfaith and international dialogue and to “urge international cooperation in continued step-by-step reductions, working toward ways to verify abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide.”

ABOUT THE MATTHEW 5 PROJECT
The Matthew 5 Project is an Evangelical effort to promote international cooperation and reduce nuclear weapons through careful analysis of political realities and sound biblical and theological arguments (http://www.matthew5project.org/).

CONTACT
Glen Stassen, Ph.D.
Professor of Christian Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
135 N. Oakland Avenue
Pasadena, California 91182
626-304-3733
gstassen@fuller.edu


Rev. Paul Alexander, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Co-founder, Pentecostals & Charismatics for Peace & Justice
Azusa Pacific University
701 E. Foothill Blvd.
Azusa, California 91702
626-815-5434
palexander@apu.edu

Great News for a Safe and Peaceful World

Hey there,

I just heard some good news for everyone who's afraid of nuclear war (and that means all of us).

Last week, Russia and the USA signed an agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals by a third. And next week, Obama is hosting leaders from 48 countries to talk about going even further in pursuit of a nuclear-free world.

It's the most concrete progress in decades to reduce the threat of nuclear war.

But public support is crucial if we're going to make Obama's first bold steps really stick. Which is why I just signed this petition backing up the work for a nuclear free world. If you do the same thing today, TrueMajority will make sure it gets delivered to Obama and world leaders when they convene at the White House next week:

Sign here!

Speak Evil of No Man...Really??

I love the New Testament. I think it’s fair to say that I live, eat, breathe, and drink the New Testament. I honestly think that there’s no piece of literature more inspiring and uplifting than the New Testament. Having said that, I have to admit that more often than not, I find myself frustrated—and a bit annoyed—at its content. Because the more I read the New Testament, the more I realize that God has set the bar sky-high for those that would call themselves Christ -followers. Case in point. The Apostle Paul tells us in Titus 3:2 to “Speak evil of no man.”

Um…excuse me Paul? What were you thinking? Don’t you believe that evil exists in the world? Certainly when you talk about speaking evil of no man, you don’t mean to include people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot …or do you? Oh, wait a second. I almost forgot. You wrote these words when the homicidal maniac named Nero was doing some pretty crazy things, like impaling Christians and using them for torches. My bad. Still, couldn’t you have at least put in an exception clause for those that are really bad?

Why does this verse annoy me so much? Because I’ve got some pretty strong political opinions. And what I think this verse is saying is that even if I believed that the presidency of Barack Obama represents the second coming of Chairman Mao or that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin want to reduce the middle class to permanent serfdom, I’m still not supposed to speak evil of them.

I can hear the half-screams already. You’re proof-texting! Certainly we need to speak against people that believe in killing unborn babies, that are in bed with Wall Street, that raise taxes, that cut social spending, that are steering our country on a path to socialism or—insert your political beef here. Very well then. My question to you is this. Is the person that you’re thinking about worse than Satan? According to Jude verses 8 and 9, Christians aren’t even supposed to bring a reviling accusation against Satan! And, by the way, the context of the passage in Jude is talking about those in authority—including political leaders.

When Jesus spoke about loving enemies, He used the Heavenly Father as an example of someone who is “kind to the unthankful and evil” (Luke 6:35). Notice the word evil. Evil is a pretty strong word. It encompasses everything from your passive aggressive mother- in- law to the terrorism of Osama Bin Laden and—yes—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck depending on your political persuasion. It’s true that Jesus called the Pharisees “Brood of vipers!” (Matthew 23:33) but notice that He never called Caiaphas a snake. Jesus never made it personal. He attacked ideas, not people.

Furthermore, if anyone would have qualified for the title of scumbag, it would have been Zacchaeus; the guy that was using his position with the Romans to screw the poor among his own people. Yet, how did Jesus treat Zacchaeus? He offered unconditional friendship to the man by inviting Himself to his house. Zacchaeus became a changed man (Luke 19:1-10). Heck, Jesus even called Judas His friend after the Scriptures specifically tell us that Judas became indwelt by Satan! (Matthew 26:50, Luke 22:3) Talk about seeing life through rose-colored glasses!

I’m not saying that I have all the answers when it comes to reconciling this teaching with the idea that Christians are supposed to take a stand against injustice and “expose” the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). I’m just wondering what would happen if Christians worldwide became known as people that are so loving, so kind, so gracious, so humble, that they refuse to speak evil of people with whom they have deep disagreements? What if Christians became known as people that are—to quote the last part of the verse we started with—“peaceable and gentle, showing all humility to all men?” What if?

Interview with Greg Livingstone, founder of Frontiers

Greg Livingstone is a difficult man to put in a box. He’s a critic of Christian Zionism, American nationalism, and he supports President Obama’s efforts to reach out to the Muslim world. He also happens to be the founder of Frontiers, the world’s largest missionary organization dedicated to church planting among Muslim peoples. Says Livingstone, “When you live outside America you come to realize how important it is to be a Christian first and American second.” He currently resides in London, where the Frontiers international office is located. I had a lengthy conversation with him the other day via Skype. Here’s the gist of what we talked about.

Question: So what have you been up to these days?

Answer: I’m the chairman of a strategic partnership for a country in North Africa, which includes 27 agencies; I’ve been recruiting team leaders for the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church), planting a church among Pakistani Muslims in UK, and writing, mostly on the history of church planting among Muslims.

Question: In recent years, there's been an increase in Muslims coming to Christ but remaining within the cultural fold of Islam. Some are calling this "the Insider Movement." What is your take on the Insider Movement and how should Christian missionaries respond to this movement?

Answer: Frontiers is getting hit on the left and the right with this. This is very current. My bottom line is we’ve got to be Bereans. It’s not a question of pragmatism, it’s a question of staying within Biblical parameters. What I like about the Insider movement is the movement’s proponents are people that love God convinced it’s not enough to see so few Muslims come to Christ. We’ve got to try something else.

Paul says, “I’ve become all things to all men that I might win some.” So their motivation is good but as Tozer used to say: it’s not the lukewarm Christian that’s in danger of heresy, it’s the passionate Christian. I think the Emergent movement is influencing the Insider movement. Of course, you don’t win a Muslim to Christ by saying that Muhammad was a pedophile, but you’re not going to find your Joseph of Armethia, or Nicodemus if you don’t sit in the same room and find some commonality.

Still, the ‘jury is out’ on the Insider movement. There’s very little indication so far of congregations being established with godly biblically based elders by advocates of the Insider Movement. At some point, Muslims obeying the Lord Jesus are going to join the Rev. 6:9 club. A veteran missionary among Muslims has it right when he says, “Sure leave them in the Mosque; Encourage Muslim background believers to stay with and serve their families. But the vast majority will be banished if they actually share Christ as their LORD and SAVIOUR.

Question: There are some that postulate on the possibility of a mass movement to Biblical faith in Christ as a reformation movement within Islam. Do you see this as a possibility? If so, what form might this take?

Answer: Look at Pakistan today. It’s about 3% Christian, the result of a people movement. But only a tiny fraction are regenerated. They’re not impressing Muslims with their godliness. They’re not witnessing. When you get a mass movement, you’re very much in danger of having 80% chaff and 20% wheat. McGavern taught that’s okay because it’s easier to convert a nominal Christian.

I believe that Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9 is not going to happen without Revelation 6:9 referring to the cost: all the people who will be murdered for their testimony. I think that a lot more people are going to have to suffer and die before we see a breakthrough. Consider what happened in the first and second century. A Muslim who called himself a follower of Jesus told me one time. “I really love Jesus. I really love Frontiers. I just wish you’d get rid of this Jesus dying on the cross for our sins stuff.” Many in the Insider movement seem to be satisfied with simply making people pro-Jesus. Every liberal pastor is ‘pro-Jesus; Gandhi was pro-Jesus; but he never ‘bowed the knee’ to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Question: Traditionally, missionaries in Muslim countries have taken the tent-maker approach. Based on the model of the Apostle Paul, they'll go into a country, start a business and/or a humanitarian organization and evangelize under cover. Do you feel that the tent-maker approach remains a valid model for today? Are there emerging models that may replace the tent-maker approach?

Answer: Actually, I read that Paul took a job only when he ran out of church support. Traditionally evangelists went over to Muslim countries and preached openly. After World War II, when Muslim countries got their independence and stopped issuing missionary visas, we classified countries as open or closed depending on whether they would issue a “missionary visa”. In the 70’s, some of us started asking, “Where did Jesus say go into all the world if you can acquire a missionary visa?” I don’t think the tentmaker movement is really modeled after Paul. Paul didn’t work full time. He only worked a job when he ran out of money.

Now, is “tentmaking” a valid model? Well, we really don’t have much choice. I personally want to send people on teams and make room for all the different approaches. I’ll make the evangelist the VP of Public relations until s/he is expelled! The point is, if we don’t have accountability, you can live in a Muslim country for years, and call yourself a teacher, a businessman etc…but don’t tell others you’re a church planter unless what you’re doing is actually leading to establishing a fellowship of believers!

One must show there’s a connection between what you’re going there to do and what you’re leaving behind. That’s why I believe in agencies which are committed to continuity; i.e. they will keep reinforcing a church planting effort with new people until there’s a church planted that is birthing another church! Evangelists don’t plant churches, because they want to go pray with another unrelated individual. Therefore, the evangelist needs team members who will disciple and gather the new believers. When I’m recruiting for church planting teams, I don’t ask a person how many people they’ve led to Christ. I ask them, what would you bring to a church planting effort?

5. Question: What has been the impact of Christian Zionism on evangelism in the Muslim world?

Answer: Obviously, being pro-Israel no matter what they do, anti Arab is not being Christian. Still, Zionism is not the biggest barrier. Yes, it’s a problem, but let’s just suppose that next week the Palestinian issue is settled; then would Muslims start saying “Oh now we want to look at the claims of Christ?” Not likely. They would find some other reason why they don’t want to listen to Christian preachers.

The bigger problem is the offense of having “Christian” soldiers on “Muslim” soil! The greater reason the Taliban can recruit extremists is because infidels are walking on holy soil ‘taking charge’! It doesn’t matter if it’s Israel or anywhere else. They don’t want infidel boots on the ground. This is why invading Iraq was such a bad idea, because now the Taliban or Al Qaeda recruiter can say, “Look, the Christians are taking over our countries!”

I saw America going to Iraq as Vietnam all over again. But if the American government felt they had to remove Saddam, they should have arranged to place Muslim soldiers on the ground, with the West supporting from the air, intelligence, weapons, etc.

Yes it’s a big problem that Bible believing Christians are doing ‘penance’ for their guilt for not stopping the Holocaust. Worse, some are hoping that by backing Israel, they might get blessed; misapplying Genesis 12:1-3 (where God says to Abraham I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you) thinking, “Let’s bless Israel so that God likes us better!” I simply apologize to my Muslim friends and tell them the Christian Zionists have been taught strange things. Still, it's not Christian Zionism that bothers me so much as evangelicals who demonize Muslims. Islam may be Satan's masterpiece, but 1.7 billion Muslims are not demonic; Christ laid down His life for THEM too!

Question: Has post 9-11 U.S. foreign policy, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, been helpful or hurtful to the cause of Muslim evangelism?

Answer: Obviously it’s negative because it set up an unnecessary clash of civilizations, (and as I said, the Muslims feel “occupied”, or “invaded”. Still these world events are a matter of God’s sovereignty in history prevailing. It used to be difficult to make Christians aware of Muslims. Now Muslims are in the news every day! So if you’re a real Christian and you see what’s happening on the news, first you get irritated or angry, but then the Holy Spirit gets a hold of you and you think, “Maybe I should pray for the Muslims, or even support a missionary to give them the GOOD news?”


Question: Do you see a possible role for missionaries to build bridges of understanding on a socio-political level between the West and Islam? If so, what form might this take?

Answer: This is trendy. Peacemaking is ‘the latest answer’. Several organizations have emerged along these lines. I think the one great thing this movement really has going for it is that it helps to communicate to Muslims, in a friendly way, that they have “Dawa” [Arabic for obligatory effort to convert people to Islam] and we have the Great Commission. Why not give them freedom to evangelize in the West, and give us freedom to do so among Muslims?

I like the way the soft approach people better than the critics who don’t do anything to see Muslims come into Christ’s Kingdom! What good are the workers who simply alarm Christians that the Muslims are the evil empire taking over the world? As my co-worker says, “I’m pretty sure “love your enemies” doesn’t mean kill them”

Do you want to be an obedient Christian? Show me how you’re loving your enemies!
However, much as I appreciate those into “peacemaking and reconciliation with Muslims”, I just don’t think they’re going to establish communities of Muslims loyal to Christ who will demonstrate the difference “Christ in you” makes. Different people have different callings. Peacemaking is a wonderful calling. Just don’t make it a substitute for church planting among the unengaged who still have no ‘lighthouse’ where they live.

Question: Lastly, if you can tell American Christians one thing about the Muslim world that they may not know or understand, what would it be?

Answer: It would be that Muslims are not seeking God any more or less than Americans.

Muslims are in bondage to the prince of darkness just like most Americans. The greatest need is for caring Christians to have a divine appointment (i.e. be led to) a Muslims to whom the Father is revealing Himself. It may be that God has put a Nicodemus in your neighborhood. You wouldn’t want to go to heaven and find out that God gave you an opportunity to witness and you ignored it. If you can think about Muslims but are not moved with compassion, then there are reasons to doubt if you’re a true Christian.

Another thing that Americans need to realize is that for a Muslim to become a Christian, is a traitorous act, equivalent to an American selling atomic secrets to the Iranians. That’s why I don’t mind if Muslim background believers don’t call themselves “Christians”. For 1,400 years, people that call themselves Christians and people that call themselves Muslims have been fighting, bashing, and killing each other. The word “Christian” may be as ruined by history as the word ‘gay’. The issue is to see Muslims passing from death to life, knowing “Isa Al Masih” as their Lord and Saviour.

Barack Obama's Nobel speech, what did we expect?

I didn’t get a chance to watch Barack Obama’s Nobel speech live, but I’ve read the transcript and found very little in the speech that couldn’t have been given by any number of past presidents—including George W. Bush. Granted, absent from the speech is the grandiose rhetoric of “Bring it on”, “You’re either with us or with the terrorists” and “Ridding the world of evil”, but should being less arrogant than Bush qualify someone for the Nobel Peace Prize? Probably not. On the other hand, Barack Obama’s rejection of unilateralism, his willingness to dialogue with enemies, and his understanding of the limits of power—howbeit nuanced—make him about as good of a president as we can expect on the foreign policy front given the current state of American culture and, more specifically, the American Church.

According to the CIA world fact book, roughly 77% of the American people are self-identified as Christians. From its inception, America has been a nation of people that name the name of Christ on the one hand and trust in the power of their military might on the other hand. The American civil religion of God, guns, and country has been around for a long time and it’s the height of naivety to think that a few good speeches and a teleprompter are going to change that. If Obama’s escalation of the Afghan conflict has taught us anything, it’s that liberals can be just as susceptible to the value system of might equals right as conservatives can be. Those of us that oppose the escalation can chastise the president all we want, but the fact is there was very little political wiggle room for the president to make any other decision than the one that he made. Even the “liberal” networks of NBC, CBS, and CNN are steeped in the tradition of glorifying military heroes and showing off the Pentagon’s latest weapons technology.

As much as I would love to flatter myself, I know that Barack Obama is never going to read this article, and neither is he going to read the tens of thousands of editorials and blogs calling on him to change his mind. With all of the attention going towards one man, and whether or not he deserves a peace prize, I fear that a larger point is getting lost; and that is that history is defined less by people on top and more by people on bottom. Wars are fought because cultural, religious, media, and economic establishments support them. Wars are ended when the groundswell of the population refuse to support the institutions that make them possible. Until the words “fighting for freedom” become more associated in the average American mind with strikes, boycotts, and voter registrations than with ground invasions and bombing raids, no president is going to be able to deliver on a “change we can believe in” slogan.

To borrow from Jared McKenna’s What if scenario, what if out of the 77% of the American population that self-identify as Christians, the vast majority of them became convinced that following Christ and renouncing the sword go hand in hand? What if John Howard Yoder replaced Augustine as the intellectual giant of the Western Church? For that to happen, a lot more Bible- believing Christians are going to have to be convinced that Romans 13 is not a carte blanche for Christians participating in state-sanctioned violence, that the Old Testament is a poor pretext for just war theory, and that John the Baptist wasn’t condoning violence when he didn’t tell the Roman soldiers of their day to give up their occupations. If there’s one thing to be learned from Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation, it’s that Biblical paradigm shifts can have vast political consequences. It can happen again, but it’s going to take all hands on board. Any volunteers?