Review: Should we ask Presidential candidates about their faith?

As a psychologist with a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies who works in the public sector and did an internship in the California State Assembly during college, I have a particular interest in the role of faith as a motivator and driver of behavior and decision-making, especially during election season. The 2016 election season has already had some interesting intersections with faith and candidates' appearances of commitment (or lack thereof) to traditions.

Stephen Mansfield argues that the populace should ask every candidate, especially Presidential candidates, detailed questions about their faith in his latest book, Ask the Question: Why We Must Demand Religious Clarity From Our Presidential Candidates. I was initially concerned that this text would ultimately argue asking these questions in order to have a religious litmus test for the Oval Office. While I'm sure Mansfield has strong personal faith (which can be guessed by how some things are framed) and political convictions, he stays largely objective, providing a descriptive assessment of both the history of faith and politics in the United States as well as the role of faith in the lives of many Presidents and candidates.

Mansfield observes the religious political history of the United States, noting the ways religion and politics have intersected differently over the decades. He knows his religious and political history well and will probably shock some readers in detailing the more agnostic faith of many of most respected historical leaders. I particularly appreciate that he does not present these facts with any judgment, as might be expected from texts published by Christian companies, rather acknowledges reality, including the historical motivators and benefits of restrained faith.

In exploring the faith of Presidents and Presidential candidates, both historical and current, Mansfield describes the honest depth of people across the political spectrum. He has written religious biographies on several political celebrities of both parties. Sadly, he explained how he received death threats after writing his text on Obama, acknowledging the President's deep Christian faith. But Mansfield drives on, continuing to raise descriptive, objective awareness of how politicians' faith histories impact their current public policy. This is truly a gift.

There are a few times when Mansfield's personal opinions appear to subtly show up. He occasionally makes evaluative comments about some leaders' faiths, stating that their faith hasn't imbued them fully since they still take a particular stance on some topic. With his religious history background and knowledge, he should be well aware that people can honestly come to vastly different conclusions of biblical and theological application. This doesn't mean their faith isn't driving them; it just drives them and has transformed their lives differently than for others. Despite this, Mansfield's descriptions of the role of faith in the lives of many Presidents and candidates left me with a deeper respect and appreciation of these people.

Ultimately, I'm not sure I 100% agree with Mansfield argument that we must ask explicit questions for religious clarity. Mansfield's thesis for asking these questions relates to the fact that religious labels mean less and less over time and individual's unique theological framework needs to be addressed. I agree with the fact that worldview and values clearly drive behavior, decisions, and policy making, although this piece could have been clearer in the book. However, increasingly, worldview and values are not necessarily framed in clearly religious terms even though academically, I would argue that all worldview is religious in a broad sense. Emphasizing religious clarity may actually restrict these conversations, as many people (candidates included) may not be getting the underlying question. We need to ask questions about candidates' values, moral frameworks, worldviews, and the like. Religious language will arise out of that naturally, where applicable for the candidate.

This is one of the most engaging nonfiction books I have read/listened to in quite some time. Granted, I am a nerd when it comes to religious history, but this is a book I'd be quite tempted to listen to a second time. Bob Souer's narration is clear and engaging. However, especially when reading Presidential speeches, there's nothing that could compare to the original intonation, expression, etc.

I highly recommend this book as a thoughtful exploration of the role of faith/religion in the American Presidency. Hopefully it helps reduce assumptions across ideological lines, helping us recognizing the ability of many people to improve our public policy and the honest, if different, faith some people come to public service through.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

What Makes Faith Legitimate?

One of my favorite courses in my undergraduate career (or ever, frankly) was Sociology of Religion, taught by a professor at the Jesuit school of theology at the Graduate Theological Union, which had partnerships with UC Berkeley. The first lecture was a discussion emphasizing the challenges of creating a universally-applicable definition of religion. (As I'm writing this, I realize it was one of the most memorable lectures I've had.) Suffice it to say, the definition is challenging. The 1972 definition by anthropologist Clifford Geertz we learned is dense, but remarkable. And I still use it to this day (I cited it in my dissertation and will be using it in an introduction to spirituality and mental health treatment cultural competency training I'm developing).

What I appreciate about the definition is it is functional, rather than focusing on specific elements of belief. Too often, people get caught up in these concrete elements (i.e. Is there God? Is there a congregation? Are there rituals? Is there Scripture?). And then this emphasis leads to dismissal of beliefs as legitimate religion, essentially invalidating the individuals' experiences of meaning-making.

Whether or not we agree with a set of beliefs doesn't give us the right to dismiss those beliefs as not a real religion or faith, in my opinion. In many ways, that is what some people are arguing from the tradition of Jediism. Yes, as in Jedi. As in Star Wars Jedi. I read a fascinating, pretty objective, descriptive article exploring the Church of the Jedi. And frankly, I believe it meets all the criteria of a bona fide religion from a sociological perspective.

Just because we agree or disagree with a belief system doesn't mean that followers of a perspective don't have the right to do so and be considered a religion. There's plenty of religions that people consider completely absurd while also not questioning whether those set of beliefs would qualify for the label of religion. Frankly, one of the best ways to help a religion grow is by persecuting and discriminating against its followers. Look at some of the biggest growth time for Christianity, for instance. So by removing rights from a group, we may ironically be giving them more moral support.

In reading the article, it also made me realize as Christians, we need to be humble about our origins, especially as others see us. One line that really struck me was, "So it's based on a movie. Christianity is based on a book." While most Christians would argue the Bible is more than a book, many hard core Wars fans consider the series more than a movie. And frankly, the parallels are striking.

Unsurprisingly, it comes down to faith. Faith that there is meaning and Truth in our system of beliefs. And experiences that make it all "seem uniquely realistic." That's why I'm a Christian and don't follow another faith. But I can't necessarily prove it beyond someone else's shadow of a doubt either. And that's okay.

Psychology & Spirituality Column @sandalschurch

I've started a new column on my church's blog. The first post is in honor of Mental Illness Awareness Week. The focus of the column will be on psychology and spirituality and be an opportunity for people to ask questions about psychology in order to de-mystify the field.

Let me know what you think and if you have any ideas!

Article Round-up

It's done! I took the EPPP this weekend. Now I have to wait for the scores... Interestingly, I'm more afraid of the shame of failing than having to study more and spend the money again (although I really don't want to do either of those). That could be an interesting topic for another time.

In any case, here's some articles I've found interesting over the last week or so.

Starting off with a devotional, Day 28 of Dr. Larry Crabb's Lenten devotionals is particularly good!

This is a great article on depression and the church and some of the weaknesses of the church in affecting depression.

Who Are the De-Churched. This is a REALLY good article. I feel quite similar to the relationally de-churched. It's stuff we've discussed a few times on this blog.

Elemental Preaching. This is a great article on the purpose of preaching written by my pastor from my time in Berkeley. He's a great guy with great ideas.

3 Lies the Church Tells About Sex. Pretty self-explanatory article. And VERY accurate, with significant implication.

Breaking Through Workaholism. I need to internalize several of these. :)

How (and How Not) to Bring Christ to Work. I like the Incarnational emphasis on this. Very relevant to other discussions on evangelism on this blog.

When It's Good to Get Mad. Another article with some topics that we've hit on here before.

Friday Roundup

Here's some good articles from the past week.

Plain and simple reading of the Bible

The ways Jesus innovates and engages the lost (hint: not by Christmas musicals)

Genres of Genesis

Checking Your Baggage

5 Myths of Emerging Adult Religion

The Jesus We Do Not Know

Anatomy of Fundamentalism

And some humor on church discipline, particularly in light of the morality focus of this week's posts.

Cultural Christianity

Along the lines of yesterday's post about de-emphasizing morality, I've had some realizations recently about the reality of cultural Christianity.

By this, I don't mean the people who call themselves "Christians" and only go to church on Easter and Christmas. I mean the people who attend church on a weekly basis. The ones who are involved with the ministries. Sometimes they work for churches. They devote their lives to church. They talk about new programs they are doing or others are advocating. They love the number of people saved or baptized each week. They live pure, moral lives.

Yet God is rather absent in all of this. In Forgotten God, Francis Chan talked about the fact that a church could be run and draw people without God. I didn't realize the true reality of this until recently.

We often assume good, moral, church-attending Christians are really lovers of God. Some are. Some also don't necessarily know God at all. Again, morality can be and is a good thing. But it's not the end-all, be-all. The thing that differentiates true Christians from cultural Christians is not morality, but intimacy with God. Isaiah 58 seems to echo some of these concerns, too. At least that's some of what I think. What say you?

Purpose of Church

What do you look for in a church? As my wife and I have explored options since we moved, I had an interesting conversation with a pastor, in which he noted that we have the desire to connect, and he asked for clarification if this was to connect with God, other people, or what.

I hadn't thought of it in terms like this, but I realized I do not feel like I really need church to connect with God, per se. I feel like I connect with God very well on my own and with my wife. I do not need a church to do that. This particularly true with contemplative techniques. For me, they feel more effective in solitude or with a small group than with a large group.

In contrast, church seems, for me, to be an opportunity to connect with other believers and experience God incarnationally. Now, this is therefore a way of connecting with God, but it is a slight difference from directly connecting with God.

The relationships among the Church body are important. They give us life and help us remember our priorities.

Church organizations are not necessarily needed to connect with God, I don't believe. That is not to say church and Church (the former being the organization and the latter being all believers) is not important. To the contrary: It is quite important, but not necessarily for the reasons we often are told about church.

This is definitely a distinctly Protestant view, of course. What do you think?

Love in Leviticus

Those who have read the Old Testament know that Leviticus is not the most interesting of all books. It is full of rules and regulations about how to be holy for God. This book is often used from the holiness tradition to tell people what they do wrong and how to live righteously. Honestly, I rarely hear this book used in a positive way, but rather in a legalistic way.

On Sunday night, I was reading through the weekly readings in my Mosaic Bible, which included Leviticus 19:18. I was surprised to see "love your neighbor as yourself" there. For one reason or another, I never remember hearing that this was ever in the Old Testament; it's always quoted in reference to Jesus.

I think it's significant that love is explicitly prescribed in the Old Testament, particularly in a book that is focused on rules. This should remind us that we need to view all rules in the context of love.

Also, since we're on the topic of Leviticus, I think it is often misused to support legalistic holiness. From my studies of it, it seems more appropriate to view the various rules (which are often strict and numerous) as a way of setting the Israelites apart from the rest of the world. The rules themselves are not necessarily holy, but rather the process in what they mean. If we are to live a holy life, that does not necessarily mean living out Leviticus literally, but rather in process: What sets us, as Christians, apart from society, particularly emphasizing love?

Church Mistakes

This is an incredibly good article, entitle Seven Mistakes Every Church Should Avoid. I could repeat what is in the article and say more, but the author does it quite nicely and succinctly.

I particularly appreciate #2: Misrepresenting the tithe, #4: Over-emphasizing the role of the pastor, and #7: Conversion-focus instead of disciple-making.

I agree whole-heartedly with all of those. What are your reactions?

Crazy Good Crazy Love

I recently finished listening to the audiobook version of Francis Chan's Crazy Love. It was not as part of one of the reviewer programs, although I did get it free through christianaudio's monthly free audiobook title (something I highly recommend everyone take advantage of if you don't already).

This is an absolutely wonderful book that I highly recommend (although I don't want to say too much and make people's expectations too high--that causes problems, too :) ).

One of the best parts of this audiobook is that Chan read it himself--a problem I noted in Piper's A Sweet and Bitter Providence. I've started listening to his next book, Forgotten God, and that starts with an interview with him, where he admits he is not a great reader. I have to agree--it sounds like he's reading most of the time. However, I would not want it any other way because you can hear his passion, and that's more important than other benefits of a professional narrator.

To the content of the book: This is one book that has made me remember to worship God. Those words sound so flat as I write them because they are overused and misused. But Chan does a phenomenal job of making this a bit of a devotional. Really, I think this book is best described as a devotional. You can get a sense of this from the videos on the Crazy Love website, which Chan integrates into the book creatively. As he says in the interview preceding the other book, one person introduced him at a speaking engagement by saying what he talks about is so simple. It's reminding us of the basic, fundamental things about life and God.

The premise of the book is that God is in love with us and wants us to love him. As I'm writing this, again, I'm finding my review sounds so lame and does not express the true beauty of Chan's words and God's creation.

Chan's argues that we need to respond to God with "crazy love," meaning actions that may seem "crazy" to the world because we are relying on God for everything. Not that we should be actively looking to be crazy, but that we should be willing to be radical. Honestly, some of Chan's examples of crazy love seem truly crazy (i.e. a missionary physician getting all of his teeth pulled so that he would never have to leave the mission front due to teeth problems again--I'm not sure God would actually ask us to do that). However, he also says that these are not prescriptions for what everyone has to do--we all have to listen to what God has called each of us individually to do. I appreciate and agree with that.

One of the points that I particularly appreciated from his book is that it helped me remember to act out my priorities. Many of us can say God and family is first, but what does that actually look like? It can have quite a few definitions, all of which can be good and valid. However, one of the things Chan reminds his readers is that all they do will basically be forgotten in 50 years. There's some exceptions, but at least for me, that helps my anxiety about feeling like I have to do something big, as I have discussed in an earlier post. Chan also states we should not be asking why God has allowed hunger and suffering in the world. Instead, God should be asking US why WE allow hunger and suffering in the world.

The way he approached this made me think of it in a new way that motivates me to act more and live out of love. It's hard to describe, maybe in part because I'm still processing. One of the ways I'm processing it will be in another post tomorrow.

Overall, this book does a great job of challenging our fundamental beliefs of how we act in response to God. Again, he does not necessarily say anything new that most of us haven't heard before, but for me, he says it in a way that feels quite new. Most of my posts focus on existential, cognitive beliefs related to faith, not necessarily how we live out our faith or believe we should live out our faith. This book tackles that in the best way I've ever seen.

Another Definition of Religion

As I have argued before, we use really poor definitions of religion quite frequently, unfortunately often posing religion as quite different from and the enemy to authentic spirituality. This is a dichotomoy that should not exist, along the same lines as spirituality and psychology and religion and science.

In any case, this is an interesting article looking at the definition of religion in a way I haven't really considered it before. While I have advocated for broadening the definition of religion, this author argues broadening it in a different way. It echoes some observations about the more communal versus individualistic traditions.

Liturgical v. Contemporary Church

As my wife and I moved a few months ago, we have begun looking for a new church community closer to us. In the places we have visited, we went to one that is a pretty traditional contemporary service (nice oxymoron, huh?) and one that is a pretty traditional high church, liturgical service. Both Laci and I have had much more experience in the former, so that feels more comfortable.

However, we noticed some key distinctions between the communities, which led me to think about differences between liturgical and contemporary communities in general. The thing I noticed (which is not an amazing or new insight) is that liturgical communities tend to be more liberal politically and theologically, focusing on communal issues and social justice at large. In contrast, contemporary communities tend to be more conservative politically and theologically, focusing on individual experience and personal responsibility. Now there are obvious exceptions to these rules, but often they do characterize churches as a pattern, I believe.

That got me to wondering why this is the case. And here's my conclusion:

Liturgical churches are by their nature communal. They focus on the whole community, not individual's reactions. Liturgy by its nature is participative. It is also not focused on creating a conversion experience or a deeply moving personal experience. Again, it is focused on the group coming together. As a result, it would make sense that these churches would focus more on the whole community and larger social justice issues.

In contrast, contemporary churches developed out of the Protestant Reformation and a focus on personal relationship with Christ, personal conversion, and personal conviction. The service is therefore focused on moving each individual. Hence, you can get a more performance-driven service that is non-participative, but leads to touching, emotional experiences. As the emerging movement has emphasized, these services have usually lost the participative quality. When that is lost, then it makes sense that politically and theologically they would ignore the social justice issues and instead focus on personal morality and responsibility.

Interestingly, I saw these two blog posts with similar ideas. Maybe I just had my eyes out for these concepts. What do you think about these patterns? Have you seen them? Have you seen a successful mix of the two? That's one of the strengths of the emerging church, I believe: It attempts to merge the strengths of both while cutting out the weaknesses of each.

Religion Definition

One of the things I advocate for is widening our use of the term religion, as we often use it in too narrow of a way (i.e. for only theistic perspectives).

Anyway, this is an interesting article looking at identifying science as a religion. I would agree with that assessment under certain circumstances.