For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)

Next week, as part of a biblical worldview class they are taking, Steve is taking some of our older children on a field trip. They and their small class are going to have a private interview with Phillip Johnson, the UC Berkeley law professor whose tenure kept him from being canned for daring to critique the sacred cow of Darwinian evolution and suggesting that the universe was formed by a process of “intelligent design.” I have mixed feelings about this opportunity.

Intelligent design has been in the news quite a lot lately. In Pennsylvania, a judge is now deliberating in a court case regarding whether a public school district will be allowed to teach ID along with evolution in its biology classes. Michael Behe, another prominent proponent of ID (also a homeschooling father of nine) was one of the leading witnesses for the defense. Steve informs me that this is a volatile topic of discussion on geeky forums, with the majority opinion there being that anyone who believes in a creationist view of the world is a (bleep, bleep, bleep).

I don’t mind being called a bleep for being a creationist (and a literal six-day creationist, I might add), but I think Phillip Johnson might. Though he’s a Christian, Johnson (not a literal six-day creationist, I believe), distances himself from the Bible when he discusses ID. According to Wikipedia:

Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion” and that “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact… only then can “biblical issues” be discussed.”Johnson explicitly calls for Intelligent Design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having Intelligent Design identified “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message.”

Romans 1 explains why all mankind is accountable to God for its sin. Verse 20 says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” If Mr. Johnson and the ID gang are encouraging people to see the truth around them—that even down to the smallest cell there is the fingerprint of the Maker of all things—hurrah for them. However, if they are failing to point people to the Savior of the world after helping them acknowledge a Creator, then they are as guilty as Thomas Jefferson of taking scissors to the Bible. The quote from Romans at the beginning of this post is the foundation on which the rest of the chapter rests. Believing in intelligent design without having saving faith in Christ is akin to embracing George Lucas’s idea of the Force.

Why is it that so many who claim to follow Jesus are ashamed to name Him and acknowledge His Word in the public sphere? For a time, Christians woke up to the importance of proclaiming the authority of Christ over every area of life, but as they gained influence in various places (and their donor base grew), their focus began to shift. Bold statements about the kingship of Christ devolved into seeker-sensitive strategies of incrementalism, particularly in politics. Warm, speculative fuzzies about “What Would Jesus Do?” replaced searching the Scriptures to see how to apply the Bible to specific situations. Do-goodism, “values,” and that highly-vaunted but wobbly word, “character,” have supplanted good, old-fashioned and never-changing truth.

This trend is evident in some of yesterday’s election results around the nation. For example, Matt Chancey excoriates the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia for losing the election by wimping out on the issues that really matter. This pattern is repeated over and over in the Republican party—the candidates are afraid to appear “extreme” so they focus on bland, a strategy which is backfiring but many of the religious right still support it. Voters in Texas overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This is a good thing, but as Doug Phillips points out:

But—and this is a big but—I do not for one minute think that this Amendment resolves the problem for Texans. Nor do I perceive this as an incremental step on the road to victory. There is no genuine “incremental” advancement unless we build our arguments and our cause on the proper foundation. (FYI: Many in support of this Amendment were afraid to say that God is the author of law and of marriage. They wanted to base their arguments on the sociological benefits of marriage.) We must address the root issues — “who is sovereign?” and “what is the rule of law?”

I have a third question to add…why are we even engaging in this battle? If it is not to further God’s kingdom and bring glory to Him, then what is our purpose for promoting traditional marriage, fighting against abortion or debunking Darwinism?

I’m afraid that it appears some are in the battle just to expand their donor base, line their own pockets, and gain influence. Unfortunately, some very nice people are being duped by those who purport to promote the causes which are dear to their hearts. As you consider who speaks for you on the important issues of the day, here are a few things to consider, not to make you cynical but to help you be discerning and remind you that we are here to press for the crown rights of King Jesus, not the agenda of a particular party:

Jay Sekulow claims to promote a conservative Christian agenda as lead counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice (ACLJ), but he is apparently leading a lavish lifestyle with donor funds, as well (link from Confronting the Culture). Rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous has rubbed away some of Sekulow’s conservative veneer, as he was not among those conservatives who broke ranks with the president by complaining about Harriet Miers’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Rather, he confidently promoted her to the bitter end. He appears to be quite the pragmatist. When arguing cases involving public religious displays, he relies totally on historical and secular arguments. According to Bret McAtee at Backwater Report:

Now what is ironic in Mr. Sekulow’s principle is that the cost of success in positioning Christian symbolism in the public square is the surrender of the heart of the Christian faith. Christianity declares that there is no God but God and that Jesus Christ is the Lord over all Lord’s, but Mr. Sekulow’s Christian symbolism makes Jesus just one god among the other gods. What Mr. Sekulow has accomplished is what Christians in the early Church died for refusing to do. Mr. Sekulow names it success when Jesus is secularized while the early Christians were martyred for refusing to add Jesus to the Roman Pantheon of gods.

Another mouthpiece of the religious right, Concerned Women for America, is also represented by the well-to-do who aren’t ashamed to take a hand-out, whether from their donors or from the federal government. Despite the fact that the founder of CWA, Beverly LaHaye, and her husband Tim, are rolling in the dough from the sales of the Left Behind series, CWA is one of the groups working for the government as gatekeepers in the approval process for faith-based initiative grants.

Lastly, let me mention something which may or may not be pertinent but I think ought to be known. Our current president is the grandson of Prescott and Dorothy Walker Bush, who had close ties to Margaret Sanger and the founding of Planned Parenthood. This fact does not affect the current president’s prolife bona fides, but the fact that the women in his life are avowedly pro-abortion, including “Christian” Condoleezza Rice whose faith is touted by Christianity Today, should raise a few questions. These facts combined with the fact that George Bush has given no evidence in word or deed that he is truly pro-life, ought to give us pause next time we are asked to give our support to a candidate who talks a good talk.

Let’s raise our standard higher, because there is only one standard we ought to promote, and it’s not traditional values: it’s the standard found in the Word of God. Glory alone to our King!