Executive Orders and the President

Executive orders are at the center of the current debate surrounding the power of the president.

During the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama reignited this debate when he stated that if Congress refused to act on certain issues, "I've got a pen and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions...that move the ball forward."

This statement struck terror into the heart of traditionalists everywhere because it seemed to imply that the president was willing to side-step Congress in order to break the stalemate that has gripped Washington in recent years.

Many argue that the president needs to use whatever power he has to bring about change, and if Congress is unwilling to assist him in that process, then he should take up the task himself. 

There is, however, one tiny problem with that idea: presidents aren't supposed to make law, they are supposed to execute law.

The Power of Executive Orders

Executive orders are as old as the presidency and they have a long history of courting controversy. Click here for a really great article detailing the controversial history of executive orders. Executive orders are designed to help the president implement the laws passed by Congress. They are instructions given to the 15 different cabinet agencies that offer guidelines on how to implement laws or help to clarify law.

Over time, and as the bureaucracy has grown, presidents have realized that executive orders are actually very powerful tools. An executive order is in effect until they are rescinded and they govern all of the executive branch. When you consider that the executive branch contains the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, and the Department of Defense (to name a few), it becomes clear that an executive order can have a very real effect on the lives of American citizens.

The whole debate centers around power and whether or not the presidency, with its executive orders, has accumulated too much. Has the presidency tipped the delicate balance of power in Washington? Theodore Roosevelt certainly didn't think so. He is quoted as saying, "I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands."

I respectfully disagree.

Defending the Separation of Powers

The concentration of power in one man's hands is exactly where harm comes from and our Founding Fathers would agree with me. The Declaration of Independence is so much more than our favorite quote about inalienable rights, it is also a detailed list of the abuses of power demonstrated by King George III. For instance:

- "He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature..."

- He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people."

- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

King George III is a prime example of the danger of placing too much power in the hands of one man. The Framers of the Constitution were devoted to the idea of separation of powers and as such, they created a national government that had three branches, each with a distinct power and purpose. No one branch is supposed to act unilaterally and without oversight from the other two branches. The absence of such oversight is when power becomes dangerous. If you doubt me, let's consult Montesquieu, the philosopher who created the idea of separation of powers.

Montesquieu

"Constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go." - The Spirit of the Laws, Book XI, Chapter 4

and

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner."- The Spirit of the Laws, Book XI, Chapter 6

A Plea for Caution

Pragmatic solutions for getting things accomplished in Washington are tempting and attractive. However, the words of Montesquieu should urge us towards caution. Presidents who use executive orders aren't tyrannical dictators, but power corrupts, and power can corrupt an office just as easily as it can corrupt an individual. Our Constitution was designed to avoid the accumulation of power in one location and we should strive to uphold the balance of power that they created between the three branches by urging our president to exercise extreme caution when utilizing the executive order.

Sources and Recommended Reading

Obama to Sign Two Executive Orders Aimed at Narrowing the Gender Gap in Wages- Washington Post
Obama's Incredibly Underwhelming Executive Orders- National Journal
How President Obama Could Be Swept Away With His Executive Orders that Defy Congress and the Courts- Forbes

Evangelicals and Homosexuality: A Response to Rachel Held Evans

World Vision had a crazy go of it last week.

On Monday, March 24, they announced that they were revising their policies that barred married, same-sex couples from working with their charity organization. World Vision argued that this was a path that encouraged inclusiveness and they also stressed that this decision was not to be interpreted as a theological endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Following that announcement, and after intense backlash from the evangelical Christian community, World Vision changed course and reverted to their original rule. Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision, apologized for their "mistake," acknowledged that the decision was made without the consent of the World Vision board of directors, and thanked the Evangelical community for speaking out against their error.

Like I said, it was a crazy week. Both for World Vision, and for Evangelicals.

On one hand, World Vision received immense backlash over their decision and subsequently lost an enormous amount of financial support.

On the other hand, the Evangelical community got a thorough lashing of its own by individuals who saw their response as cruel, narrow-minded, and discriminatory.

The Uproar

I watched all of this controversy play out on various social media outlets. I had many friends who posted pleas on Facebook for people to pledge financial contributions to World Vision and I also had many friends who took to social media to express their intense frustration at the church's response. Similar themes popped up again and again. My friends and acquaintances wondered how withdrawing financial support from impoverished children was showing the love of Christ? Others asked why Evangelicals would expect an ecumenical (non-demoninational) organization to hold a strong stance against what is a very controversial theological perspective?

In all of the conversation swirling around the World Vision controversy, popular author and blogger, Rachel Held Evans, wrote a blog post explaining why she supported World Vision's controversial decision. Obviously, after World Vision's change of heart, Rachel again took to the internet to express her disappointment. This time her outlet was CNN's Belief Blog.

The blog post, titled "How Evangelicals Won A Culture War and Lost a Generation" was a scathing indictment of the Evangelical movement and the post served as Rachel's public renunciation of the evangelical mantel.

Leaving Evangelicalism Behind

In her article, which you can read in its entirety here, Rachel argues that the Evangelical community has a disproportionate fixation on homosexuality. She suggests that this fixation has caused the Evangelical church to set aside Christ's mandate to love one another, and this blunder is evidenced, in her opinion, by their continued opposition to same-sex marriage and, most recently, by calling on Evangelicals to withdraw their financial contributions from World Vision. Because of this, Rachel announced that she no longer considered herself Evangelical.

Rachel suggests that Evangelical priorities are "misaligned" and goes on to suggest that, "When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong."

As an Evangelical who opposed World Vision's original change, I take issue with Rachel's assessment. What I see are not misaligned priorities by the church, but a misunderstanding of love and of the purpose of the Evangelical community's stance on Rachel's part.  This misunderstanding is particularly evident in the series of questions that Rachel poses to the church. She asks:

Is a "victory" against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support?

Is a "victory" against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church? 

Is a "victory" against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

The glaring problem here is that Rachel views the Evangelical outcry over World Vision's actions as a battle against the LGBT community and against gay marriage. This is a drastic over-simplification of the situation and one that is actually quite misleading. This wasn't a political endeavor against gay marriage or the Constitutional rights of the LGBT community. This was a theological disagreement and one that is significantly more important than whether or not a gay couple is legally allowed to marry. Rachel's article has minimized the importance of this debate by bringing the issue down to the political realm, and by refusing to acknowledge that there is a legitimate theological discussion at play.

The Church is responsible to uphold the Word of God and to defend the faith. When a Christian organization as large and influential as World Vision takes a stance that moves away from orthodoxy, it is the responsibility of the Church to call that stance for what it is.

This is a primarily a theological issue, not a political one, and the issue has profound implications for the lives of individuals world-wide. The ultimate question that Evangelicals are asking is: What does it matter if we feed the poor, but we so mar the gospel of Christ that the poor are lost for eternity?

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

Of course, no one is arguing that the recipients of World Vision's charity are gaining the whole world. They are being provided with basic food, clothing, and shelter. But what if in our attempt to provide these basic necessities, we also communicate a gospel that doesn't save? This is the heart of the Evangelical outcry against World Vision.

An Unbalanced Perspective

Ultimately I believe that Rachel's definition of love is unbalanced and this unbalanced understanding is what is limiting her ability to understand the true motives of the Evangelical community. 

When God became flesh, he loved people. He loved the outcast, the downtrodden, the hurt, the sick, the poor. How did he love them? He loved them in two distinct ways:

1. He loved them, first and foremost, by dying on the cross and rising from the dead, thereby providing a way for the lost and downtrodden (i.e. all of us) to have a relationship with Him (i.e. the God of the universe). - (Rom. 5:8, John 14:6, 1 Cor. 15:3-6)
2. Secondly, He loved them by caring for them. By becoming their friend. (Luke 8:1-3, John 19:25) By healing them. (Matt. 8:2-3) By feeding them. (Luke 5:4-10) By bringing them into close relationship with himself.

While the second example of love is important and is greatly emphasized by Christ in the New Testament (Matt. 22:34-40), the first example is an imperative that cannot be ignored or diminished.

When the question of homosexuality was first encountered by the modern church, it often appeared as if they focused on the first type of love to the almost complete exclusion of the second type. Homosexuality was a sin and without repentance and acceptance of Christ, one would spend eternity separated from the Creator. However, after preaching this Gospel message, the Church seemed to forget that Christ also loved sinners through acts of service, through kindness, through care. Instead, what the Church seemed to offer up was a self-righteous proclamation of the first type of love that was accompanied by, not loving acts of service, but by mockery and repulsion. The Church seemed to forget the words of Paul, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love I am a noisy gong or a clanging symbol."

This was an unbalanced understanding of love. 

In response to this misunderstanding by the Church at large, many churches and individuals began an attempt to resolve this imbalance. They stressed kindness, relationship, inclusion, and acceptance. They were so keenly aware of the lack of love shown to the homosexual community that they wanted to emphasize the reality that the Church is loving, and so they loved. However, this approach also became imbalanced because in this attempt to show the true love of Christ, many within this group began to question how it could be loving to call homosexuality a sin. They wondered how a loving God could condemn someone from acting upon their natural desires and affections. And in an attempt to show love, this group began to move away from a steady proclamation that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and moved towards an emphasis on Biblical love through acts of service alone.

This also is an unbalanced understanding of love.  

Finding the Right Balance

Christ-like love without the gospel, or without the full gospel, is an incomplete love, because it marginalizes or diminishes the true needs of the soul. We have physical needs that ought to be met by Christians every where, but more important than our physical needs, we have spiritual needs. To emphasize our spiritual needs to the detriment of our physical needs is not Christ-like, but emphasizing physical needs to the detriment of spiritual needs is short-sighted, has grave eternal consequences, and is ultimately unloving.

So, to respond to Rachel's questions:

Is a "victory" against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support, worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church, and worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

For a victory against gay marriage, maybe not, but this isn't a political stance against gay marriage on the part of the Evangelical community. This is an attempt to protect the Biblical understanding of sin and man's need of redemption. Is this fight worth it? Absolutely, because it ensures that those thousands of needy children, who are in need of salvation and nourishment, will have access to the only information that can save their souls.