Some have said that in the Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum meant the cowardly lion to represent the church.

Surely there's a balance between Evangelicals trying to advance a theocracy and mainline denominations failing their responsibility as a prophetic voice.

During the Reagan Bush and W. Bush years, conservative friends tried to tell me that Romans 13:1-7 meant I shouldn't criticize the administration. Of course, those same people feel that Clinton wasn't fit to govern and that Obama is not a Christian.

I've always thought that in a representative democracy like the US, Romans 13:1-7 works a little differently because every voter (as the Greek roots for our word "citizen" suggests) IS the government. This is only a "Christian" nation if we participate, but participating is not the same as monopolizing or dominating.

Or, perhaps as Pogo Possum put it in the 1950's we have met the enemy and he is us.

"[WT]'Because the State licensing certain unions and refusing to license other unions on the basis of race or gender is not only wrong -- it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal legal protection to all. '

"[LJR]You can apply the same argument to polygamy.

"You can argue polygamy and monogamy are materially the same things and hence demand equal protection.

"We can argue heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are materially the same things and hence demand equal protection.

"One can argue male and female are the same things and hence demand equal protection.

"We can argue persons with different skin pigmentations are the same things and demand equal protection.

"We can argue left and right handed persons.........."

Exactly. According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all of the above are guaranteed equal protection under the law.

"But societies can also distinguish and say there are different categories that can be treated differently. Society and law can also address one category and leave the others unaddressed (e.g. granting a special benefit towards a veteran who sustained a wound and was in the hospital for 23.5 days and is over 5'11".....or whatever)."

Society (which is made up of individuals) can address or treat different categories in whichever way they choose. However, in the U.S. we have a Constitution which has a 14th Amendment. Perhaps you would like to repeal the 14th Amendment and legally allow people to be treated differently based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and other differences of physical characteristics? Because that's what you would have to do.

"Personally I think the main reason the winds have shifted in how homosexual unions are treated by the courts and law is not due to shifting attitudes towards those unions (although that is significant); but rather due to an erosion of boundaries and valuing of marriage in general. I think much of the fear generated by consideration of gay marriage is generated by this sense of already being "out-of-control" in our collective understanding of sexuality, maleness, femaleness, family patterns, procreation, child rearing, roles, aging, etc. etc. We feel overwhelmed by the changes--even if many of the changes have been wonderful. The change still stresses folks out."

Believe me, marriage has been devalued well before anyone even considered Gay marriage. There are all of the people doing quickie weddings and quickie divorces for spurious reasons i.e. "I'm not in love with him/her any longer" or "I want someone younger and more beautiful/handsome" or "our sex life is boring."

Ironically, it's many same-gender couples who long for traditional tenets of marriage i.e. old-fashioned concepts such as "turning away from all others and cleaving only to one's marriage partner until death do we part." For some mysterious reason, some people see a threat in this sort of bond and wish to legislate against it.

"I am not willing to conflate all these issues. This is part of what I was referring to when I expressed that if we (i.e. churches--society) dealt in a healthy manner with these other issues--then we could de-escalate a whole bunch of the smoke and fire around homosexual unions--and at least have a conversation of love and understanding.

"I hear your argument that all monogamous relationships be treated as the same thing by the courts. That is a fluid state of affairs. I see no reason the culture will not continue to move in that direction and the courts will follow. I don't believe that kind of jurisprudence is wise."

I was following your argument, mostly agreeing. Until I got here. I'm confused -- do you truly wish to repeal the 14th Amendment and treat monogamous couples differently under the law according to physical characteristics? Because that's what you would have to do in order to make these legal differences.

Remember, I'm talking legalities here. Of course religious (and other private) institutions will continue treating different sorts of people differently according to their beliefs -- a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"But I think the society basically has seriously diminished the meaning and practices around marriage--and that greatly lessens the barriers to defining all monogamous relationships as the same thing (although I honestly don't think there can be serious opposition to polygamous relationships once the former change is made; but the changes will not be at the same time)."

I don't think that it's allowing various marriages in spite of race, gender, etc. that is causing the devaluing of marriage. It's the general culture. Perhaps the fear is that if Gay marriage is legally recognized, some heterosexuals might be afraid that their own weaknesses in their practices in their own marriages might be exposed. The answers lie not in banning certain types of faithful marriages. The answers lie in education and ministry to promote healthy and long-lasting relationships.

"In my heart the job of the church is to be a loving community for all seeking Jesus; and needs to rework out meaningful, more predictable and stable patterns of family formation, child rearing, etc and bring a balance back of nuclear family/extended family/community (vs putting all obligation on nuclear family); and fully acknowledge that not all members of the adult community are going to fit into a 'traditional heterosexual marriage' pattern of adult life; and that the majority of 13-90 yr-olds who are not in a heterosexual union at any given time do not cease to be sexual beings."

I agree.

"I hold to very traditional boundaries of where sexual intercourse ought occur and what it means; but I think that conception is virtually meaningless outside of a health community finding intimate, loving realtionship with others, with God and with one's self in many different ways."

I don't think that we're all that different in our beliefs, other than perhaps some differences of emphases in some physical aspects of sexual intimacy. Unfortunately, these beliefs about physical aspects of gender and sexual intimacy have driven a huge wedge within the Christian community.

"Because the State licensing certain unions and refusing to license other unions on the basis of race or gender is not only wrong -- it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal legal protection to all. "

You can apply the same argument to polygamy.

You can argue polygamy and monogamy are materially the same things and hence demand equal protection.

We can argue heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are materially the same things and hence demand equal protection.

One can argue male and female are the same things and hence demand equal protection.

We can argue persons with different skin pigmentations are the same things and demand equal protection.

We can argue left and right handed persons..........

But societies can also distinguish and say there are different categories that can be treated differently. Society and law can also address one category and leave the others unaddressed (e.g. granting a special benefit towards a veteran who sustained a wound and was in the hospital for 23.5 days and is over 5'11".....or whatever).

Personally I think the main reason the winds have shifted in how homosexual unions are treated by the courts and law is not due to shifting attitudes towards those unions (although that is significant); but rather due to an erosion of boundaries and valuing of marriage in general. I think much of the fear generated by consideration of gay marriage is generated by this sense of already being "out-of-control" in our collective understanding of sexuality, maleness, femaleness, family patterns, procreation, child rearing, roles, aging, etc. etc. We feel overwhelmed by the changes--even if many of the changes have been wonderful. The change still stresses folks out.

I am not willing to conflate all these issues. This is part of what I was referring to when I expressed that if we (i.e. churches--society) dealt in a healthy manner with these other issues--then we could de-escalate a whole bunch of the smoke and fire around homosexual unions--and at least have a conversation of love and understanding.

I hear your argument that all monogamous relationships be treated as the same thing by the courts. That is a fluid state of affairs. I see no reason the culture will not continue to move in that direction and the courts will follow. I don't believe that kind of jurisprudence is wise. But I think the society basically has seriously diminished the meaning and practices around marriage--and that greatly lessens the barriers to defining all monogamous relationships as the same thing (although I honestly don't think there can be serious opposition to polygamous relationships once the former change is made; but the changes will not be at the same time).

In my heart the job of the church is to be a loving community for all seeking Jesus; and needs to rework out meaningful, more predictable and stable patterns of family formation, child rearing, etc and bring a balance back of nuclear family/extended family/community (vs putting all obligation on nuclear family); and fully acknowledge that not all members of the adult community are going to fit into a 'traditional heterosexual marriage' pattern of adult life; and that the majority of 13-90 yr-olds who are not in a heterosexual union at any given time do not cease to be sexual beings.

I hold to very traditional boundaries of where sexual intercourse ought occur and what it means; but I think that conception is virtually meaningless outside of a health community finding intimate, loving realtionship with others, with God and with one's self in many different ways

"You state you are only arguing a community not demand or push partners to end relationships; but then you state that if the government discriminates on the basis of physical characteristics as to who can marry, it is wrong, and constitutes unequal treatment."

There are differences between private communities who associate voluntarily -- and the Government, the State. If people in a community were to tell two people in a faithful relationship that they should split up, that they are headed for Hell, that is their privilege and their right under the First Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that doing so is wrong and is an abandonment of God's love. However, it's not illegal under the State.

"If we only license monogamous marriages, acknowledging polygamous families could still be treated in a just and loving manner, why could we not license heterosexual unions and carry a mutual commitment to the just and loving treatment of all persons."

Because the State licensing certain unions and refusing to license other unions on the basis of race or gender is not only wrong -- it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal legal protection to all.

I find the point about being critical of one's own and supportive of others very interesting... If that applies to political parties, I don't think we have a term for it. Even a moderate would have to be critical of moderates and supportive of conservatives *and* liberals - wow, that sounds hard. Applying it to nations, that's part of the progressive platform. (Note that the prophets did occasionally call for war, though. So I could never see any justification for a pure anti-war stance.)

So are there any stories of good guys who just ignored government but followed orders? (Sounds like a boring story, but you never know.) Maybe Uriah the Hittite, but we have no proof he never did anything in government - that would require sort of an odd statement in Scripture.

So I think it's settled: Christians must be involved in government. Not necessarily the whole church, of course, but we need a voice. When Israel fell from a theocracy to a monarchy, God still called out to them as a nation. We still believe God ordains the nations to some degree, so surely He still wants to talk with America?

And when do we know we're over-involved in politics? How much influence is too much? I think this must be decided based on public opinion. Do they think we have the right to talk about divorce when we show we don't have a clue? If they criticize us for something that's against our beliefs, we had better either know they're wrong or shut up - at least about that.

Thank you for the generosity of your responses. I tried to be clear in my line about this being an abstraction--that I recognize this issue is very real and very consequential. I was just trying to communicate that in dealing with the "ideas" or "law" in a rational argument it tends to feel very detached and that my words can sound as if I have no compassion or identification with the very severe wounds that have been incurred by many persons very unjustly.

I am very honored by your capacity to both have received and identified with the pain and atrocity persons have experienced and then dialogue so generously with persons like myself with views whom you could (and maybe do) associate with those who have hurt others so severely. This is a gift of love and peacemaking.

You state you are only arguing a community not demand or push partners to end relationships; but then you state that if the government discriminates on the basis of physical characteristics as to who can marry, it is wrong, and constitutes unequal treatment.

I don't agree with the position--but certainly believe it is a legitimate argument to make.

So it seems to me you are after something more than solely a community not demanding the breaking of loving relationships. If we only license monogamous marriages, acknowledging polygamous families could still be treated in a just and loving manner, why could we not license heterosexual unions and carry a mutual commitment to the just and loving treatment of all persons.

Very honestly (as I likely expressed many months ago) I believe the church at large has not had a commmitment to the just and loving treatment of all, and if the only way to get us 'down the road' is for the church to "be run over" and have a legal demand that society shift its beliefs and norms about sexuality/procreation/marriage/family then let it be.

But I think there a better way and time for the church to live out a way of love. I will journey with anyone committed to each other in love on the search for truth versus walking with those who neither exhibit love nor a submssion to the truth apprehended so far.

LetJusticeRoll wrote earlier:

"[WaveTossed]'I will say it again: condemning those who love each other -- and ONLY each other -- in relationships of faithfulness and monogamy; pushing or demanding for them to desert their partners, end these relationships: This sort of condemnation is wrong, cruel, and unloving; it IS an abandonment of love.'

"[LJR]I know in reality this is very real. In writing it is an abstraction--i.e. the comment is detached from any real situation."

This is not an abstraction. It's very real. I know people who have been together in faithful relationships for decades. Some of them have chosen to get married where their marriages are allowed. However, there are people who would condemn them as "sinners" and "bound to Hell". I know of a loving, monogamous couple in California who was murdered by two brothers who believed that they should be sentenced to death because of their love for each other. They were murdered in bed. The murderers were given a relatively light sentence. Another couple was attacked with gunfire on the Appalachian Trail. One member of this couple died, the other survived. the murderer's defense was "homosexual panic." The judge didn't buy this and he was convicted and sentenced to life. These are extreme reactions, but they reflect the beliefs of too many in our society. These sorts of beliefs are protected (as they should be, though murder is not) by the First Amendment, but they are an abandonment of love. All of this certainly is not an "abstraction."

"[LJR] Persons detach from significant relationships of love each day for any myriad of reasons. Most churches face this everyday as partners who are entering a spiritual journey and joining those churches are often not married. Different churches take very different approaches. I don't know any that just dismiss the relationships and love as meaningless."

That depends upon the church. But you must admit that it also depends upon the genders of the couples involved. Many churches would seek to break up a life-long faithful relationship if the people are of the "wrong" genders. They wouldn't do this if the couples are of the "correct" genders. For some churches, physical gender characteristics are highly important. For that matter, there are still a few churches where physical racial characteristics are important. For other churches and denominations (including my own), the quality of love is far more important than the genders or races involved.

"Often there are children in the relationships."

Exactly. So when people in a church (or not in a church) attempt to break up a life-long, monogamous relationship that includes children, the children are harmed -- more abandonment of God's love.

"African churches often also face the reality of polygamy. Is it right or just to tell the man he ought divorce 2 of 3 wives and send them off?"

I don't believe so. But neither is it right or just to tell a man or woman to divorce or desert his/her partner because the partner is of the "wrong" gender. This is true especially when children are involved.

"Concluding that monogamous relationships are normative and right--does not answer any questions about how a church ought deal with a polygamous family. The existence of a loving family unit with one man and two (or more) women and children by both women does nothing to argue against a morality that affirms monogamy. It is possible to hold to a view that upholds monogamy (as you do) and then deal as a loving community as to to the place of a polygamous family."

No argument here.

"If you are only saying that a community ought not push or demand loving, monogamous, faithful partners to end relationships--I agree. But is that all you are arguing for?"

Yes.

"Because that can fully be accomplished while holding to heterosexual marital unions as being the normative form for human mating and family formation; and even backing state licensing of such marriages."

Monogamous heterosexual marriages are the norm; most people are heterosexual and are married. However, that doesn't make other types of relationships wrong.

As for the state recognizing only certain types of marriages based upon either race or gender, that is wrong and unjust. What is happening here is that people are not being treated as equals. The U.S. Constitution (which I agre with) has a 14th Amendment, which legislates "equal protection under the law." The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the Virginia law banning interracial marriages on the 14th Amendment. Using physical gender as a defining characteristic to determine who will or who won't be licensed -- this is as wrong, unjust, and as unconstitutional as using physical race as a defining characteristic.

Personal religious beliefs are one thing -- they are protected by the First Amendment. Imposing certain religious beliefs upon others -- no matter how "normative" -- is barred by the First and 14th Amendments.

I'm going to reply at the end. We're being squeezed by the software.

"I will say it again: condemning those who love each other -- and ONLY each other -- in relationships of faithfulness and monogamy; pushing or demanding for them to desert their partners, end these relationships: This sort of condemnation is wrong, cruel, and unloving; it IS an abandonment of love."

I know in reality this is very real. In writing it is an abstraction--i.e. the comment is detached from any real situation.

Persons detach from significant relationships of love each day for any myriad of reasons. Most churches face this everyday as partners who are entering a spiritual journey and joining those churches are often not married. Different churches take very different approaches. I don't know any that just dismiss the relationships and love as meaningless. Often there are children in the relationships. African churches often also face the reality of polygamy. Is it right or just to tell the man he ought divorce 2 of 3 wives and send them off?

Concluding that monogamous relationships are normative and right--does not answer any questions about how a church ought deal with a polygamous family. The existence of a loving family unit with one man and two (or more) women and children by both women does nothing to argue against a morality that affirms monogamy. It is possible to hold to a view that upholds monogamy (as you do) and then deal as a loving community as to to the place of a polygamous family.

If you are only saying that a community ought not push or demand loving, monogamous, faithful partners to end relationships--I agree. But is that all you are arguing for? Because that can fully be accomplished while holding to heterosexual marital unions as being the normative form for human mating and family formation; and even backing state licensing of such marriages.

"Something I don't understand from varied comments I have read from you is that it seems to me you have very clear distinctions in your mind about what kinds of unions (who, when, why, how, what) you believe ought be affirmed--or not.

"OK. That makes complete sense to me. Because every human culture does that. But then if someone draws the lines differently than you it is oppressive, cruel and unloving."

Further on: "A society's decision to not sanction any particular form of marriage is not necessarily a demand for the abandonment of love."

I'm not talking about people recognizing or not recognizing within the institution of "marriage" as such. I didn't say that not recognizing someone else's legal definition of marriage (for whatever reason) is necessarily an abandonment of love.

What I was talking about are relationships: Attempts to break up relationships based solely upon faithfulness and monogamy.

Your friend's contemplation of leaving his wife for another woman was not an example of love as such; had he left his wife, it would have been an example of adultery. Adultery is condemned both in the Ten Commandments and in the Gospels. Adultery is betrayal of trust and it is an abandonment of love.

However, there are those people who would condemn those who love each other -- and ONLY each other -- in relationships of faithfulness and monogamy; they would push or demand for them to end these relationships: This sort of condemnation IS an abandonment of love.

You wrote further: " As a society and church we have left our moorings and are confused on about 21,000 of the remaining issues. Maybe if we were intent on walking our all 25000 issues in a way that manifested the love of God then our disagreement on the one issue would likely become a very tiny matter."

And if the "tiny" point of disagreement would be approval of the practice of slavery or segregation or the conquering or subjugation of people based upon race, nationality, gender or sexual orientation. This is (as you said) oppressive, cruel and unloving. One cannot walk the path of God's love while practicing oppresion against others.

Remember I'm not talking about legal issues of who is considered "married" or not. I'm talking about inteference with peoples' lives in their faithful, lifelong relationships.

From "Once to Every Man and Nation" by Thomas J. Lowell:

"Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,

"And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light."

There are some issues where it's not a matter of being "silly" or "leaving one's moorings." There is no room for moral relativism here, where one can simply set aside a "disagreement on a tiny matter." It's a matter of the darkness and the light, the wrong or right.

I will say it again: condemning those who love each other -- and ONLY each other -- in relationships of faithfulness and monogamy; pushing or demanding for them to desert their partners, end these relationships: This sort of condemnation is wrong, cruel, and unloving; it IS an abandonment of love.

Something I don't understand from varied comments I have read from you is that it seems to me you have very clear distinctions in your mind about what kinds of unions (who, when, why, how, what) you believe ought be affirmed--or not.

OK. That makes complete sense to me. Because every human culture does that. But then if someone draws the lines differently than you it is oppressive, cruel and unloving.

Probably about 89% of teenagers believe social constraints on mating are cruel.

I am not just speaking about who marries whom. The patterns, beliefs, norms in societies around mating, family formation, rituals, economics, procreation, etc. etc. are complex and woven through the entire fabric of any culture. Every culture has a way of looking at singles; at elderly widowers; at married persons with children; at persons with same-sex orientations; etc. The questions extend far beyond issues of who the state licenses to marry.

A society's decision to not sanction any particular form of marriage is not necessarily a demand for the abandonment of love.

My very good friend, a pastor with the sweetest and smartest wife in the world and two wonderful children, thought he had found the woman of his dreams. She sang in the church choir--and had a bit of a habit going after ministers in the church. He was just deeply attached to this woman. I asked if he was willing to give up his wife, children, calling, and preaching for her. He had a very hard time deciding. I guess he felt it was all love and he should have it all.

And it was all love. The decision to sanction monogamy is not necessarily about tearing lovers apart. It is about affirming a particular form of mating, marriage and family.

There are many forms of marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with mutual love. A very good friend married a woman from half-way around the world he had never met. The woman he was engaged to backed out and her family was culturally obligated to find a replacement wife. And he married. I couldn't believe it.

Absolute freedom is anarchy. It is unbounded relationships--which means no relationships period. Humans relating inherently creates boundaries. As soon as you and I size each other up and decide it wrong to strike each other dead we have started putting severe constraints on what is possible.

Human culture can rise above and develop meaningful patterns of relations with each other and God. I am not writing this because I think you are saying something different in general.

But then when we get to gay marriage one person will say "Absolutely not because to do so means this, that and the other thing." And you say "Absolutely yes, because to reject it means that, this and the other thing."

And to both--I say, "Maybe yes and maybe no."

Who marries, when they marry, how they marry, who sanctions and legitimizes marriage, etc. is one set of issues within a broad complex of issues. Let me put it this way. There are 25,000 questions and you and I disagree on one point. To ignore 24,999 issues and conclude that either one of us is obviously right or wrong about the one point seems a bit silly to me. As a society and church we have left our moorings and are confused on about 21,000 of the remaining issues. Maybe if we were intent on walking our all 25000 issues in a way that mmanifested the love of God then our disagreement on the one issue would likely become a very tiny matter.

Perhaps you might wish to read some libertarian literature. Libertarians usually are very consistent. We don't want government forcing either foreign or domestic policies upon non-consenting tax payers.

"I do think the society and state ought license, sanction and restrict marriage. It ought fundamentally be a religious exercise--but it is too much at the core of every human civilization (regardless of the practices affirmed or sanctioned) to leave it completely in the realm of social norms and have no formal legal expression."

The situation in Lousiana is a perfect example of what can happen when government agents interfere with marriage.

Most libertarians (other than pure anarchists) recognize formal legal expressions. The formal legal expressions that contracts can only be signed by consenting adults of sound mind. No one who is under 18 can legaly sign a contract. I think that people can hold up social norms about consensual marriage/unions without the State dictating it to them.

Perhaps the answer might be would be government licensing of "civil unions," contingeant on the requirements as listed above regarding adult status and consent. As for "marriage" as such, this is a religious issue and government has no place in endorsing particular religious definitions over other religious definitions. No religious person (including that Lousiana Justice of the Peace) would ever be required to perform or recognize any marriage that goes against their particular religious beliefs. And likewise, no religious person would be barred from recognizing any marriage according to their religious beliefs.

"If we can't speak love--it's hard getting to any other points. If we leave truth--we abandon the source of love. If we abandon each other neither God's love or truth will be in our midst."

Condemning, outcasting, or attempting to break up love that is expressed between two people in lifetime faithful relationships truly are acts of abandoning God. Because God is Love.

If Wallis is influential enough with Obama, or part of a group that is, there is no "vote" to mine for particular issues.

That's not Obama's style; he seeks consensus to a fault. As I said, if you really want to address urban problems you go to someone who's actually there, not necessarily an academic or a politician, which is where Wallis comes in.

Why do you insist on making a point I've already agreed with you on?

I'm not talking about votes anyway. If Wallis is influential enough with Obama, or part of a group that is, there is no "vote" to mine for particular issues. Only a broad support when re-election comes. Obama's in. He can do a lot of things (rightfully so or not) without the vote of the people.

Sojourners isn't as "well-connected" as you might believe, at least in the way the right was. Wallis is about the only "progressive evangelical" of note with any kind of inside access, especially when compared to the scores of those on the right; thus, comparatively speaking, there simply aren't the votes for the Democrats to mine. That's the bottom line -- how many votes can a certain operative deliver?

It may not be likely on a large-scale effort such as you described, but that doesn't mean the danger isn't there for Sojourners or any other politically well-connected group.

While the Left's potential revolution may just be beginning, Wallis et al need to be careful how much influence they wield because it could cross that boundary if not careful.

That isn't likely. By the 1970s the political right was pretty much already well-organized and was able to reach out to a large number of religiously conservative people who felt as though they were under siege by secular forces; the "religious right," as such, was heavily influenced by secular politics. The "left," by contrast, isn't that well organized and doesn't have a lot of religiously-committed people to tap in the same way.

I've long found it ironic that often the people who are most opposed to "legislating morality" vis-a-vis abortion and marriage, are also the ones most critical of our government's involvement in torture and war. They are also the ones most likely to believe that it should be the government's right to tax from one group to give to another, or to enact tougher environmental enforcement standards. Now, I'm all for paying for more taxes to help the poor and to enact other laws that may be for the welfare of society as a whole, IF that same government also believes that the right to live supersedes a person's choice to eliminate that life. "Progressive" Christians seem to want it both ways. They want a pro-active govt. when it comes to helping the poor and enacting tougher environmental standards, but they want the government out of their lives when it comes to choosing how they personally want to live.

Somewhat ironically, Professor Rah uses the examples of faithful men who essentially lived in a theocracy, obviously something very contrary to our sectarian society. Again, we want it both ways. We don't want government to force a particular religion upon us, so that we have freedom of belief. But, we want our government to exert prophetic-like reform when it comes to the issues dearest to our hearts. In essence, believe it or not, politics and not principle can drive even the faith of "progressive" Christians, in a way that it never did for the prophets, or Joseph, Daniel and Nehemiah.

Yes.