I Didn't Move; You Did (#20) May The Revival You Desire For America Begin In You

As I said at the beginning of this series, I have not abandoned evangelicalism’s stated theological convictions. I just no longer recognize them in its public expression. If faith without works is dead, evangelical orthodoxy without evangelical orthopraxy might just be dead too.

If we are going to call for truth and respect in our nation, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about truth.

If we are going to emphasize the importance of personal character, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason think we are serious about character.

If we are going to lobby for laws that support strong traditional families, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about the importance of traditional families.

If we are going to focus on sexual honor and purity, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people will have no reason to think we are serious about either of these things.

If we are going to demand that all people be treated with the value, worth and dignity due them as image bearers of God, we must model it and demand leaders who model it, or people won’t think this applies to all people.

If we are going to reject the Black Lives Matter and the #metoo movement because there are woke DEI socialist plots, please, for the love of God, also demand that we find even better ways to address the very real sins of racism and sexual harassment that have haunted our nation, lest people think we are either ignorant or heartless.

If we are going to demand a wall at our borders, we should also demand lots of doors, so that our desire for order and safety when it comes to immigrants and refugees is clearly matched by our desire to show compassion and generosity.

If we are going to follow Jesus' lead from the Sermon on the Mount, and be blessed as peacemakers as individuals and a society, we are going to need to use and promote language, attitudes and policies that are in line with peacemaking, or people may observe that we take our cues from Rome's pax Romana - the peace by the sword - rather than the pax Christi - the peace of cruciform love.

If we are going to value the economy more than anything else (which, according to polls, we do), we should commit to being radically generous with our money, lest people think we are trying to serve both God and mammon.

If we are going to value life, let us do it from womb to tomb, and let us show it by supporting parents and children with our money, time, friendship and things, and by supporting private and public systems that make the choice for life easier rather than harder, lest people think we only care about the lives of children when the weight of the support is on the mother, and costs us nothing.

If we are going to support America First, we should explain what that looks like for someone whose allegiance is first and foremost to the global kingdom of God rather than to the local empire of the United States. And if we don't know what that means, maybe we should figure that out.

I Didn't Move; You Did (#19): The Shift Toward Political Idolatry

During this series, I've looked at the public moral witness of evangelical leaders over the last fifty years (start reading them here). 

Again and again, I found the same themes: care for the poor, concern for racial justice, compassion for immigrants, peacemaking, honesty, the honoring of the imago dei in everyone, the need for personal integrity, the rejection of nationalism, the necessity of impartial justice, and the conviction that the Church must never become captive to any political ideology.

This is a loaded list of issues to address by the political parties of the American empire. Historically – perhaps because of the complexity – evangelical declarations of faith and practice publicly refused to equate the gospel with any political party. All parties and politicians were held to a shared standard; followers of Jesus were expected to follow paths that look like Jesus, whatever direction it would take them. As cited in the earlier posts that excerpted from historical conservative evangelical declarations of faith and practice:

“We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.”

“Our equal duty (is) never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”

“The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes “the regime at prayer,” Christians become “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form. Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests...”

“The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness. The saying is wise: ‘The first thing to say about politics is that politics is not the first thing.” The Evangelical soul is not for sale. It has already been bought at an infinite price...”

Yet in spite of such clear direction, there is an increasing litmus test for being a Christian: support of one party, with almost unwavering loyalty. You must be all in or all out, and there can be no questioning or challenging of the leadership. Perhaps when leaders insist that “I alone can save you,” (as stated at Trump’s acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016), well, the stakes are pretty high.

This has resulted in a demand for unflinching loyalty to Trump that has moved beyond the moral flexibility I have been recording in this series and into borderline idolatry. Christians in the halls of power who are meant to be the prophetic heirs of Nathan, speaking truth and righteousness to power, have abandoned their calling.

“We must resist the temptation to make the nation and its institutions objects of near-religious loyalty.”

“Our equal duty (is) never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.”

The near-total alignment with a party or person is a siren call that for many is hard to resist - and difficult to maintain. This position is going to need over-the-top justification, since no one deserves that kind of loyalty. And there is a comparison at the very top for evangelicals – Jesus, to give the ultimate stamp of approval to comparisons to David, Cyrus, and Jehu. [1]

So, let's look at some of the ways admiration has moved toward idolatry.

I Didn't Move; You Did (Part 11): The Shifting View On Violence And War

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments we once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift - revealed through votes and voices (or lack of them) - in responding to racism and discrimination.  In this post, we are looking at the conservative evangelical shift in regards to violence and war.

If there is one thing that distinguished the Kingdom Jesus announced from every kingdom of this world, it was this: Jesus refused to establish God's reign through coercion or violence.

He rebuked Peter for taking up the sword in His defense. He told Pilate that His kingdom was "not from this world," because if it were, His servants would fight. He taught His followers to love their enemies, pray for those who persecuted them, bless those who cursed them, and overcome evil with good.

Christians have disagreed about many things throughout history, including when governments may legitimately wage war. But historically, evangelicals consistently warned against glorifying violence, confusing nationalism with the Kingdom of God (I will address this in an upcoming post), or treating military power as God's preferred instrument for accomplishing His purposes.

That concern appears repeatedly in the major evangelical statements of the last fifty years.

• "we must challenge our misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might – a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad."
• "Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth..."
• "We urge governments to pursue thoroughly nonviolent paths to peace before resorting to military force. We believe that if governments are going to use military force, they must use it in the service of peace and not merely in their national interest. Military force must be guided by the classical just-war principles, which are designed to restrain violence by establishing the right conditions for and right conduct in fighting a war. In an age of nuclear and biological terrorism, such principles are more important than ever. We urge followers of Jesus to engage in practical peacemaking locally, nationally, and internationally. As followers of Jesus, we should, in our civic capacity, work to reduce conflict by promoting international understanding and engaging in non-violent conflict resolution."
• "We acknowledge with grief and shame the complicity of Christians in some of the most destructive contexts of ethnic violence and oppression, and the lamentable silence of large parts of the Church when such conflicts take place. Such contexts include the history and legacy of racism and black slavery; the holocaust against Jews; apartheid; ‘ethnic cleansing’; inter-Christian sectarian violence; decimation of indigenous populations; inter-religious, political and ethnic violence; Palestinian suffering; caste oppression; and tribal genocide…"
• "We urge governments to pursue domestic, foreign and security policies that encourage justice and peace by preventing conflict. We urge governments to thoroughly pursue nonviolent paths to peace. If governments use military force, they should deploy it justly in the service of sustainable peace and not to serve narrow national interests. Governments should at a minimum restrain violence by applying classical just war principles, which are designed to clarify the limited conditions under which military action is justifiable, and establish standards of right conduct in fighting a war...As such, we urge the Body of Christ to engage in sober, practical peacemaking, nonviolent conflict resolution and citizen diplomacy at local, national and international levels."
• "We repent of our failures to condemn and restrain violence by remaining silent, by promoting nationalism, or by unjustly supporting conflicts through deficient theological justification. We condemn those who use their influence in world affairs to promote avoidable conflicts and wars, merely to further their economic and political interests. We are saddened by the immense suffering their actions have caused. We believe that they will be held accountable before God on the day of judgement. We call all Christians to serve the vulnerable in contexts of war by pooling our resources and supporting the relief efforts of churches and humanitarian organizations that are situated near conflict zones..."

What is it looking like now in terms of what evangelicals are supporting, both with their votes and their words (or lack of them)? And I'm not just talking about full-blown war. I'm talking about creating a culture that is comfortable with violence and aggression as a means justified by an end.

Trump's second campaign contained some promising rhetoric against war. [1] But while he was saying this, he was already consistently inciting his followers to violence. This should not be surprising considering what happened during his first term. And in his second term, the promises of no new wars dissolved in the face of reality.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 10): The Shift In Addressing Racism and Discrimination

In the first post of this series, I noted that my struggle with modern conservative evangelicalism is not with its theological orthodoxy. I still affirm doctrines that historically defined evangelical Christianity. The deeper question is whether our orthopraxy—the way we live out those beliefs—still resembles the commitments our mainstream leadership once publicly embraced. 

I reviewed a number of evangelical statements, declarations, and manifestos spanning more than fifty years in order to look at the orthopraxy to which we were called: Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern (1973); Lausanne Covenant (1974); The Manila Manifesto (1989); The Amsterdam Declaration (2000); The Health Of Our Nation (2004); An Evangelical Manifesto (2008); The Capetown Commitment (2010); For the Health Of The Nation 2014; and the Seoul Statement (2024).

In the previous post, I addressed the public shift in leadership - revealed through votes, endorsements, and voices (or lack of them) - in the evangelical stance toward the poor and underprivileged. 

Next is one of the other consistently important commitments: addressing racial justice and seeking reconciliation. [1]

The declarations and statements I posted spoke clearly about racism as a sin, acknowledged the lingering effects of our nation's history, and called Christians to stand with those who suffered under discrimination and injustice as it shows up in personal relationships and societal structures. 

"We deplore the historic involvement of the church in America with racism and the conspicuous responsibility of the evangelical community for perpetuating the personal attitudes and institutional structures that have divided the body of Christ along color lines. Further, we have failed to condemn the exploitation of racism at home and abroad by our economic system."

"The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination..."

"The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture to another...

"We deplore the failures in Christian consistency...[concerning]  racial, social, and sexual discrimination."

"While the United States has achieved legal and social equality in principle, the legacy of racism still makes many African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable to a variety of social ills. Our churches have a special responsibility to model good race relations (Rom. 10:12). To correct the lingering effects of our racist history, Christians should support well-conceived efforts that foster dignity and responsibility."

"Such love for all peoples demands that we reject the evils of racism and ethnocentrism, and treat every ethnic and cultural group with dignity and respect, on the grounds of their value to God in creation and redemption."

"In the name of the God of truth, we...denounce and resist the racist prejudice, hatred and fear incited in popular media and political rhetoric.

"When accompanied and sustained by imbalances of power, prejudice moves beyond individual relationships to institutional practices. Such racial injustice is the systemic perpetuation of racism."

These statements do not speak reluctantly or quietly about racism. They speak with clarity, confession, and urgency at both an individual and systemic level. 

That is why the shift that is happening has been so disorienting. When advocacy for racial justice is offered today, it is too often dismissed ("This is a woke DEI agenda!") or turned back on the speaker: “Actually, it’s an anti-white agenda that is the problem.”  

Evangelicals can and do disagree about what the best public policy is for addressing racism, of course. But do we still recognize that racial injustice on both a personal and systemic level is something the church should grieve, actively oppose, and seek to heal? It appears not, considering the unwavering support for an administration that has been characterized by the following personal attacks and policy implementation.

I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 8): The Move

I am chronicling why I don't think I can associate myself with the label "evangelical" anymore after decades of association.

After reading through all of the evangelical statements and declarations in the past five decades (start here), what strikes me is not any single issue, but a remarkably holistic moral vision that appears over and over again from 1973 through 2024.

1. Recognize that discipleship has public implications. Christianity is not merely private spirituality. Faith should shape how believers think about poverty, justice, war, racism, economics, immigration, human rights, and public life.

2. Care for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized as a central expression of Christian discipleship. Help the poor and disadvantaged; defend the oppressed. Protect children (including the unborn), widows, refugees, immigrants, minorities, and the disabled. Work to alleviate poverty both locally and globally.

3. Pursue justice. Address both personal sin and structural injustice. Challenge systems that perpetuate poverty, exploitation, discrimination, and oppression by advocating for fair economic and legal structures. Speak prophetically (as if we are Nathan and the Empire is King David) against injustice wherever it exists.

4. Reject racism, ethnocentrism, and ethnic supremacy. Repent of racism in both personal attitudes and institutional structures and work to end racial discrimination. Model the affirmation of dignity and goal of reconciliation across racial and cultural boundaries.

5. Treat every human being as bearing the image of God. Respect the dignity of all people by refusing to practice or ignore exploitation, dehumanization, or contempt wherever it it found.

6. Maintain a clear distinction between the Kingdom of God and political power.  Refuse idolatrous loyalty to any nation. Avoid identifying "being Christian" by a close alignment with any political party, person, ideology, or national movement. Since we must resist the temptation to seek influence through domination or state power, Christian nationalism must be rejected.

7. Practice peacemaking and restrain violence. Be on the front lines of pursuing peaceful resolution of conflict whenever possible. Be skeptical of war-making and militarism; oppose violence motivated by political, economic, ethnic, or religious interests.

8. Defend religious liberty for everyone. Protect freedom of conscience and defend the rights of religious minorities. This will mean demand for others the same freedoms Christians seek for ourselves. Reject coercive evangelism, which will mean opposing the urge to theocracy, which will use the state to coerce adherence to the church.

9. Love neighbors, strangers, immigrants, and even enemies. Practice hospitality by building friendships across cultural and religious boundaries. If people are hostile, respond with kindness rather than retaliation.

10. Engage people of other faiths with humility, respect, and truthfulness. Reject caricatures that cause fearmongering; reject hostility and contempt while recognizing truth, beauty, and goodness wherever it exists.

11. Live lives of personal integrity and visible holiness. Reject greed, corruption, dishonesty, pride, exploitation, lying, hypocrisy, and cruelty. Ensure that public and private behavior aligns with professed beliefs.

12. Care for creation as a Christian responsibility. Steward the earth rather than exploit it, which will mean opposing environmental degradation by addressing pollution, resource depletion, and climate-related harms.

13. Challenge materialism, greed, and consumerism. Reject excessive wealth accumulation as something to be applauded, because greed is a contributor to poverty and injustice.

14. Work for the common good of society. Support policies that strengthen families and communities: encourage education, health care, opportunity, and human flourishing for all of society.

15. Show solidarity with those who suffer. Enter into the experiences of others with humility and empathy. Listen to the pain of the oppressed and share their burdens rather than remain detached from them.

Across five decades – the five decades that formed my 56 years as an evangelical - evangelical leaders repeatedly called Christians to be this kind of people. [1] This broad, holistic ethical vision is what I was trained to believe the conservative evangelicalism should look like when faith is put into practice. There weren't just one or two issues that guided how we lived (and voted). There were many.

"I Didn't Move; You Did" (Part 1): An Ode To A Lost Evangelicalism

I spent 45 years as a proud conservative evangelical. It was my home. It wasn’t perfect, but nowhere else was either. Evangelicalism helped shape my love for Scripture, my devotion to Jesus, my commitment to conversion, prayer, mission, and discipleship. I owe much to people within it.

In the circles I grew up in, I was also taught the importance of engaging with the community and the world in a way that brought healing and hope.

We sent missionaries near and far dedicated to telling others about the good news of the Gospel, often accompanied by acts of service to show that we cared about the whole person, not just their souls.

We promoted foster care, adoption, and crisis pregnancy centers as a proactive way to build a culture of life.

Evangelical disaster relief organizations did incredible work in meeting practical needs in areas devastated by natural disasters.
Personally, my experience in the local churches in my life - Sunday School, youth group, services, revival meetings, potlucks, small groups, community outreach - gave me many wonderful memories and formed me in ways that I still cherish. [1]

The evangelical neighbor who quietly loves Jesus, serves the poor, cares for refugees, tells the truth, honors his marriage vows, and treats political opponents with dignity is not the source of my disillusionment. In many ways, they are evidence that the best of evangelicalism still shows sparks of life.

And yet, here I am, feeling the need to no longer be associated with evangelicalism because of the terrible toll the Trumpification of conservative evangelicalism has taken on its witness, reputation, and impact.

I’m not a grumpy curmudgeon, pummeled by evangelicalism, who now just wants an excuse to throw shade. No, conservative evangelicalism was the Christian ecosystem into which I was born, and for most of my life, it felt like home.

I helped build it. I voted party line most of my life. I participated in the ecosystem. This is not a story about “those people.” It is a story about me and “my people.”

Speaking of “my people,” this series is not primarily aimed at the sincere evangelical Christian who voted for Donald Trump while wrestling with competing concerns and difficult choices. I know many such people. Some are dear friends. Some remain among the most faithful followers of Jesus I know.

Many Christians concluded that one set of policies represented a lesser evil than another. Whether I agree with that conclusion is not the point. Reasonable people can disagree about political strategy, candidates, and public policy.

My concern is different.

An Election Day Prayer

God of Sovereignty, we believe there is no outcome we choose tomorrow that falls outside of your permissive will[1] (and perhaps your decretive will[2]). May this lead us to peace in the midst of an election storm. 

  

God of Freedom, we pray for the wisdom to follow the principles of your preceptive will[3] and vote such that we move our nation toward a land of spiritual, moral and relational plenty and not famine. 

 

God of Life, inspire all leaders we elect tomorrow at federal, state and local levels to value human life from the moment it begins until the moment it ends such that all people are given the opportunity for a flourishing life. May our leaders have the ability to “see” the unborn, the weak, the poor, the powerless, the oppressed, the overlooked, the overwhelmed, and the despairing, and may they have the wisdom to rally the nation to lift the imago dei who are floundering as a signpost that points toward the “life more abundant” that is offered in Christ (John 10:10). Position your church to be shining on the hill when that signpost points our way. (Matthew 5:14)

 

God of Love, inspire all of our leaders to guide us in attitude, action, word and deed to build communities grounded in the kind of love that echoes God’s love for the world: service, sacrifice, honor, commitment, generosity, humility, grace and truth that begins with “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40) and encompasses all. May we, your church, truly model what it means to love God and love our neighbor, and may that holy commitment be the conscience of the nation. 

 

God of Creation, guide our leaders to take care of your lovingly crafted creation that you declared to be ‘very good’, as so many ills in the world follow from soiling natural wealth you have given to us. Lead them to enact policies that steward your creation for our good and your glory. (Genesis 2:15)

 

God of Humanity, enable our leaders to recognize the imago dei, the image of God (Genesis 1:26), that which gives value, dignity and worth to every human being. Guide them to attitudes, words, and policies that show honor to your image wherever it is found, which is in everyone, with no exceptions. 

 

God of Justice, build those we elect such that the good, true, and noble in the world and in your Word seeps into their hearts and minds and compels them to seek justice. Your prophets remind us that God requires His people to do this (Micah 6:8); surely it is good advice for us all. When there are individuals or groups who have suffered from injustice, may our leaders work to right that which has been wrong, restore justice to those who have been wronged, and build systems that protect and promote the presence of justice in the world.

 

God of Mercy, your prophets remind us that mercy must come with justice (Micah 6:8), as the cross of Christ so prominently made clear (Psalm 85:10). May the hearts and minds of our those we elect lead them to the compassionate use of justice, seeking measures that stop both evil and the evildoer such that chaos of sin is minimized in the world, while moving us toward being a culture that values restoration and reconciliation whenever possible.

 

God of Peace, as we your people preach of the peace with God made possible to all through Christ (Romans 5:1), help our leaders to love all kinds of peace more than any kind of sword (Matthew 10:34), both literally and figuratively. 

 

God of Hope, inspire our leaders to enact policies that, while the church preaches Christ to make spiritually crooked paths straight (Luke 3:5-6), give hope to those who are hopeless, that give relief to those in oppression, that make a way for those who feel trapped. 

 

God of Grace, you have offered grace through Jesus in both this life and the next (Ephesians 2:8-9). Our political leaders cannot give an underserved mercy to souls, but they can give it in so many practical ways to the bodies of those who are lost, sick and dying. May it be another signpost. May we yet again be shiny,  illuminating the source of all grace.

God of Truth, inspire our leaders to love truth wherever they find it, and may that truth point them toward the One who is the Truth (John 14:6)

---

[1] God permits things to happen in a free world. 

[2] God decrees things to happen.

[3] Precept-ive, not perceptive. God reveals His will for the world through precepts, such as the 10 Commandments, or principles such as those found in the Sermon on the Mount.

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Four - Identifying And Clarifying Modern Evangelicalism

Honestly, I didn't expect to write this much about evangelicalism. The more I'm writing, the more I'm realizing what I didn't know, and how what I now know is... confusing.

This series of posts is my attempt to organize the inside of my head. I don't know if it resonates with you or not. I hope it does.

I think I have one final part after this one - but I thought that after my last post, so we will see.

Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" - Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and Neo-evangelicalism.

Part Three: Evangelicalism And Politics

___________________________________________________


Identifying and clarifying modern evangelicalism is difficult for a number of reasons.

The Lack Of Shared Belief

A 2017 LifeWay research report noted that many who identify as evangelical don't hold traditional evangelical beliefs.[1] Many self-identified evangelicals rarely go to church. As long as anyone can claim the term without adhering to at least the minimal standards of identification, it’s going skew polls. When Christianity Today and Gallop did a poll in the late 1970s about self-identified evangelicals, so many respondents did not accept evangelical attributes that the survey had to cut their estimate of evangelicals in America from 34% to 18%[2].

The Self-applied Label

A surprising number of Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox Christians identified themselves as evangelical, even though that's supposed to refer to a subset of Protestants. Is an evangelical Catholic vote an evangelical vote or a Catholic vote? Which part has more influence in the booth?

The Leadership/Laity Gap

There is a gap between how evangelical leadership and evangelical congregants think about the intersection of faith and politics. 83 percent of evangelical leaders do not believe evangelicals in America should be identified with the person and policies of the current president. You don’t hear this kind of sentiment expressed by the average ‘evangelical’ voter you see interviewed on TV.

The Changing Gatekeepers

Leadership in evangelicalism has always been a reflection of whoever gets the most attention or is taken the most seriously. In recent years, mainstream institutions have ceded leadership to the evangelical/industrial complex of televangelists and megachurch pastors. Donald Trump’s evangelical advisory council - with Paula White, the Copelands, and other CBN/TBN/NOW celebrities - exemplifies this. Now, says Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute, this “weird slice of the evangelical world” has gained so much power that “they are the [evangelical] world.”[3] The institutions that once guided and stabilized evangelicalism - CT, Wheaton, the NEA - are a “vanguard without an army.”

The Evangelical Kaleidoscope: Part Three -Evangelicalism and Politics

Evangelicals have always been drawn to the halls of political power, even when that has meant partnering with strange allies. This has led to governmental influence, but it has also corroded what Roger Williams called the “separation between the garden of the church in the wilderness of the world.”


Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell

Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" (Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, Neo-Evangelicalism)
__________________________________________

BILLY GRAHAM’S POLITICAL LEGACY

A major turning point for American evangelicals came in 1951 when Billy Graham urged Dwight Eisenhower to run for president. Eisenhower had grown up in a Christian family (he was named after Dwight Moody). He had no particular religious commitment, but he felt that the Judeo-Christian tradition was essential to the health of the American republic. Graham liked Eisenhower's strong anti-communist views,[1] and Eisenhower invited Graham to help him inject spirituality into his speeches.
Eisenhower and Graham became the modern architects of an American Civil religion that combined spirituality and patriotism. This trend accelerated during the 1980s, when many evangelicals began to conflate political power and access to Republican leaders with the advancement of God's Kingdom.[2]

In 1979, Paul Weyrich, a Catholic Republican who founded the Heritage Foundation, convinced Jerry Falwell that there was a “moral majority” of Americans who still believed in the Judeo-Christian principles of the Ten Commandments. Whoever organized these people could secure political power through the Republican party in the name of traditional morality.

This had been simmering for a while. Republicans and Democrats both shared an anti-communism fervor during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, but for evangelicals, fear of communism and nuclear war took on an apocalyptic cast and fueled interest in End Times theology.[3] An evangelicalism once skeptical of the of the military found a new admiration for men in uniform. Those fighting for Communism must conversely be fighting for Christians values, right?[4](This support would only increase post-9/11. The enemy was different, but the fight was the same.)

Republicans cultivated evangelical support by presenting themselves as tough on communism. Communism was anti-God, anti-American, anti-family, and anti-God given rights.[5] Nixon made this a defining issue. The spiritualization of anti-communism helped to make the privately profane Nixon, a lapsed Quaker, a favorite of white evangelicals.[6] (Nixon was already preferable to Kennedy because of enduring Protestant hostility toward Catholics.) Billy Graham, the NAE, and the SBC all preferred Nixon over Kennedy.[7]

The Means Define Who You Are In The End: Why "He Fights" Does Not Deserve The Applause Of Christians

I noticed an article circulating on social media recently. It was falsely attributed to a liberal mayor; turns out it was from an article called "He Fights" written by Evan Sayet for Townhall (read the full text here). Here are the portions that are of the most interest to me.

“My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” 

Here’s my answer: We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. 

We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? 

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? 

And the results were always the same. This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob….While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety. 

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America ’s first wartime president in the Culture War… And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!” 

That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals… It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer… 

So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well -- do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”?  Of course I do. These aren’t those times… so, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.  I don’t care.  I can’t spare this man.  He fights.

The article gives numerous examples of dirty political pool from the Left to back up the author's broader claims. Not every detail is correct, but the overall picture is clear. Politics has always been an ugly game. The writer conveniently overlooks the political Right’s tawdry history – I mean, it's easy to find- and conservative media is hardly devoid of its own fake news, but point taken on how the game is played. It bothers me too.

But what bothers me more is not that the political Right wants to take the gloves off (to whatever degree they were ever on). I just kind of assume that when one lives in an empire, the empire sets the rules. What bothers me more is how many Christians I have seen repost this. Let me see if I have this right:

“It’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics. That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals… It is a book of such pure evil, that… Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer…

So, Christians are cheering "using the tactics" of a book of "such pure evil" that it is dedicated to Lucifer. [1] And this is okay because - what, desperate times call for desperate measures? This is baffling to me.

This is not the ethic of Jesus.

This is not the ethic of the Bible.

This is not an ethic taught in seminary, Sunday School, or sermons.

Why? Because it’s not an ethic of the Kingdom. It’s an ethic of the Empire. 

• Do the ends justify the means? No. “As he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct…” (1 Peter 1:15-16)
• Is all fair in war? Not for the Christian; Just War Theory demands just means among other concerns. One does not get to use unjust means just because they work.
• Can one drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Lucifer? No. (1 Corinthians 10:21)
• Does one cast out demons with demons? No. (Matthew 12:26-27)
• Can sheep take on the clothing of wolves? No. Because they become wolves.

Shane Wood, in his book Between Two Trees, recounts  an incident from the life of David (as written by Gene Edwards in Tale Of Three Kings) when David had the opportunity to kill Saul.

Why did David not end his - and their - years of misery? "Better he kill me than I learn his ways. Better he kill me than I become who he is. I shall not practice the ways that cause kings to go mad."

The ends don't justify the means; the means define who you are in the end.

If you play the wolf, you will become the wolf. If you want to use the tactics of Lucifer, don't be surprised if people begin to see Lucifer when they look at you. As the Psalmist said of idols, "Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them." (Psalm 115:8)

There is no path for the Christian other than the path of Christ. We leave the trail of his footsteps at our peril.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Here is what Alinsky wrote: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

From Hurricane Forecast Molehills To Sharpie Mountains

Recently I was talking with a friend who was wrestling with the reality of working with people who lied all the time. “It’s not just big things. They lie about things they don’t need to lie about. It makes no sense.” The fact that they so easily lied about mundane things seemed to unsettle him more than knowing they lied about big things. 

I understood my friend’s frustration. I used to work with a guy who lied all the time to people around him.  He, too, fudged the truth on everything almost instinctively. He would lie to others in front of me all the time - and he knew that I knew he was lying. It didn’t take long before I not only didn’t believe anything he told me, but I generally didn’t trust him. 

Most ethicists would agree with the following premise: as a general rule, lying isn’t the right thing to do. I suspect most of us would agree with the following corollary: there may be exceptions (we would lie to save a life, for example). We might even begrudgingly acknowledge yet another aspect: it’s to some degree understandable (even if it's not defensible) to lie in certain situations when the stakes are personally high. 

Of course you lied about cheating on your taxes when the IRS called; of course you denied the affair; of course you said the bloody glove wasn’t yours. Both the lie and the act that triggered the lie are wrong, but it’s a lie that makes emotional sense even as we disapprove of it on a rationally moral level.

The ideal is that we set our moral bar at the highest level on this issue. The rule is “Don’t lie.” This includes an understanding that genuine moral dilemmas exist in which lying might serve a profoundly greater good (think Corrie Ten Boom lying to the Nazis about hiding Jews).  

So, how much lower is that moral bar set when lying becomes acceptable for situations that are not at over genuine moral dilemmas but are instead over issues of serious personal impact? 

How much lower is that already lowered bar set when any situation is fair game to get you out of a merely uncomfortable situation?  

How much lower is that already lowered bar set when someone constantly evades the truth on even the most mundane and inconsequential things? 

And just how much should that concern us? 

What does it reveal about the character of the person in question?

If We Want To Be Taken Seriously

The list of people I know who are leaving the church or questioning their faith during the past several years is growing. The reason they give is consistent. It's not a growing doubt because of an intellectual struggle; they lose interest in Jesus because they have experienced the people of Jesus, and they begin to think, "If this is what Christian transformation into the image of Jesus looks like, I'm not interested."

Some of it is being around Christians who leave no room to wrestle with questions and doubts. Some of it is being publicly shamed by Christians on social media over standard disagreements that should never have escalated like they did. Some of it involves private confrontations characterized by harsh judgment rather than grace and truth. Some of it is the unequivocal  support by Christians of President Trump, who for them is a deeply confusing champion for evangelicals.

A lot of it is that, actually. President Trump seems to represent for virtually all of them the separation between what they thought Christians were supposed to support and applaud vs. what they apparently do. This is the new tension in the American evangelical church, particularly for those under the age of 30. This is not a mere reflection of my musings; this reflects what I have learned through numerous personal conversations and plenty of surveys.

If you argue that it's not there, you're wrong. If you argue that it's not fair, you may be right. The Trump-supporting evangelicals I know – at least the vast majority of them – are undeserving of most of the vitriol aimed at them. They are about as far from ‘deplorable’ as they can get. They constitute many people in my family, my church family, and my friends who love Jesus and love others, and I wouldn't trade them for the world.

Yet, fair or unfair, the reality is that the public witness of the church in general has suffered a huge blow, and this is a matter that must be considered. There is a confusion in a watching world brought on by the perception of an unflinching embrace of a man whose history and many of his ongoing actions stand in sharp contrast to both the ethics and the people whom Christians have historically supported.

The Up/Down Side of Labels

Labels make it easy to offer a quick identification: Christian, atheist, Buddhist, conservative, Republican, liberal, Democrat, evangelical, socialist, Ohio State fan. (O-H!) Labels also make it easy to apply all of our own bias and baggage to that overly simplistic identification - how many of you are still working to get past that Buckeye reference?

Is there a way to use labels well, or are they simply going to undermine our ability to understand each other? Can they ever be a helpful shorthand to help us connect more quickly, or will they always tend to create unfair categories that divide rather than unite us?

I've been thinking about this more often as a Christian in terms of what it means to have a 'brand':

“A brand is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing Association). 

Businesses want brand recognition. This is often accomplished by iconic images such as the Coke or Apple logos. A brand is a shortcut: we see an image (or hear a jingle), and we are flooded with all kinds of instinctive connections - for better or worse.  There has been a recent push in church circles to more fully invest in purposeful branding so that people build a the kind of connection we want them to build between the name of a church or a church logo on a bumper sticker.

Everything is branded, intentionally or not. Everyone takes away impressions of  businesses, organizations, churches, schools, sports teams, car dealers, and products that build thoughts and emotions over time.

The question isn't if something is branded. The question is how it's branded, and what kind of impact that brand/label has on those who see it.

So, like I said, I've been thinking about what it means to have a 'brand' as a Christian.

What do people think when they hear someone say, "I am a Christian evangelical"?  That's a huge question already, but there are other labels that brand us as well: Republican. Democrat. Libertarian. Conservative. Liberal.

As a Christian, how concerned should I be about whether or not the labels I willingly apply to myself could be a huge roadblock to effective evangelism? I don't mean my identification as a Christian, though I think there is room to talk about the best way to boldly state our identity in a way that carries the least amount of baggage to those around us. (Should I say Jesus follower, for example?) I'm talking about anything else that I don't have to say to be true to my identity in Christ.

What is the brand of Trump, Sanders, Obama, or the Clintons that Christians takes upon themselves, intentionally or unintentionally? What is the brand of a Republicans or Democrats? What is the brand of evangelical? Conservative or liberal? I know what I associate with these people, parties, and labels, but what do others see when they see me branded with this? These are all brands, for better or worse, and it's just as important that I know what I mean when I apply it to myself as it is to know what others think when they see it branded on me.

This question has been haunting me, because it's not just about me. It's about the reputation of the church, and of Christ. I need to get this right. As a follower of Jesus, I am constantly branding myself when I freely choose labels, and I have to remember that what others see in me through their filters, they will project onto the faith community of which I am a part, the church I attend, and the God I serve. It might not be fair, but it's reality.

* * * * * 

Last week, Beth and I talked through this issue - well, we started to talk through it :) You can listen to Etcetera 22: The Up/Down Side Of Labels on Soundcloud or on various podcast apps (such as Podcast Addict or Stitcher Radio).  As always, Beth and I appreciate interaction with you! Feel free to comment on this blog, the Etcetera blog, or on the Etcetera Facebook page.  We value your feedback as well as any ideas for future guests or shows!

LINKS ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE

Political Labels, Political Identity, and Bias
Read the Label: The new political group No Labels shows why labels exist
Media: Label Whores
Are the labels 'right' and 'left' still useful shorthand for political belief?
Defining 'Evangelical'
No, Evangelical Does Not Mean "White Republican Who Supports Trump"

Empires, Shires, And Incense To Ceasar

I have been reading The Benedict Option, a book by Rod Dreher that generated quite a bit of discussion after it was released just over a year ago. I'm trying to think clearly about the argument he is making, which is basically that "the culture war as we know it is over," and the church needs to focus on building strong communities that learn from and build on Benedict's monastic model.  

My goal here is not to support or critique his argument since I've not yet finished the book (or read a rebuttal). However, as I have been reading his chapter on Christians and Politics, and I have had a lot of thoughts bouncing around in my head.

So, if you are up for (perhaps) being unsettled, here are some excerpts from this chapter that will hopefully bounce thoughts around in your head as well - thoughts which I would love to hear either in the comment section on this post or on social media. I seem to remember reading that there is much wisdom to be found in a multitude of counselors...

The Problem With Power

While the recent Harvey Weinstein scandal has highlighted the terrible problem of sexual
harassment and assault, it's also shone a spotlight on a broader topic: the misuse of power. In Part One of a short podcast series on this topic (see link below), Beth Milligan and I look at the recent sexual allegations in light of the broader dynamics of how power is given, gained, used and misused in American culture.

• How is our culture fueling this? One can firmly believe in personal accountability while also recognizing the powerful influence of the environment in which we are raised. 
• In what ways does this misuse of power, particularly in male/female interactions, manifest in more ordinary moments before it crosses the line and garners headlines? The Harvey Weinstein's of the world were not created in a moment; what does the process look like that enables or even encourages those in power to harass and assault?
• Finally, what can be done about it? Where do we go from here? What kind of dynamics must we address in homes, schools, and social institutions?

The ubiquitous presence of the #metoo has made more clear than ever that we must make a concerted effort to learn what honor, respect, and dignity mean in a world that seems to have forgotten these things far too often. We will be dedicating more than one episode to this, so this is only the beginning of a conversation we hope can be instrumental in challenging the status quo and offering a hopeful solution.

You can find the podcast on Soundcloud here, and you can visit our Facebook page as well where we continue a discussion and occasionally post additional links to related stories. We welcome feedback on this website and on our Facebook page! Our intent is addressing these topics is not to suggest we have finished the discussion; our goal is to pursue truth, and that is best done in community - which in this case includes you!

LINKS RELATED TO THE SHOW

Tinder And The Dawn Of The Dating Apocalypse
When Men Become Monsters
Why The Harvey Weinstein Allegations Could Change Our Culture
How Vulgarity Normalizes Predators
A Culture For Predators
The Minds Of Powerful Sexual Predators: How Power Corrupts
The Unsettling Truth Behind the #MeToo Movement
Why Power Corrupts
How Power Corrupts The Mind

The Facts About DACA And DREAMers

"We will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion -- but through the lawful Democratic process -- while at the same time ensuring that any immigration reform we adopt provides enduring benefits for the American citizens we were elected to serve," he said. "We must also have heart and compassion for unemployed, struggling, and forgotten Americans." – President Donald Trump

 _________________________________________

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which was started by President Obama in 2012, lets young immigrants who came to the United States as children of illegal immigrants to a) apply for temporary protection from deportation, and b) obtain work permits, attend college, get a driver’s license, etc. There was a $495 fee attached to this, and it needed to be renewed every two years.

These immigrants became known as DREAMers after the DREAM Act, a failed piece of legislation meant to give these particular immigrants legal status in return for attending college or joining the military, and to eventually help them apply for citizenship. Though it kept popping up in Congress between 2001 and 2010, it never passed. 

So in 2012, President Obama used an executive order to issue DACA, which meant that these DREAMers who met certain criteria could apply for “deferred action” every two years. This was not a path to citizenship; "deferred action" meant that deportation proceedings would not be started against them. They would be “lawfully present” for those two years. This was only available for immigrants who met the following criteria:

•  lived in the US since 2007
• arrived before they were 16
• were 30 or younger as of June 2012
• were in high school, had a high school diploma (or a GED), or were discharged from the Coast Guard or US Armed Forces
• had a mostly clean criminal record (not convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor)

Unfortunately, most people under DACA have no path to become citizens, because "federal immigration and naturalization law contains a categorical bar that prevents, in most circumstances, a person from applying for permanent residency or citizenship if their most recent entry to the United States was 'uninspected'" - which is precisely what happened. "Permanent residency is the step necessary to become a citizen and since DACA recipients are not eligible to be permanent residents, they cannot become citizens."

In 2014, President Obama decided to expand DACA by a) loosening age restrictions and b) including parents in what was called Deferred Action For Parents Of Americans (DAPA). Suddenly, half of the illegal immigrants in the United States were covered. A lawsuit against both DAPA and the expansion of DACA was successful (the Supremes deadlocked, so the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision to block the action stood). This was not, however, a lawsuit brought on constitutional grounds. It was because of “Texas’s claim that it would incur costs” and because “the Obama administration did not go through the APA’s notice and comment process when creating them.”

What This Election Has Revealed About The Church

Christians, let’s be honest: We weren’t ready for this election. We weren't ready for the moral quandary forced on us by both the issues and the candidates. In the next four years we have some serious soul-searching to do about a lot of things. However, I would like to focus on two that directly influence the life of the church.

1. We must recalibrate what ‘the good life’ looks like for Christians. 

"Gallup and Barna," laments evangelical theologian Michael Horton, "hand us survey after survey demonstrating that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general." George Barna concludes, "Every day, the church is becoming more like the world it allegedly seeks to change. We have very little time, he believes, to reverse these trends..." 

African Christian and famous missions scholar Professor Lamin Sanneh told Christianity Today recently that "the cultural captivity of Christianity in the West is nearly complete.”[1]

“Overall, the economy is the top concern for Americans regardless of religious affiliation (30%). National security (17%) and personal character (17%) also are significant issues. Supreme Court nominees (10%), immigration (5%), religious freedom (2%), and abortion (1%) are less important. ‘For churchgoers and those with evangelical beliefs, their pocketbook and personal safety are paramount,’ said McConnell. ‘Moral issues aren’t a priority for many of them.’”[2]

Lifeway's survey did not ask Christians to rate the importance of every issue. When that happens, Christians show a high value for things like religious freedom and life. This survey was different. It basically asked, "When push comes to shove, if you have to place these in order, what's most important?" And when phrased that way, our pocketbook and personal safety won.

Vote Your Conscience: A (hopefully) Helpful Guide For The 2016 Election

The Old Testament records that, when Israel wanted to have a ruler that looked like their neighbors, they had one demand of God: “Give us a king” (1 Samuel 8:6).  In God’s fulfillment of their request we are reminded of the caution that we ought to be careful what we wish for lest we get it. We are not Israel, but our plaintive “Give us a President!” resounds during this election with an unsettling biblical echo.

We the people – or at least the political machinery that claims to offer us all a constitutional republic that reflects our wills – have chosen two historically unpopular candidates. This looked like a banner year for third party candidates - but they have also taken quite a bit of criticism.

My friends, family and colleagues are more divided this election than perhaps any other since I began voting.  Many are reluctant supporters of Clinton or Trump; some are excited to some degree. More than usual are going third party this year if for no other reason than to send a loud message that is time for the independents to rise.

So what’s a Christian to do? We are citizens of Heaven first, be we are also American citizens who have been given the opportunity and perhaps even the mandate to be involved. The Bible uses imagery of salt and light to describe a Christian’s spiritual influence; it’s easy to see how this has a pragmatic call as well. It's just not easy to see what to do when when voting appears to be inevitably morally compromising.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach. This is the kind of election where the oft repeated mandate to ‘vote your conscience’ carries more truth – and weight – than perhaps ever before. In the interest of providing a way to think through this choice, I have written a series of posts that cover various ethical theories that can be applied as one prepares for this year's election. I am convinced that no one ethical theory does justice to the complexity of our world; nonetheless, I hope the process of viewing life through different ethical lenses will bring increasing clarity.

Who Best Understands Your Rights? (Trump And Clinton Through The Lenses Of Ethical Theory)

In the service of bringing clarity to our thoughts about this years' candidates, I am posting a number of articles that look at the candidates through the lenses of various ethical theories. So far, we have covered virtue ethics, deontological ethics, consequentialist ethics, Kantian ethics and Natural Law ethics. This sixth and final post will look at Rights-based ethics.

I am convinced that no one ethical theory does justice to the complexity of our world; nonetheless, I hope the process of viewing life through several different ethical lenses will bring increasing clarity. I should also note that my summaries offer a a broad overview that will not do justice to the complexities of these theories. I encourage you to read more deeply on your own.

                   * * * * * * * * * *

Rights-based ethics claims that we have a right to certain things because we are human beings. These rights create a moral responsibility in others to acknowledge and accept them. Two key examples of rights-based ethics in action are the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rights-based ethics are built upon four key claims:

• Rights are “natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments.” Natural rights pertain to us by virtue of our humanity; as such, they apply to all persons. 
• Rights are “universal insofar as they do not change from country to country.” Conventional rights are created by humans, generally within the context of social and political organizations.  Note the contrast between rights based on a social contract vs. natural rights, which in some ways relies on Natural Law. Conventional rights are not typically used to build rights-based ethics. 
• Rights are “equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap.”
• Rights are “inalienable, which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery.” 

These rights imply correlative duties. If I have a right, others have a duty to honor it. My right to freedom from physical harm imposes on others a duty not to physically harm me. My right to free speech imposes on others a duty not to prevent me from speaking. My property right in X imposes a duty on others not to trespass upon or interfere with my use and enjoyment of X. Lewis Smedes explains it this way in Mere Morality: What God Expects From Ordinary People:

"If one person has a right, someone else has a duty to honor it. If I have a right to stay alive, you have an obligation to keep your hands off my throat. If you have a right to your private place, I have a duty so stay away from it. If a stranger has a right to some food for his hungry child, someone has a duty to see that he gets it. Whenever someone has a right someone else is obligated to honor that right. If my right does not obligate anyone, it is only a piece of fiction."  

Rights-based ethicists typically make a distinction between Negative vs. Positive Rights. Negative rights impose duties of noninterference on others. Thus, my right to life as a negative right is a right not to be killed. Positive rights impose duties of assistance on others (such as receiving food, money, or opportunity). For example, welfare rights impose on the state the duty to assist those who cannot provide for themselves; the state in turn imposes that on us through the taxation that supports the assistance.

The rights to be respected in Libertarian Ethics are negative or non-interference rights; specifically, the right to life, liberty and property. The only limit is interference with the similar rights of others. Libertarians generally reject positive rights. People have the right to assistance only if they have made contractual arrangements (insurance, for example). A semi-libertarian position argues that government ensures negative rights, but individuals have an obligation for positive rights.

Examples of what ethicists have offered as rights include the following: 

• The right to life
• The right to liberty
• The right to pursue happiness
• The right to a jury trial
• The right to a lawyer
• The right to freely practice a religion of choice
• The right to express ideas or opinions with freedom as an individual
• The right of individuals or organizations to express opinions or share information freely in written medium
• The right to come together and meet in order to achieve goals
• The right to be informed of what law has been broken if arrested
• The right to call witnesses to speak on one's behalf if accused of a crime
• The right of a person to be treated with respect and dignity even after being found guilty of a crime
• The right to freely live and travel within the country
• The right to work
• The right to marry
• The right to bear children
• The right to free education
• The right to join any peaceful parties or groups of choice
• The right to be free from slavery
• The right to not be tortured
• The right to be treated as equal to others
• The right to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty
• The right to personal privacy
• The right to own property
• The right to internet access

If you scan the previous list of suggested rights while considering the negative/positive and conventional/natural distinctions, you can see that there is room for disagreement about which ones should be included and how they should all be honored.

• Is the right to free education really on par with the right to be free from slavery? 
• Does my right to pursue happiness create a negative or positive obligation in those around me? Should they just leave me alone, or must they assist my pursuit?
• Doesn't my having a right work compel very different obligations than my having a right to marry? 
• Is being denied internet access really as morally unacceptable as being tortured?

There seems to be a sliding scale here somewhere. We have fought wars to end slavery; I don't think there has ever been a war fought over internet access. Why the difference? And if it's not worth laying down one's life, is that an indication that it shouldn't be on the list? However, in spite of disagreements and distinction, there is a shared commitment among rights-based ethicists to honor the rights best understood as inherent to all.

So, back to our candidates:

1. Do the candidates differ in their perspective on negative vs. positive rights?  
2. Which one is more likely to impose duties of assistance? 
3. Which is more likely to limit their agenda to duties of non-interference?
4. Which candidate supports the idea that rights are natural, universal, equal and inalienable?
5. Which candidate is more likely to establish or support rights that reflect the mood of the culture vs. rights that exist independently of the mere will of the people?

          * * * * * * * * * *

To summarize this series: Are you voting for a virtuous candidate (virtue ethics) who is committed to using just means (deontological ethics) to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number (consequentialist/utilitarian ethics), who values the intrinsic worth of people, who will enact laws and regulations that are universalizable, who seeks to enact legislation that overlaps with the telos of the world, and who recognizes the existence of natural, universal, equal and inalienable rights?

I hope this has helped you consider the candidates carefully. I'm not sure there is an easy answer in this year's election when the candidates are considered from all these angles. However, that does not mean no choice rises to the top.

Vote carefully and conscientiously.

May the better candidate win.