Why would I continue to call myself an evangelical when 81percent of white evangelicals voted for a man who is a racist, violates women, lies constantly, ignores (and makes worse) the environmental crisis, tries to undo a law that expanded healthcare for 20 million Americans, and gave a huge tax cut to the richest Americans while trying to cut effective programs for the poor? To make matters (much) worse, many prominent evangelical leaders uncritically support President Trump as God’s anointed.

Many Christians who have long identified as evangelicals and many millennials who grew up in evangelical congregations now consider the label evangelical irreparably toxic. To vast numbers of people both inside and outside the church, it means “Religious Right,” homophobic, anti-science, anti-immigrant, racist, and unconcerned about the poor.

I have struggled with this issue for the last three years. Some of my good friends have stopped identifying as evangelicals. I must confess that in spite of my many decades of strong identification as an evangelical, there are times when I think that it may be time to use a different word.

But then I remember the long, distinguished history of the term. I recall the fact that the word essentially means a commitment to Jesus’ gospel. I ponder the fact that we need some label to distinguish theologically liberal Protestants from those who remain committed to the central beliefs of historic Christianity. And I note the fact that many millions in the United States and 600 million around the world in the World Evangelical Alliance still want to use the label evangelical.

When asked to define what I mean by the word evangelical, I say that we need to look at the three most important times in history when large numbers of Christians gladly embraced the label: The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century; the Wesleyan/evangelical movements in the 18th and 19th centuries; and the evangelical movement in the 20th century.

Sola gratia and sola scriptura were the two key watchwords of the Protestant Reformation. Luther insisted that faith in Jesus Christ, not our good works, is the means of salvation (sola gratia ). Luther also taught that scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the final authority for faith and life. We should respect church history, but church tradition is not an equal source of authority alongside scripture.

When I say I am an evangelical, I mean to embrace the Reformation teaching on sola gratia and sola scriptura.

The revival movements of the 18th and 19th century (e.g. John Wesley’s Methodist movement) also identified as evangelical. Wesley emphasized a living personal faith over against a dead orthodoxy and a passion for evangelism. Wesley also insisted on “social holiness,” opposed slavery, and promoted justice in society. Wesley’s movement led to the conversion of William Wilberforce who led the decades-long movement in Great Britain that finally ended the slave trade and slavery itself in the British Empire.

A major part of the evangelical movement in the U.S. in the 19th century was a continuation of Wesley’s evangelical movement: sweeping revival movements, a passion for evangelism, and a strong commitment to social justice. In the mid-19th century, thoroughly evangelical Oberlin College (where the famous evangelist Charles Finney was a professor for half of each year) was a center of opposition to slavery, the emergence of an evangelical women’s movement, and a passion for evangelism. Oberlin’s students led evangelistic efforts among Native Americans and then stood with them to try to force the U.S. government to keep the treaties it constantly broke. (See Donald Dayton’s Discovering an Evangelical Heritage). The modern missionary movement of the 18th and 19th centuries flowed in a direct powerful way out of this evangelical movement.

In this second major period when vast numbers of Christians called themselves evangelicals, the word connoted both a passion for evangelism and a commitment to work vigorously for justice in society. That is also central to what I mean by calling myself an evangelical.

The third historical period when large numbers of Christians felt it important to call themselves evangelicals was in the 20th century. In the early decades of the 20th century and increasingly in subsequent decades, theological liberalism found powerful expression in many “mainline” Protestant churches. Prominent theologians rejected the possibility of miracles, denied the virgin birth, Jesus as the only way to salvation, even the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus. Also, they neglected evangelism and focused on a “Social Gospel” concerned primarily or exclusively with justice in society. Christians committed to the historic doctrines of Christian orthodoxy rejected this theological liberalism. At first, these folks called themselves “fundamentalists” (i.e. people insisting on the importance of central and historic “fundamental” Christian doctrines), but by the 1940s and 1950s, they increasingly preferred the label “evangelical.”

Tragically, in the earlier years of the “Social Gospel/Fundamentalist” debate, the theological conservatives reacted to the Social Gospel’s one-sided focus on societal justice by embracing a one-sided emphasis on evangelism and foreign missions. But slowly in the 1950s and then more vigorously in the next several decades, younger evangelicals insisted that biblical faith demands a strong commitment to both evangelism and social action, thus returning to the balanced position of a major part of 19th century evangelicalism.

Evangelicals in the later decades of the 20th century rejected the widespread embrace of universalism, a one-sided focus on social justice, and neglect of evangelism in the World Council of Churches and many “mainline” denominations. Instead evangelicals reaffirmed the centrality of evangelism, but at the same time insisted (e.g. in the Lausanne Covenant, the Chicago Declaration of Evangelical Concern, and the National Association of Evangelicals’ official public policy document, For the Health of the Nation) that social justice is also a central part of our biblical responsibility. And evangelical holistic programs embracing both evangelism and social action increased exponentially around the world.

When I call myself an evangelical, this third period where being an evangelical means embracing and insisting on the importance of the central doctrines of historic Christianity is also important.

To summarize, being an evangelical has historically meant: salvation by grace alone, not human works; the Bible as the final authority for faith and life; a living personal faith and a passion for both evangelism and social justice; and an affirmation of historic Christian doctrines. All of that, I believe is still very important if we want to remain faithful to Jesus and the scriptures.

And we need some label to identify that cluster of beliefs and practices. Perhaps “biblical Christian” would work; or small “o” “orthodox.” But the word “evangelical” is solidly biblical. It is simply the adjective derived from the Greek word (evangelion) meaning gospel. Evangelicals are committed to the full biblical gospel.

Why should we allow one-sided, finally unbiblical people to distort the meaning and connotation of a great name? Of course, it is true that the harsh, narrow voices of the Religious Right (which largely neglect justice for the poor, racial justice, creation care, etc.) use the label. So do racists, people who miserably fail to respect and insist on the civil rights of gay people, anti-immigrant demagogues, and people rejecting the science of global warming. Unfortunately, it is also true that the popular media now often use the word “evangelical” in a way that leads many people in our society to think that evangelicals are people who embrace these unbiblical, unjust views and actions.

I acknowledge that as a substantial problem. Some days I wonder if it can be overcome, but I believe it can. Throughout my life, I have repeatedly discovered that the media are intrigued and ready to write about people like me precisely because we are evangelicals who are passionate about things like economic and racial justice and protection of the environment. Leading with these concerns helps non-Christians listen to our conversation about Christ. Over time, we can help the larger society come to a better understanding of what an evangelical is.

Our central focus, of course must be on faithfulness to Jesus and the scriptures, not some label. Actually practicing holistic ministry that combines evangelism and social action; implementing a completely pro-life political agenda that is concerned both with the sanctity of human life and family and racial and economic justice, peacemaking, and creation care; and modeling astonishing love even for those we disagree with the most strongly — all that is far more important than “fighting” however winsomely for the label evangelical. In fact, it is the best way to redeem that label.

There is, of course, another option. We could join the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church. I have good Christian friends in both churches, and I am deeply grateful that evangelical Protestants in the last few decades have developed a much better understanding of the deep Christian faith of many Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. (Thank God for Pope Francis!)

And I regularly emphasize what we have in common (God as Trinity; the full deity and humanity of Christ; Jesus’ bodily resurrection; Jesus as the only way to salvation; the Bible as special authoritative revelation from God) rather than what divides us. But I cannot accept some of what Catholics teach (e.g. about the Pope, the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation) or what Orthodox Christians do (e.g. exclusively male priests). While thanking God for the wonderful expansion of ecumenical dialogue, understanding, and fellowship in my lifetime, I remain a Protestant — which is what the Christians have been who chose to call themselves evangelicals during the three great periods of history I have described.

Furthermore, there are vast numbers of Christians who call themselves evangelicals even though they do not want to be identified with the pro-Trump “Religious Right.” That is true of most of the 600 million Christians (a majority of whom are in Africa, Latin America, and Asia) who are part of the World Evangelical Alliance. It is also true of many millions of groups in the United States that I called the “evangelical center:” the National Association of Evangelicals which represents about 30 million American evangelicals; the most influential Christian magazine, Christianity Today; youth movements like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and Young Life; the 140 or so colleges and universities that are members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities; huge relief and development organizations like World Vision, Compassion International and World Relief, etc. Obviously, I do not endorse everything all those groups do, but I am happy to consider myself a member of this large family.

I refuse to abandon a word that is biblical, has a wonderful history, and a large contemporary constituency simply because one-sided, misguided people also use the term. That is to allow confusion and disobedience to prevail.

I think a lot of younger evangelicals (especially perhaps Millennials) have already done many of the things necessary to correct a one-sided evangelicalism. They embrace racial and economic justice and creation care; they affirm the full dignity and equality of women; they take for granted that faithful Christians must embrace evangelism and social action; and they know and practice the truth that evangelicals like myself, who do not believe that same-sex practice is biblical, must vigorously oppose mistreatment of LGBTQ people and insist on their appropriate civil rights.

Millennials and all Christians who want to be faithful followers of Jesus must do that, as well as affirm the beliefs and practices that I have identified as central to those large groups of Christians who historically have called themselves evangelicals. To do that, we will need some label that distinguishes us from those Protestant Christians who abandon biblical authority, neglect evangelism, and abandon central beliefs held by all historic Christian traditions.

Is there any word that does that better than “evangelical?”

This piece was published in Christianity Today on September 8, 2016. Reposted with permission.

I have not publicly endorsed a presidential candidate in 44 years. But this year—the most important presidential election in my lifetime—I feel compelled to do so.

For decades I have advocated a completely pro-life agenda: pro-life and pro-poor; pro-family and pro–racial justice; pro–sexual integrity and pro-peacemaking and pro–creation care. This agenda is expressed in the National Association of Evangelicals’ public policy document “For the Health of the Nation.”

For decades, as I applied this agenda, I regularly concluded that Republican presidential candidates were better on issues like abortion, marriage and family, and religious freedom, while Democratic candidates were better on racial justice, economic justice, and the environment. So I have voted for both Republicans (George W. Bush) and Democrats (Barack Obama).

But 2016 is astonishingly different from other election years. Hillary Clinton is bad and good in the usual ways. But Donald Trump is not only bad in many of the usual ways—he is also bad in the ways in which I have usually preferred Republicans.

Trump’s recent pro-life stand is not credible. Historically he has supported abortion access, even to partial-birth abortion, and still supports Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest supplier of abortions.

Trump’s personal marriage record is horrendous. He humiliated his first wife by publicly flaunting an affair. He is now in his third marriage, while Clinton has remained with her husband in spite of his despicable behavior.

Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from immigrating to the United States was a fundamental violation of the constitutional protection of religious freedom.

So what about Clinton?

I have major disagreements with her. She and the Democratic platform are wrong on abortion—period. And I disagree with Clinton on gay marriage.

Further, I fear that Clinton will not retain the longstanding right (protected by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama) of faith-based organizations that receive government funding to hire on the basis of their beliefs. She is too close to Wall Street billionaires and made a serious mistake using private email servers as Secretary of State.

But there is also much to like about Clinton. She has a decades-long history of working hard for racial and economic justice. One of her earliest jobs was working as a lawyer at the black-led Children’s Defense Fund to improve the lives of poor children. At a time when racial injustice and mistrust threaten to tear the nation apart, her experience and trust in minority communities is invaluable.

Clinton realizes that lower-income Americans have lost ground in the past 30 years, and has advocated concrete policies to alleviate the growing divide between rich and poor. Her $350 billion college affordability program would help lower-income students afford higher education. Raising the minimum wage to $12 and tax cuts (15%) for companies that share profits with workers would help. Her proposed expansion of health insurance to cover all Americans is surely pro-life.

Clinton has a realistic and just way to pay for these programs. The middle class would get a modest tax cut, while those with annual incomes over $5 million would have a 4-percent tax increase. She has promised to close tax loopholes that allow corporations to avoid their fair share of taxes. Warren Buffett supports Clinton, saying she would help poor working Americans. The independent, bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Clinton’s plan would not add significantly to the national debt.

Clinton also endorses serious proposals to protect the environment. And in foreign affairs, the former senator and Secretary of State is probably the most knowledgeable and experienced presidential candidate in decades. Global peace urgently requires a US president who is thoroughly familiar with geopolitics and has a judicious track record.

How does Trump compare? Since the only meaningful choice this fall is Clinton or Trump, my evaluation of Trump is an appropriate part of my decision.

Unjust and Destructive

Major parts of Trump’s economic agenda are both morally unjust and economically destructive. Trump proposed lowering the top income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent—an annual tax cut of $275, 000 for the richest 1 percent, including Trump. That is blatant injustice since today, more than 90 percent of all the increase in income in the total US economy goes to the richest 1 percent.

Trump’s economic plans would also be economically disastrous, adding $9.5 trillion to the national debt over ten years. More recent modifications would still add trillions to the national debt. The pro-business US Chamber of Commerce has predicted a recession “within the first year” of a Trump presidency.

Trump promised to expel the approximately 11.3 million undocumented immigrants, millions of whom have children born in this country—who are therefore US citizens. This plan would tear apart millions of families and defies the biblical command to love and care for the “sojourner” (i.e., non-citizen). Deporting 11 million people would cost $400 billion to $600 billion. And because there are not enough workers here to replace the roughly 6.8 million employed undocumented workers, the economy would decline by an estimated $1 trillion.

Trump grossly distorts facts and makes ridiculous promises. He said the United States is “the highest taxed nation in the world.” Economists show the United States is nearly the least-taxed (32nd out of 34th) of all industrialized nations. His repeated promise to make Mexico pay for his border wall is flatly absurd.

Trump said the judge in charge of the legal case against Trump University should be disqualified because he is “Mexican”—a “textbook” case of racism, said Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Trump has called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “criminals.” Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy commission, has sharply condemned Trump’s “not-so-coded messages denouncing African Americans and immigrants.

Trump has said that “torture works” and that he would “bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” He has called for killing the families, even children, of terrorists—which is a war crime under both US and international law.

Prominent evangelicals condemn Trump. Max Lucado has never before publicly commented on presidential candidates but this year wrote of Trump: “He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter.” “His attitude toward women is that of a Bronze Age warlord, ” says Moore. Peter Wehner, who served in the past three Republican administrations, denounces Trump as a “moral degenerate” and “comprehensive and unrepentant liar.”

Do we evangelical Christians trust Donald Trump to be a wise statesman leading the world to avoid conflict and war?

Trump’s boasting is breathtaking. Some of his recent comments: “Nobody’s ever been more successful than me.” He said he had studied the Iran deal “in great detail, greater by far than anyone else.” “Nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world.” “No one reads the Bible more than me.” One final example: “Nobody is better on humility than me.” Yet Trump has said he has never asked God for forgiveness because he doesn’t need it.

We Need a Wise Statesman

Do we evangelical Christians trust Donald Trump to be a wise statesman leading the world to avoid conflict and war? The US president is the leader of the democratic world and the commander of the world’s largest military. A wise, thoughtful president who listens carefully to the best-informed advisers is essential if the United States and China are to avoid catastrophic conflict in the next decade or two.

Trump has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs or global diplomacy. He has repeatedly demonstrated arrogant, impulsive decision making. I can’t trust him to control the nuclear trigger. In August, 50 of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials issued a public letter saying Trump “lacks the character, values, and experience” to be president, and added that Trump “would be the most reckless president in American history” and would “put at risk our country’s national security.”

Voting for one candidate rather than the other does not mean that one endorses all that candidate supports. It simply means that one believes the other candidate would lead to worse results.

And in 2016, there are only two meaningful choices: Trump and Clinton. One could vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate, but they have no chance of winning. Voting for them, or writing in someone else, will only help elect Trump.

In this unprecedented, astonishing presidential election, I have no doubt that voting for Hillary Clinton is the right choice.
 

 
EDITOR’S NOTE: Recently, Dr. Tony Campolo issued a statement “For the Record” articulating his full support of sexual minorities, affirmation of same-sex unions, and his hopes for full inclusion of LGBT folks in the church. Tony is a deeply-loved and well-respected evangelical leader across the globe, and closer to home, he is a visionary and elder of the Red Letter Christian movement. But we are a diverse community, and for the sake of Tony and others in this movement who disagree with Tony, we want to be clear that Tony was speaking from his personal conviction, with much reliance on prayer, doing his best to listen to the Spirit of God. Others of us in this movement see things differently. But we are committed to disagree well. Perhaps one of our best witnesses to the rest of society is how we disagree with each other, having the humility to admit that we might be wrong. So you will see a series of other voices in the RLC movement in the coming weeks, responding to Tony or simply reflecting from their own hearts in regards to what love, and Jesus, are calling us to when it comes to our lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered friends.
 
The recent Supreme Court decision need not—and should not—settle the issue for the church. But we deeply need a better approach to our neighbors and our churches’ own members, especially those who live with a same-sex attraction or orientation. To find this will require acknowledging the tragedy of our recent history, careful attention to biblical teaching, the continuity of Christian teaching, and the opportunity for a new kind of ministry.
 
The Tragedy
 
We must start with the tragedy that evangelical Christians who long to be biblical are widely perceived as hostile to gays. And it is largely our own fault. Many of us have actually been homophobic. Most of us tolerated gay bashers. Many of us were largely silent when bigots in the society battered or even killed gay people. Very often, we did not deal sensitively and lovingly with young people in our churches struggling with their sexual orientation. Instead of taking the lead in ministering to people with AIDS, some of our leaders even opposed government funding for research to discover medicine to help them.
 
At times, we even had the gall to blame gay people for the tragic collapse of marriage in our society, ignoring the obvious fact that the main problem by far is that many of the 95% of the people who are heterosexual do not keep their marriage vows. In fact, self-described evangelicals get divorced at higher rates than Catholics and Mainline Protestants! We have frequently failed to distinguish gay orientation from gay sexual activity.
 
If the devil had designed a strategy to discredit the historic Christian position on sexuality, he could not have done much better than what the evangelical community has actually done in the last several decades.
 
Some believe that the track record of evangelicals is so bad that we should just remain silent on this issue. But that would mean abandoning our submission to what finally I believe is clear biblical teaching. It would mean forgetting the nearly unanimous teaching of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians over two millennia. And it would mean failing to listen to the vast majority of contemporary Christians (who now live in the global South).

Biblical Consistency
 
The primary biblical case against homosexual practice is not the few texts that explicitly mention it. Rather, it is the fact that again and again the Bible affirms the goodness and beauty of sexual intercourse—and everywhere, without exception, the norm is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman committed to each other for life.
 
In the creation account in Genesis, the “man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame” (Gen. 2:25). Their sexual attraction is good and beautiful. A whole book of the Bible—Song of Solomon—celebrates the sexual love of a man and woman. There are many, many Old Testament laws and proverbs that discuss the proper boundaries for sexual intercourse. In every case it must be between a man and a woman. Jesus celebrates marriage (John 2:1-11) and tightens the restrictions on divorce—again always in the context of a man and a woman. Paul affirms the goodness of sexual intercourse by urging a husband and wife to satisfy each other’s sexual desires (1 Corinthians 7:1-7).
 
This widespread biblical affirmation of the goodness of sexual intercourse when it occurs within the life-long commitment of a man and a woman provides the context for understanding the few biblical texts that explicitly mention same-sex intercourse (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). Notably, none of these texts address motives or specific types of homosexual acts. Instead, they pronounce a sweeping prohibition of same-sex intercourse—whether female with female or male with male.
 
The truth is that many revisionist as well as all traditionalist scholars agree with the conclusion Richard Hays drew in his careful study, in The Moral Vision of the New Testament, in 1996: Paul (and Jesus, and the rest of the New Testament) “presupposes and reaffirms the … [Levitical] condemnation of homosexual acts.” Even scholars who defend homosexual practice by Christians today (like Dan O. Via, John McNeill, and Walter Wink) agree that wherever the Bible refers to homosexual practice, it prohibits it as contrary to God’s will.
 
To be sure, evangelicals today do not take everything taught in the New Testament as normative for today. Not many of us require women to cover their heads in church, for example, as Paul urged for the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11). Some Christians today advance a number of arguments to claim that (at least in the case of a monogamous, life-long commitment) same-sex intercourse should be morally acceptable in our churches:

• A great deal of homosexual intercourse in Greco-Roman society was pederastic (a dominant older male with a passive younger male) and not infrequently involved slavery and rape;
• The ancient Greco-Roman world knew nothing about a permanent life-long orientation or a long term male-male sexual partnership;
• Many people in Paul’s time condemned homosexual intercourse because it required a male to play the role of a woman which in that time was considered a disgrace because males were superior to women;
• Some Greco-Roman and Jewish writers condemned homosexual intercourse because it could not lead to procreation.

Obviously a mutually supportive life-long caring same-sex relationship is very different from the often temporary and oppressive relationships described above. And we do not believe that sexual intercourse must be for the purpose of procreation to be legitimate.
 
But two things are important about these arguments. First, Paul never argues that homosexual practice is wrong because it is pederastic or oppressive or wrong for a male to play the role of a woman. He simply says, in agreement with the unanimous Jewish tradition, that it is wrong. And second, there are in fact examples in ancient literature of long-term (even life-long) heterosexual partnerships. A number of ancient figures, including Plato’s Aristophanes in the Symposium, also talk about a life-long same-sex orientation.
 
Some argue for abandoning the historic Christian teaching on same-sex intercourse by pointing out that Christians today no longer accept what the Bible says about slavery and the inferiority of women. But in the case of both, there is a trajectory within the canonical Scriptures that pointed toward a very different viewpoint. What Paul asked the slave-master Philemon to do when his runaway slave Onesimus (now a Christian) returned was so radical that its wide implementation would—and eventually did—end slavery. On women, Jesus defied the male prejudices of his day and treated women as equals. Women were apostles (Rom 16:7) and prophets (Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5) in the early church. When contemporary Christians totally reject slavery and affirm the full equality of women in church and society, they are extending a trajectory clearly begun in the biblical canon. In the case of same-sex intercourse, on the other hand, there is nothing in the biblical canon that even hints at such a change.
 
If the biblical teaching on sexual intercourse is decisive for the church today, then celibacy is the only option for those who are not in a heterosexual marriage. But many today argue that celibacy is impossible for most gays. Dan Via, a proponent of same-sex practice, argues that a homosexual orientation is the “unifying center of consciousness” for a gay person, and that God’s promise of “abundant life” must include “the specific actualization of whatever bodily-sexual orientation one has been given by creation.”
 
Such an argument would have astonished Jesus and Paul—both unmarried celibates who went out of their way to praise the celibate life. It is profoundly unbiblical to argue that one’s sexual orientation is the defining aspect of one’s identity (the “unifying center of consciousness” as Via insists). For Christians, our relationship to God and the new community of Christ’s church provide our fundamental identity, not our sexual orientation. That is not to claim that our identity as men and women with particular sexual orientations is irrelevant or unimportant for who we are. But that sexual orientation dare never be as important to us as our commitment to Christ and his call to live according to kingdom ethics.
 
Indeed, the historic position that sexual intercourse must be limited to married heterosexuals demands celibacy for vastly more people than just the relatively small number with a same-sex orientation. Widows and widowers, along with tens of millions of heterosexuals who long for marriage but cannot find a partner, are also called to celibacy.
 
In addition to the unanimous biblical teaching, church history’s nearly unanimous prohibition of same-sex practice and the same teaching on the part of the churches that represent the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world (Catholics, Orthodox and churches in the global South) today ought to give us great pause before we bless same-sex intercourse. So should the fact that those denominations in the US which are now embracing same-sex practice are the same ones that have lost almost half of their members in the last decades whereas in the same time period evangelical churches which still overwhelmingly teach that biblical faith prohibits same-sex practice have flourished, often growing and seldom declining.

A Better Approach

However, simply repeating biblical truth (no matter how strong our exegesis or how sound our theology), listening to two millennia of church history, and dialoguing carefully with other Christians everywhere are not enough. We need a substantially new approach.
 
For starters, we must do whatever it takes to nurture a generation of Christian men and women who keep their marriage vows and model healthy family life.
 
Second, we need to find ways to love and listen to gay people, especially gay Christians, in a way that most of us have not done.
 
In addition to living faithful marriages and engaging in loving conversation, I believe evangelicals must take the lead in a cluster of additional vigorous activities related to gay people.
 
We ought to take the lead in condemning and combating verbal or physical abuse of gay people.
 
We need much better teaching on how evangelical parents should respond if children say they are gay. Christian families should never reject a child, throw her out of their home, or refuse to see him if a child announces that he is gay. One can and should disapprove of unbiblical behavior without refusing to love and cherish a child who engages in it. Christian families should be the most loving places for children—even when they disagree with and act contrary to what parents believe. Please, God, may we never hear another story of evangelical parents rejecting children who “come out of the closet.”
 
We ought to develop model programs so that our congregations are known as the best place in the world for gay and questioning youth (and adults) to seek God’s will in a context that embraces, loves, and listens rather than shames, denounces, and excludes. Surely, we can ask the Holy Spirit to show us how to teach and nurture biblical sexual practice without ignoring, marginalizing, and driving away from Christ those who struggle with biblical norms.
 
Our evangelical churches should be widely known as places where people with a gay orientation can be open about their orientation and feel truly welcomed and embraced. Of course, Christians who engage in unbiblical sexual practices (whether heterosexual or gay Christians) should be discipled (and disciplined) by the church and not allowed to be leaders or members in good standing if they persist in their sin. (The same should be said for those who engage in unbiblical practices of any kind, including greed and racism.) However, Christians who openly acknowledge a gay orientation but commit themselves to celibacy should be eligible for any role in the church that their spiritual gifts suggest. Imagine the impact if evangelical churches were widely known to be the best place in the world to find love, support, and full affirmation of gifts if one is an openly, unabashedly gay, celibate Christian.
 
I have no illusions that this approach will be easy. To live this way will be highly countercultural—contrasting both with our society at large and our own past history. Above all, it will require patience. Restoring our compromised witness on the biblical vision for marriage will be a matter of generations, not a few years. But if evangelicals can choose this countercultural, biblical way for several generations, we may regain our credibility to speak to the larger society. I hope and pray that the Lord of the church and the world will weave love, truth, and fidelity out of the tangled strands of tragedy, tradition, and failure we have inherited—and that the next generation will be wise and faithful leaders in that task.

But the problem is not merely financial; it is also immoral, as we see in the two political proposals for the 2012 national budget.

The budget proposed by Paul Ryan, chair of the Republican budget committee, flunks the test of justice for all by providing tax cuts for the rich at the expense of effective poverty-reducing government programs. This federal neglect of “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40) defies biblical principles of justice.

The Obama budget flunks the test of intergenerational justice by rightly preserving programs for the poor, but failing to provide a path to a balanced budget.  We dare not indefinitely increase the national debt which future generations will be required to repay. To continue indefinitely borrowing vast sums for current expenditures is like grandpa using his grandchildren’s credit card for things he cannot afford—it is intergenerational injustice.

So, what should we do?

We can start by returning to biblical principles.

A right view of justice. Contrary to what many believe, biblical faith does not demand equality of income and wealth.  Wrong personal choices, creative genius and hard work all rightly lead to economic inequality.

But the biblical teaching on the land does provide a significant norm for economic justice.  Israel was an agricultural society so land was the basic capital that enabled people to create wealth. When the Israelites moved into Canaan, God told them to divide the land so that every family had enough to earn a decent living. Every 50 years (Leviticus 25), the land returned to the original owners no matter why they lost it. The prophets declared judgment on powerful people who took the land of the poor, and also predicted that the Messiah’s coming would enable each person to reclaim their own land (Micah 4:4).

The biblical teaching on the land provides an important principle for economic justice: God wants every person to have access to the essential capital so that if they act responsibly, they can earn a decent living and be dignified members of their society.

The role of government. Biblical theology and practical experience together show that combating poverty is a task that must be done by every level of society: family, churches, non-profits, businesses and government.

In fact, it is flatly unbiblical to say the government has no legitimate role in fighting poverty. The Bible repeatedly affirms that God wants the king to “maintain justice and righteousness” (Psalms 72:1).  These two Hebrew words refer to both fair courts and just economic outcomes.

Additionally, basic economic facts underline the importance of a governmental role in combating poverty. Tens of thousands of private programs provide important food assistance each month.  But altogether they only provide 6 % of the total monthly food assistance; government provides 94% each month.  There are five major federal government poverty-fighting programs. If the 325, 000 religious congregations nationwide decided to take over these five programs, each congregation would need to increase their annual budget by $1.5 million.

The role of the individual. We are neither isolated individuals as Ayn Rand suggests nor cogs in a collective machine as Marxists insist. Rather, we are free responsible individuals who can become what the Creator intended only in community. Scripture is clear in its call to love our neighbors as ourselves, and carry a special concern for the poor in recognition that God measures societies by what they do to the people at the bottom.

When committed Christians dedicate themselves to political advocacy, seemingly impossible things happen. Evangelical Member of Parliament William Wilberforce changed the course of history by working for thirty years to abolish the slave trade.  South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu succeeded in helping end apartheid.  Solidarity, the daring trade union in Poland, defied the Communist rulers and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Today, we can join their ranks. We can demand a just solution to our budget crisis by echoing the Evangelicals for Social Action in their “Call for Intergenerational Justice.”

“To the young, we say, it is your credit card that will receive the additional trillions of dollars of debt – unless we quickly end ongoing federal budget deficits.  To parents and grandparents, we say, we must give up some things so our children can flourish.  All of us now say, we join together to answer the call to intergenerational justice.”

—-
Ron Sider is president of Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) and Distinguished Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry & Public Policy at Palmer Theological Seminary.

This post is an excerpt from Ron’s new book, Fixing the Moral Deficit.