MY MEMORIES OF CHUCK COLSON
MY MEMORIES OF CHUCK COLSON
Charles “Chuck” Colson, the Christian apologist, commentator, thinker, and humanitarian, went home to heaven this past week. He was 80, the same age as my dad was at his death three years ago.
Over the last 20 years I had several meaningful encounters with Chuck. The first was in the media. I remember his pensive, maybe anxious, visage during the Watergate hearings; the frenetic bee line through the phalanx of reporters, cameras (the big clunky, film-type), and police officers as he was hustled inside stone buildings. I was only 15, but I knew this guy was in trouble–and was trouble. Back then I was a budding (mostly pretentious) leftist activist. (My first foray into street activism was an anti-Vietnam war demonstration in Southern Ontario, Canada, where I had vowed to escape to had the draft continued past my eighteenth birthday!) In any case, Colson, as a first-rate political hack for “Tricky Dick” Nixon, was to me, “the establishment enemy.”
Then, he and I experienced radical, life-, soul-, and mind-transforming spiritual conversions at about the same time. In entirely different places, under entirely different circumstances, at vastly different stages of life, and with no knowledge of the other’s Isaiah-in-the-temple epiphany, we each for the first time beheld a Holy God, confessed we were sinners, begged God’s forgiveness in Christ, and pledged our lives to the Savior’s service. I would testify to my being “born again” mostly to my friends, select family members, and to a tiny circle of long-haired, guitar-strumming, bell-bottom-jeaned counterculture kids meeting in a little country church at the edge of a cornfield. The greatest price I paid for my witness was disapproval by my liberal, non-religious Jewish parents and playful mockery by my psuedo-hippie friends. Chuck would share his dramatic metanoia in a block-buster best-selling book, Born Again, and face scorn, derision, denunciation, and, because of his own confession and need for penance, a frightening federal prison term after admitting guilt for the Watergate crimes.
Charles Colson mug shot at Watergate arrest. "Saul" turned into a "Paul" for our times.
These correlations in our two lives, orchestrated by the same Providential and salvific hand, would set us each on life trajectories that would inevitably bring us across one another’s paths.
The first time was on an airplane some 20 years ago while on an early preaching tour. As I boarded, I made my normal walk of shame through first class en route to a cheap seat in coach.I passed by Chuck who was seated in about the third row, behind a newspaper. When I spied him, I thought, maybe I can sneak up into the rare air at the front of the plane, and thank him for the influence he had already had in my Christian formation, and even in my philosophy of ministry. I had read “Born Again,” his autobiographical testimony of Christian faith. As a young, newly ordained minister, I had also spent many weekends in his “virtual company” by way of a documentary film that I clumsily dragged from church to church, mounting it’s giant real of 16 millimeter celluloid onto a behemoth of projector that barely fit in my car’s trunk. (This was 1976–before portable video tape, let alone digital media!) It was a promotional piece for the ministry I was then working with, Teen Challenge, and Chuck helped make our case that Christian conversion was the most powerful addiction-buster and life-changer. But Chuck was much more than a promoter; he was evidence God still changed Sauls into St. Pauls.
Eventually I settled for asking a flight attendant to deliver a humble note to Chuck scrawled on the back of my business card. A minute after the attendant took it away saying, “I’ll try,” Chuck was standing at the end of my row asking if he could take the empty seat next to me. We had a wonderful chat until our initial decent required him to return to his assigned first class seat. I would never forget his kindness in surrendering his comfort to engage in conversation with a stranger.
As the years went on, I had more encounters with Chuck. I would also get to know Doug Coe, the man who led Chuck to Christ at the height–or should I say nadir–of the Watergate debacle. Doug shared with me parts of the story that never made it into print. After my own stints in prison for pro-life work in the 1990s, I often thought of Chuck and what he did for the kinds of men I shared cells with by founding Prison Fellowship and working for penal reform.
In the late 1990s, I sat with Chuck in the US Senate gallery prayerfully observing the historic vote on a federal ban of partial birth abortion. If I remember right, it was the day a baby cried out in the chamber as Rick Santorum thunderously denounced the barbaric practice as “murder.” Chuck whispered to me, “Finally, the truth is told.”
A highlight for me was recently hosting Chuck at our Faith and Action ministry center on the Hill. My friend and Washington representative for Focus on the Family, Tim Geoglein (who shares office space in our building), arranged for the then intrepid 79-year old to crash in our guest room in between a ferocious itinerary of back-to-back meetings in the congressional buildings across the street. At a US Capitol event that evening, Chuck made his way over to me to thank me for the nap!
It was only in the last few months as I began my doctoral research on American evangelicals and our theology of church and state (or lack therefore), that I really discovered what a brilliant, insightful, and substantive lay theologian and apologist Chuck was for all of us. As one of my colleagues said, he truly was the Paul of our day. (I’ll add he was just as much an Augustine for our day.) While not a “trained” theologian, he none-the-less filled a serious lacuna in solid, biblical, intellectually rigorous, and morally courageous theology for the church’s encounter with the political powers.
I had planned in my dissertation to only allude to Chuck’s contribution in this field, but I’m taking another look at his rich legacy. There’s more there than I’ve ever appreciated, and I suspect that goes for a lot of my colleagues.
A very different man takes to the pulpit.
Too bad a person’s genius often goes under appreciated until they’re gone. I guess that’s true of nearly all the greats among us. Perhaps it proves just how great Chuck Colson was–and will remain.
God bless the life and legacy of Charles Colson.
Rob +
This Holy Weekend
Many of you know one my greatest contemporary heroes is martyred German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who stood up courageously and spoke prophetically to the Nazi powers and to Adolf Hitler. He would pay for his obedience to God with his life. At age 39, after leaving us countless sermons, more than 10,000 pages of theological writings, correspondence, and prayers–and, of course, an uncompromising model for confronting evil with the Truth of the Gospel–Dietrich was hanged at the Flossenburg concentration camp. Here is a Good Friday-Easter meditation taken from his sermon on Romans 11:6, delivered in Barcelona, Spain, on the Third Sunday in Lent, March 11, 1928:
Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer
“Good Friday and Easter–the days of God’s overpowering acts in history, acts in which God’s judgement and grace were revealed to all the world–are just around the corner. Judgement in those hours in which Jesus Christ, our Lord, hung on the cross; grace in that hour in which death was swallowed up in victory. It was not human beings who accomplished anything here; no, God alone did it. He came to human beings in infinite love. He judged what is human. And he granted peace beyond any merit.”
From my family to yours, may you have a blessed Good Friday and Holy Saturday–and a thoroughly joyous Resurrection Sunday!
Rob +
BEING IN THE SUPREME COURT
Sitting in the chamber of the United States Supreme Court is always a signal act of American citizenship. Today it was that and more.
As you know, I do a lot at the Supreme Court, and I’m there frequently for a variety of reasons, but yesterday and today were extraordinary in every way. First, the Court’s usual shield of obscurity was lifted by the media limelight. There were also crowds outside where normally just a few clusters of tourists can be seen and where passers-by hurry to lunch or to their offices. And inside, the pew-like benches were filled with top Washington figures, including members of Congress, representatives of the Obama Administration, and famous lawyers and activists from all sides.
These were unusual days for me for another reason. For the first time in years I couldn’t secure a reserved seat. The last time that happened was for the two Bush v. Gore cases over the 2000 presidential election. Like then, though, I found there’s always another way, and, thanks be to God, it worked. Not only did I get in, but I was able to take with me attorney Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, (son to my good friend Jay Sekulow , who was busy doing media all day) and a constitutional expert in his own right. Jordan helped me sort out the nuances of the arcane arguments.
Of course, my role at the Court is not as a lawyer; I am a minister. My observation of the justices and their interaction with the government and civilian lawyers before them was more “pastoral.” I like to prayerfully study their body language and facial expressions, the tone of their voices and what makes them furl their brows. Pastors do a lot of that and I have always found it very revealing. This time was no disappointment.
With Jordan’s helpful guidance, the prayers of our team outside, and the visuals in the courtroom, I came away with a strong sense that four members are resolutely opposed to the idea of the government mandating that every American purchase insurance products that they may not want, for some, because they find them to be morally repugnant. Once again, the fulcrum appears to be Justice Anthony Kennedy. He asked incisive questions of both sides, but definitely furled his brow on the question of fundamentally changing the relation of the citizen with government.
My deepest concern, of course, remains with what some are calling the “power grab” by government. Ordering citizens to purchase a certain form of insurance, even if that purchase is in conflict with their own conscience, religious, moral, and ethical beliefs, is an egregious violation of church and state. The church helps shape and form the conscience through its proclamation of the Gospel. The state simply guarantees the individual the right to act on that conscience with minimal intrusion. I believe the new law (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PAACA) not only fails in this paramount responsibility to protect individual liberty, but it actually militates against it. For that reason, it violates the First Amendment, and should be struck down. Because the particular question of compelling religious organizations wasn’t before the Court, if the law is struck down, it will likely be for another reason, but the effect will be the same.
I’m not able to be in the courtroom tomorrow for the third and final day of argument, but I will have two people inside with front row seats. I’ll debrief with them afterward and listen to the recording of the arguments. That will surely give me more to write here. In the mean time, watch for our daily videos at www.faithandaction.org.
Yours in continuous prayer,
Rob +
Why I’m Not Jumping on Houston Bandwagon
You may have seen the news that an ad hoc group of conservatives recently met in Houston (as they did some months ago) to pledge their support to Rick Santorum. Some have asked what I think of it–hinting it may change my mind about backing Mitt Romney. (BTW: I must pause right here to clarify I am speaking now for only myself, as an individual, and not for any of the organizations I serve.)
Now, back to the question: What do I think of the group in Houston, which included people I know, admire, and have worked with extensively over the years. In fact, I served on a national board with one of the prime movers in Houston–and even once sought his consultation on building the organization I founded. But I won’t be taking his advice this time–and I’ll explain why.
As I’ve said here before, I am a great personal admirer of Rick Santorum. I think he’s one of the most morally courageous individuals in our country–and especially among former politicians. I wouldn’t support Rick Santorum for president, though, for the same reason I never supported the idea of Billy Graham for president; because I’m sure neither is called to that office.
You may know I’m currently on a research and writing sabbatical. The subject I’m looking at intensively is church and state–and particularly how my hero, German pastor and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, saw that question. Bonhoeffer, being the good Lutheran theologian he was, saw the church and the state as two spheres of authority ordained by God, but quite different in nature. The job of the church is to speak the Word of the Gospel, the Truth, to the world. The job of the state is to ensure order and justice. The two must not be confused or conflated, as so many fine Bible teachers and theologians have warned.
My concern is the candidacy of Rick Santorum does just that. It conflates the roles of the preacher and the politician. The presidency is a bully pulpit of sorts–but not of the Gospel, per se. The presidency should not be primarily about preaching the Word of Truth. (If it were, the state would be assuming the role of the church, an egregious violation of “separation of church and state.” Or, to put it more palatably, it would be a violation of the biblical distinctive between “priest” and “king.”) Now, I’m not suggesting a president or his administration is allowed to be immoral or ungodly; quite the opposite. The presidency–the executive branch–as well as the other branches of government–legislative and judicial–are obligated to follow the religious, moral, and ethical truths declared through the agency of the church. The government ignores the message of Truth at its own peril.
The problem with the Houston group is they don’t quite get this real separation of church and state. They’re running a candidate who is being skewed toward the message of the church when he should be focused on the message of the state. Again, don’t get me wrong: That message of the state must be in concert with the message proclaimed by the church, but it must not be in place of it. (We are, after all, talking about the election of our chief executive, not our senior pastor.)
Confusing the message of the church–to be proclaimed by preachers and not politicians–is a problem for the church itself, which is tempted to look outside itself for spiritual and moral guidance. But it’s also a problem for the politician who engages in it, because it naturally disconnects him from the electorate that senses he isn’t “on message” and therefore out of touch with their needs. In other words, it’s a losing proposition.
I understand the zeal of my friends in Houston–they really believe Rick is their guy–and he may be. The question, though, is not what they want, but what the country needs. There have been too many times when I’ve been blinded by my own preferences and my own needs. Frankly, I think that’s what is going on with the Houston group. They’re talking too much among themselves and see only what they want and need, and not what the wider nation needs. Rick may be a layman, but that doesn’t mean he’s not called to be a preacher. He speaks the Word of Truth. What the nation needs, though, is a politician who can get a job done–as he obeys the Word of Truth. I remain convinced that person is Mitt Romney. So, I won’t be joining my friends on the Houston bandwagon. What I will do is my job as a preacher–to speak the Word of Truth to whoever gains the White House in this election.
Rob +
SUPER TUESDAY SUPRA ISSUES
“Supra,” of course, means “above”–and, on this eve of Super Tuesday, there are issues above and beyond the crass political calculations being made by pundits, party operatives, and even the campaigns themselves. The one “supra-concern” I’m thinking of is “calling.” I’ll explain:
I’ve long been an advocate of spiritual gift “matches.” What I mean is the need for all of us to be matched in our God-given gifts, talents, and skills with our calling, or what some term our “vocation.”
The reason a lot of people fail in their personal and professional lives is because they are mismatched with their vocations; their jobs don’t reflect the gifts God has given to them, or their natural abilities, and / or acquired skills.
In my “other role” as a board member of the Evangelical Church Alliance, I see this all the time with ministers. Pastors who fail to connect with their own churches often do so because they’re mismatched to their congregation’s needs. Maybe a minister has the gift of evangelist, or teacher, or administrator, and that isn’t what a particular church needs. I also see this on Capitol Hill where I serve as a missionary to elected and appointed officials. Often a politician will fail because he or she isn’t properly matched to the office he or she occupies.
I’m thinking about all of this in the discussions surrounding the prospective Republican presidential nominees–especially as tomorrow’s huge slate of states prepares to vote. When it comes to the office of President, a candidate must be properly matched to the position–with just the right spiritual gifts, natural abilities, and acquired skills.
This brings me to the many e-mails I’ve received about my personal choice of Mitt Romney. I based my decision on what I perceive to be his match of gifts, abilities, and skills with the office of Chief Executive.
This doesn’t mean I don’t respect and appreciate Rick Santorum; I do–very highly–but I don’t think his particular gifts, talents, and life experience match the presidency–at least for this time in our nation’s life–as much as Mitt’s do.
I’m convinced God placed Rick Santorum in the United States Senate just when he was needed. Back then, we were in the throes of a debate over one of the most heinous sins this nation has ever committed: partial-birth abortion. More than once I prayed with then Senator Santorum in his office as he wrestled with his call to confront this sin. I remember vividly sitting in the Senate chamber on the day Rick called partial-birth abortion what it is, “Murder!” Immediately after, a baby’s cry echoed through the hall. I had never heard a baby cry in the chamber before and I have never heard one since. It was as if it were a heavenly approbation. But Rick later lost his seat in the Senate–badly. I don’t believe God was surprised by that outcome. It was in His plan. Rick had done what he was called to do and God released him.
I do believe Rick has a genuine and important call from God to confront our nation and its culture with moral truth, but that isn’t necessarily what’s needed now in the presidency. The crises we are facing are lack of leadership and lack of economic wisdom. I’ve been with Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. I’ve prayed with both men. I’ve met their families. I’ve asked them hard questions. I’ve observed the way they operate. All of this has left me with the firm conclusion that Mitt’s gifts, abilities, and skills match the challenge of our times better than Rick’s.
You’ll draw your own conclusions of course, but as you evaluate your choice, ask, “What are the gifts, abilities, and skills needed for a chief executive in this time?” As a citizen and co-owner of this great enterprise called The United States of America, you need to make a decision on the next CEO for our country. What kind of resume will you look for?
That’s the challenge we all face. May God grant us wisdom to find just the right match!
Rob +
CONFRONTING THE PRESIDENT
One thing I’ve learned in Washington over the course of my 18 years as a missionary to government officials is this: “Confrontation” doesn’t need to be acrimonious. In fact, you can actually be very respectful, congenial, and even deferential in a confrontation. To confront simply means a face-to-face meeting, or a clash of ideas. This happens to all of us, all the time, and in every type of situation, but such “confrontations” don’t need to be hostile.
For Christians, confrontation should be marked by the overriding law of love: “God so loved the world,” and every person and kind of person in it; we are commanded by Christ to, “love one another” (John 15:12) and to, “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). When asked what is the greatest of all God’s commandments, Jesus declared they are two, “You shall love the Lord your God,” and, “You shall love your neighbor”. (Matthew 22:35-37)
All of this is to explain why, when drafting an emergency letter to President Obama regarding his recent edict on insurance coverage for employees of religious organizations, I prayed that my missive would be marked by Godly love for our chief executive. A draft of the letter is posted below. It will be hand-delivered to the White House this Wednesday–Ash Wednesday.
I’m sure some will think I was too “soft” and I’ve gone too easy on him, but so be it. This letter says it like it is, without the “ugly factor.” I’m convinced we can do this kind of prophetic work without being disrespectful, mean-spirited, or insulting. In other words, we can do both our jobs as Christians: Witness to God’s love–and truth–at the same time:
“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” Ephesians 4:11 – 16.
Draft of my letter to President Obama:
Dear President Obama,
Your recent announcements regarding the policies of your administration on compliance with certain mandates related to health insurance, and the implications of these policies for certain religious institutions, and the churches, clergy, and individuals related to them, have induced this communique.
I write to you today in my capacities as an ordained minister of 30 years, a missionary to elected and appointed officials here in Washington, DC, as chair of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance, and president of the National Clergy Council. Each of the constituencies I serve through these various roles have, by overwhelming majorities, expressed alarm over the nature of your decisions and the possible consequences of your actions. In this instance, our concerns relate particularly to the way in which your actions have broadly intruded on the sacred and constitutionally protected rights of Americans to religious freedom, and not necessarily to any particulars to the agency of that intrusion.
Mr. President, your recent dicta requiring religious employers to provide certain insurance products to their employees which violate the religious, moral, and ethical teachings and most deeply held convictions of the respective employers, their churches and institutions, is a flagrant abrogation of the First and preeminent right among those adopted by the Constitutional Convention as amendments to the Constitution, “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,” and, with a view toward the purpose of, “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, [that] will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Mr. President, it is with this sense of alarm that the constituents I serve, and that are represented among the Executive Committee of the National Clergy Council, reflecting church leaders of Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions, declare to the churches a State of Emergency and a Status Confessionis, a Time for Speaking, during which we must take extraordinary action to respectfully resist your decrees, state our deeply held and felt reasons for doing so, and call our coreligionists, and all people of conscience to stand with us in doing so. With one voice we object to your interference in the affairs of religious institutions; and, we state to you our unwavering position on the sanctity of our constitutionally protected right to espouse certain principles of conscience; and, we maintain and insist on our God-given, legal rights to act upon these principles of conscience within our respective institutions and in keeping with their attendant prerogatives; Furthermore, while we hope for a resolution to this crisis that includes the rescinding of your directives, we must hold to our convictions and positions, and to act according to our prerogatives no matter the legal, social, pecuniary, or political consequences.
Mr. President, I remind you of your attendance and words at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 2, 2012, where you expressed your thanks to the keynote speaker, Eric Metaxas, for his address to the attendees related, in part, to the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor and martyr, who is an exemplar of what it means to hold to and to exercise one’s religious, moral, and ethical convictions, even to the surrender of every other right, including the right to one’s life. Mr. Metaxas gave you a copy of his biography of Pastor Bonhoeffer, which you held up to the audience and to the cameras. I urge you to read the book with this missive in mind.
Mr. President, please be assured of our highest respect for the office you hold and exercise. Know also, that it is out of this respect that I humbly inform you of these matters, and convey to you their meaning and purpose, as an aid to you in understanding the words and actions of late by so many American citizens, institutions, and church leaders. Be assured, as well, of our constant prayers for you, in compliance with our pastoral concern for your soul and for your well-being, and out of our biblical obligation to do so.
My constituents look forward to your personal reply.
I am,
Very truly yours,
Rev. Rob Schenck
WHAT TO DO WHEN TWO FRIENDS BOTH RUN FOR PRESIDENT
I know both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. I’ve worked with both of them and respect each equally. They are both good men. They are superb husbands and fathers. They each have a deep religious faith. They are great communicators. They have both led on controversial issues tied to their deeply held convictions–and both have compromised on those convictions for political expediency–as has every other person in public service that I know.
There are differences between Rick and Mitt, though. Here are just a few:
Rick is the son of working class parents. Mitt is the son of an American car company executive and later Michigan governor. (Who, it bears mentioning, did make his own way up the hard way.)
Rick’s experience in government is as a legislator. Mitt’s experience in government is as a governor. The difference between these two roles is vast: The legislative branches of government are very different from the executive branches. They call for very different forms of leadership.
Rick served at the federal level; Mitt at the state level. Again, very different realms.
Rick has very limited private sector business experience; Mitt has extensive and enormously successful private sector experience.
Rick has always been rock solid on his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stands. Mitt has waffled in the past, but has come around solidly in the last 11 years I’ve known him.
Rick has a very small, mostly volunteer campaign operation; Mitt has one that rivals a Fortune 500 company.
To go back to similarities, though, both men will go up against an incumbant president who has raised–and will again raise–more campaign money than any candidate in history. He will also have the largest, most formidable campaign operation ever.
It’s impossible to understate the power of incumbency. Not only does a sitting president get the same level of campaign benefits, but vastly–I say, VASTLY–more. Let’s start with just one example, the President’s plane: Air Force One.
You may think of the big blue and white bird as simply a little luxury along the way. ABSOLUTELY NOT SO. Air Force One is a flying 5-star hotel–complete with a staff of cooks, valets, personal assistants, and a full-scale executive bedroom suite. By the time the President gets to his next campaign stop, he will have stretched out on his full-size sofa with a latte, maybe napped on his full size bed, watched a game on his flat-screen, perhaps had a hot shower, and maybe even a steak dinner made to order. Mr. Obama’s challenger will fly in a regular airline seat, use a bathroom you can hardly turn around in, and eat, at best, typical airline food–but probably a box lunch. In other words, the President arrives feeling great; his challenger, exhausted.
But these are the smallest discrepancies. The big ones come in an incumbent president’s fundraising and recruitment advantages. It’s one thing to bet on somebody who’s never won the presidency, much less served. Donors are simply more willing to give to an already-winner than a non-winner. Many–MANY-fat-cat donors also like proximity to existing power–not imaginative power, so getting them to ante up is a lot easier for somebody already in the seat of power.
All this to say there’s another big difference between Rick and Mitt: Rick’s operation is small–very, very small, where Mitt’s is big–very, very big. When you’re up against a sitting presidential juggernaut, that may be the very decisive difference between the two men.
That’s what I’m thinking and praying about as my two friends run for president.
Rob +
OBAMA ORDER IS STATE OF EMERGENCY
President Orders Church to Obey
The order by the Obama Administration to Catholic organizations requiring them to violate church teaching constitutes a state of emergency for all Christians.
No doubt some who are reading this know that such seemingly hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic for me. It is. I have assiduously avoided what I think is Chicken Little language. In most cases, hyperbole only diminishes the point being made.
Not this time.
I’m not Catholic, (it’s my twin brother who’s the priest), but I do know when the government has overstepped its boundaries–and that threatens all religious believers. The American Founders were crystal clear on this point when they drafted the careful wording of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” there is nothing ambiguous about this. Under our Constitution, Congress makes laws; the President enforces them. There is no way any law passed by Congress could be construed as imposing a violation of conscience on a religious body because Congress is prohibited from doing so.
As soon as the President’s advisors came to him and said he could order religious bodies to change what they believe or act against what they believe, he should have said to them, “That’s impossible. The Constitution won’t allow it.” The fact that he didn’t is reason to be greatly alarmed.
In my current work on the life and thought of the great German Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the phrases I’ve been struck with is, “status confessions,” a Latin phrase meaning “a state of speaking.” In other words, a time to be heard and not to be silent.
This is such a moment. It is not about a debate over contraception or birth control, it’s about church and state; the realm of God and conscience and the realm of the secular authority.
America was founded in part because the consciences of believers were being encroached upon by the secular powers in Britain and in Europe. The very first amendment to the Constitution was made because of tectonic pressures applied by the heirs of that painful struggle to secure the first of all freedoms.
Perhaps President Obama and the members of his administration are ignorant of that period in American history. If so, they need to go back to the books.
My hero Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood up and spoke out in his time, eventually paying for it with his life. Thankfully, for Americans, the consequences of speaking out now are not so dire. If we remain silent too long, though, it will grow more difficult and more dangerous.
This is a “status confessions,” a time for speaking. The voice of the church must be heard.
Speak now, or be forced to forever hold your peace.
Rob +
Opening to the 18th Annual National Memorial to the Pre-Born, Jan 23, 2012 US Capitol
Welcome to this, the 18th annual remembrance of the Pre-born and their Mothers and Fathers. Fr. Frank Pavone–how wonderful to have you here to preside.
As most of you know, I’m Rev. Rob Schenck, and I’m an ordained Evangelical minister, while my identical twin brother, Fr. Paul Schenck, is a Roman Catholic priest. (That leads to many interesting conversations.) But it falls to me, the “older brother” (by ten minutes) to admit to my younger twin, that he has a lot to teach me–and–that Catholics have much to teach Evangelicals about the two-fold call to evangelization.
You see, Evangelicals are big on the saving of souls. In fact, Evangelical churches are sometimes called, “soul saving stations.” Now, the saving of souls is an indispensable part of the Gospel, but it has a parallel mission: The saving of souls is paired with the saving of culture.
Now, my brother and I have been debating since we were “womb mates” — but Fr. Paul, I’ll give you this one: The Roman Catholic Church has been saving cultures (if you will) or a long–long time. (And, Archpriest Alexander Webster, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say the Orthodox have been doing it just as long–or, you may argue, even longer; but I won’t open that conversation here!)
Any way, we Evangelicals tend to think in 10-year increments; Catholics and Orthodox think in slightly longer expanses—like 1000-year increments.
So, it’s been 18 years since we started this event. In my short-term Evangelical mind, that’s 17 years too many–because in 1995, we had hoped that the conscience of this country wouldn’t allow the killing of the unborn to continue another year.
But, another year did come and go, and another, and another, and here we are 17 years later.
Now many people–among them many of my Evangelical colleagues–have been tempted to give up on the fight for the sanctity of life, because, as one said to me recently, “We don’t seem to be getting anywhere.”
And, of course, yesterday marked the 39th year since seven judges, in Roe v. Wade, created a vacuum of law, leaving the most defenseless members of human society vulnerable to cruelty and death.
I don’t know how some might see it, but I see the absence of law; and the resultant callousness of abandonment; and the burning, poisoning, dismembering, eviscerating, and smothering of tiny human beings–as consummately uncivilized–in fact, barbaric–behavior!
So, the justices unleashed barbarism in our culture when they voted 7-2 to strike down laws protecting vulnerable pre-born children.
But you know something–Rome, as they say–wasn’t built in a day. (Neither was Constantinople . . .) It takes a long time–very long periods of time–to build and rebuild civilizations.
So, Fr. Frank and Fr. Alexander, and my fellow Evangelicals, we have our work cut out for us. We must still save souls by announcing the Gospel whenever and wherever we can–but we must also reform civilization. We must civilize the United States of America by ending the tyranny and tragedy of abortion in our time–while modeling and teaching compassion and care for the most vulnerable in our society–
And, that, folks, ought to keep us all busy for at least another 18 years.
Now let us light the perennial Life Candle.
How I Picked Romney
Ok, I lit a firestorm by my endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. I put out a statement on why I made this choice, but here I’ll tell you how I made it:
First, long ago I abandoned my search for perfect candidates. They simply don’t exist. If you dig deep enough, you will find every candidate has compromised his or her principles, engaged in hypocritical behavior, and has pursued self-serving actions. Why? Because it reflects who they really are–human beings. Let’s face it, we have all done these things in our lives. “There is none righteous, no not one.” (Romans 3:10), “[T]here is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10:18), and, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:10)
So, knowing I would never find the perfect candidate, I considered other criteria:
1) On the question of a candidate’s faith: Again, long ago I concluded that a candidate’s claim to faith in Jesus Christ is not the sole determiner of whether that person will govern well. Jimmy Carter is only one example among many. Carter was a born-again, Bible-believing, Southern Baptist. That’s the only reason I voted for him. My colleague Rev. Pat Mahoney pointed out in a recent conversation that Carter spoke of his conversion and commitment to Christ before it was politically in vogue. There wasn’t even a constituency to exploit by doing so; he had nothing to gain by it. It goes without saying Carter not only governed poorly, he took stands that were inimical to Christian principles. Lesson: Presidential leadership requires far more than the right religious profession.
2) The road to the presidency is an enormously complex one. It requires coalitions. Committed Christians alone cannot elect a president. We may feel like a majority because we exercise more political muscle now than ever in American history–but that doesn’t mean we’re an electoral majority. We are, in fact, and in every way, a minority. Minorities don’t get presidents elected. A successful candidate must and will reach out to constituencies that may hold to positions opposite of his own. Reagan did it; both Bushes did it; and every successful president will need to it.
3) I used several measurements to evaluate the candidates:
– Was he or she a “good person”? Did they exhibit a basic, fundamental ethical code that guides first their private life, then their public life? (Again, searching for perfect records is futile. They simply aren’t there.)
– Was he or she open to advice, counsel, direction that may have been opposite of their own opinion? In other words, was he or she “teachable?”
– Did he or she hold to principles more in alignment with classical Christian moral teaching or less in alignment with it?
– Did he or she have a wide enough appeal to bring in a majority of the electorate, as well as enlist the required endorsements of a wide swath of different groups, influential public figures, state and local politicians, etc., etc.? You can’t win without these endorsements and supports.
– Does he or she understand and generally act in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
– Does he or she have a quality family life? (Family is the first mediator in society. It is, in fact, the first form of government. If you get it wrong on family, you just can’t get it right in the larger government.)
– To be a successful candidate this time around will require raising upwards of $1 billion. Does this candidate have the demonstrated capacity to do that?
– Does this person have demonstrated executive-level private and public leadership experience? The private (real world) sector does’t behave according to the rules of government. A winning candidate must completely comprehend both worlds.
– And, finally, let’s get real: A candidate must be photogenic and likable. American voters will not elect unattractive and cranky people. There is a huge personality factor to be considered.
Having prayerfully taken all these things into consideration–not just a few–and having met all the candidates personally (those currently in the race, as well as those that have dropped out), I came to the conclusion Mitt Romney best meets the majority of these criteria. You may disagree, and I fully respect that. It’s the way our system works and it’s what makes it so wonderful. It would be the height of arrogance for me to believe I will in any way be a decisive factor in this election, but I hope to do my humble, little part by sharing my opinions with you.
May the best candidate win–for the sake of the American people and those we influence around the world.
Rob +