[rating:3.0]
(Boise, Idaho: Russell Media, 2011)
263 pgs
This is a different kind of book but one that is certainly relevant for the time in which we live. Two authors, from different political perspectives spar off over controversial subjects such as same sex marriage, abortion, and the role of government in people’s lives. Lisa Harper comes from an African American, Native American, Jewish, and Puerto Rico background. She is a Democrat. Throughout the book, she argues from the “Left” on social issues. For many people today, it seems impossible to be a Christian, and be a Democrat. Harper strives to make the case that you can. David Innes grew up in Canada. He immigrated to the United States as a graduate student and never left. He also embraced the Republican Party and is a staunch conservative. He argues the case for the political Right.
In an age when American society is so polarized, this is an interesting book. It raises the question: “Is there a political party that American Christians should naturally embrace?” Innes will argue “Yes.” He believes that, while not perfect, the Republican Party embraces those values and positions that are most Christian. Harper argues that “Left” and “Right” are not Christian categories and we must be careful we do not use secular terms to identify ourselves. Hence “Christ” in the title of the book.
I have to say that, although I naturally identify with the “Right,” I was at times put off by Innes, and at the same time I was challenged by Harper to look at the other side of arguments than I am used to focusing on. I suppose that is the purpose of books like this. Innes at times seems like a starry-eyed Canadian immigrant who idolizes the American colossus. He comments that when he first visited Boston he said, “Wow. This is where it all happened. These are Americans, the people who transformed the world” (21). He also seems to idealize the Republican Party, claiming, “This respect for America as a country of noble liberty, of surprising innovation, and of unapologetic, world-transforming energy made the Republican Party, where those sentiments are the norm, a natural political home for me” (22).
He is not very complimentary of his Canadian roots. He compares them to “Gauls” coming to study the Romans (21). As someone who has lived a good part of his life in Canada myself, I was offended at the broad strokes he used to characterize the nation. He notes: “North of our border there is only the political correctness of the left, and everything else is thoughtcrime. If anyone expresses any doubts about the liberal social agenda, he is labeled a Nazi and other standard epithets” (28). I have always been suspicious of those who felt the need to overstate their case. As Innes makes Canada out to be an out of control socialist state, he also seems to idealize the USA. The truth is that Canada has actually managed its fiscal affairs far more prudently than has the US in recent years.
Lisa Harper shares her upbringing as being from a working class family of mixed race. She notes that there did not use to be a deep divide between political parties before 1964. It was at that time that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act and then the Voting Rights Act (32). From that watershed moment, the two parties began to follow different trajectories. Harper describes how her mother taught her that the Democratic Party was like Robin Hood, “they take back money from the rich and give it to the poor” (34). There is no doubt that both authors are sincere Christians. Their differences lie in their political perspective. Innes, as do his Republican friends, focus on freedom and lack of intervention by the government. Harper has a more compassionate focus on the poor and oppressed. Certainly a case can (and is) made that genuine Christians ought to be concerned with both issues. Throughout the remainder of the book, the authors strive to find the right balance.
The first major section deals with the role of government. Harper argues that, “The liberal/conservative polemic is a product of the modern era—an era shaped by the tyranny of ‘either/or’ constructs” (52). She also argues that, “Freedom is not for the sake of ‘me’ in Scripture. It is always for the sake of ‘we’ (52). She also points out that “People, not God, established our Constitution. Therefore, unlike the Ten Commandments, our Constitution is fallible, incomplete and expected to be amended as our nation matures” (54).
Innis makes a case that Scripture assigns government two primary tasks: to punish evil and to praise good. I am not as convinced with the second one. At times his argument can sound a little barren as he argues that if it isn’t in the Bible, then government shouldn’t do it!
The authors then take on the issue of government and poverty. Innes argues: “Just as we can cure diseases through understanding the way creation works, in the same way He has given us the means to alleviate poverty” (68). Innes argues that the government is not obligated to provide for everyone who is poor and, in fact, when it tries to, it only makes matters worse. He also criticizes the numerous government services such as school lunches or student loans and complains that only 10% of the population is actually paying for them (74).
Harper has far less confidence in the benevolence of the market. She concludes: “The market is not God. God is God” (86). She challenges that there is no biblical expectation that wealth will increase unbounded. Rather, there is always a social expectation that the wealthy will care for the poor. She points out that in ancient Israel, land could not be permanently sold. It reverted back to the original owners after a set number of years. This prevented generational poverty and it also prevented the development of enormous conglomerates.
The authors then take on health care. Harper highlights the 42% of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured. Many of these people cannot afford proper health care. She traces how various presidents, Democrat, as well as Republican, attempted to develop some form of basic health coverage. Yet it has always been vehemently opposed by the health care industry. She argues that proper health care ought to be a right for Americans.
Innes argues that God has not given the government the responsibility for providing medical services (99). He points out that in 2009, Americans on average paid 17.6% of their GDP on health care, the highest percentage of any industrialized nation (102). He believes this is because of government intervention. He argues that competition and peoples’ ability to shop around for their own plans would dramatically reduce costs. But anything the government runs is chronically inefficient and expensive. Innes argues that, “They try to shrink the sphere of private liberty by expanding the sphere of public action” (107). He claims that the more government does, the less people feel obligated to attempt. He argues: “As usual, what is best on every level is liberty, personal responsibility, and generous charity, three traditions that are uniquely Christian and historically American” (107). It is certainly true that private citizens can rise to the occasion to help others when called upon, yet it might be naïve to think that corporate America, on its own volition, will choose to care for the poor.
The authors then aim their sights at abortion. Innes claims that the “pro-life” position is “synonymous with being Evangelical” (113). He also charges that “Since 1973, Democrats have gone beyond a mere defense of a woman’s right to an abortion to supporting an ever-widening range of abortion options and opposing even the mildest restrictions” (116).
Harper challenges some of the presuppositions of Innes. She argues that government cannot function based on certain people’s religious beliefs (121). She argues: “Thus, the religious definition of the beginning of life cannot be the criteria used to decide at what point gestation becomes ‘life’” (121). She also claims it was not the abortion issue in 1973 that awakened Evangelicals, but the ability for institutions to practice race discrimination (125). Harper also argues that abortion is fundamentally a poverty issue (127). While she is certainly against abortion, Harper says, “I reject the manipulative and artificial dividing line between ‘Pro-life’ and ‘Pro-choice.’ As this is a line drawn by political strategists, not by Jesus” (129).
The authors then proceed to tackle the issues of same sex marriage, immigration, and national defense. Innes highlights the dangers of an increasing secularization of American society. Citing the removal of prayer from public schools, he notes: “ At stake was the secularization of six intensely instructive hours in every child’s weekday” (134). He claims that by redefining marriage, Christian foundations of society are continuing to crumble.
Harper admits that this is a tough issue for her to find the proper Christian position for. She does point out, however, that divorce is also frowned upon in Scripture, yet no one is introducing legislation to outlaw it from society (144). While she does not condone same sex marriage, Harper does appeal for love for people. She notes that there are 1,138 rights and protections that come with married couples that are unavailable to same sex relationships (146). She argues that society’s views on marriage have changed over the years. She notes that rape was legal within marriage until the first state outlawed it in 1973 (149). She suggests that modernizing our views on things like marriage is not always bad. In the end, she argues that Christians often strive to dehumanize homosexual people rather than to reach out to them.
Overall I found this book to be an interesting read. I also discovered that I did not always agree with either author, while at times I had to concede certain points to both. This type of book will not be easy for everyone to read. For many Americans today, we only read books that agree with our views. It can seem like heresy to even read what the other “side” is saying. But, as this book highlights, there are thoughtful believers in both camps. And, as they argue, perhaps Christians ought to be careful not to be categorized by secular, political terms. As in many cases, there is more than one way to look at an issue. Typically there is the law (The Bible condemns that behavior!) and there is grace (but God loves those people!).
The interesting thing about this book is that it is not a debate between a believer and an atheist. It is a thoughtful discussion between two believers. If you are interested in a survey of some of the most controversial political issues that are currently dividing believers, you might want to check this book out.
by Richard Blackaby