Rev. Jim Wallis, a liberal evangelical advisor to the DNC, often reminds anyone who will listen that, "God is not a Republican…or a Democrat." This is almost certainly true, for as Biola professor John Mark Reynolds notes, "He's probably a monarchist."
From this truism, though, some people derive the false assumption that since God does not provide his imprimatur for a particular party platform that the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican is morally neutral. This is almost certainly false. Political choices are almost always moral choices. Such decisions are fraught with moral danger and each Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must determine for themselves how best to follow their conscience.
Obviously some decisions are easier than others. Despite the excuses we may make for our historical-cultural setting, no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as "outrages against human dignity" (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). Other times the options may force a choice among the lesser of two or more evils (pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton, pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani, or a pro-life third party candidate?). In each case, though, the choice should be to follow one's conscience in applying Biblical principles to political decisions.
Unfortunately, some Christians wish to maintain the illusion of political neutrality even when it conflicts with our moral obligations. Dr. David Gushee, distinguished professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, provides a prime example in his recent post on "Rules for evangelical politics".
Before I proffer my criticism, let me first say how much I admire Dr. Gushee. Although our political leanings may veer toward opposite poles, our views on the sanctity of life align perfectly. Whatever differences I might have with Dr. Gushee, we agree on almost all of the moral essentials.
I also agree--without reservation--with the introductory remarks of his post:
The fundamental principles governing the political engagement of leaders representing Christian churches or “the Christian Church” must be the Lordship of Christ and the consequent political independence of the church in terms of earthly politics. The goal of those working as explicitly Christian leaders or representatives of Christian organizations is to bear faithful Christian public witness so that the Lord of the church might be pleased that we have represented him well. Therefore all who serve as Christian leaders must fiercely protect the mission of the church by refusing to compromise their political independence in both their words and their actions. The only way for us to do this is to remind ourselves constantly that we have an audience of One: Jesus Christ our Lord — and that we are accountable to Christ alone.
Amen and amen. Had he stopped there, he would have provided a valuable, though perhaps a bit obvious, contribution to the upcoming political debate. Unfortunately, he moves from solid footing to a morass of illogic and absurd assertion:
These key principles generate the following proposal for specific rules governing the public engagement of all who serve churches — I suggest they also should apply to those who lead parachurch organizations that are not explicitly organized as lobbying groups. For brevity, I will refer to leaders of all such groups as “Christian leaders.” They include pastors, missionaries, evangelists, youth ministers, denominational officials, parachurch leaders, college presidents, and Christian ethics professors, among others.
Would it be presumptuous of me to include myself in this list of "Christian leaders?" I fear it would. Still, I think that as a Christian blogger I can squeeze into the amorphous category "among others." From this vantage point I can assume that Dr. Gushee was referring to people like me when he made these rules. It would be quite fitting since I unapologetically break almost every one of these 17 proposed prohibitions:
1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.
Endorse means to "approve, support, or sustain." Gushee is saying that a Christian leader should never speak approvingly or in a way that might be supportive of a political candidate or political party. This legalistic rule could lead to results that are absurd and or un-Christian. For instance, should ministers in 1930s-era Germany have avoided showing approval or support of the republican political parties that were running against the Nazis?
2. Christian leaders must not distribute essentially partisan or single-issue voter guides that purport to be apolitical or nonpartisan.
One of the qualities I admire most about Dr. Gushee is his commitment to the sanctity of life. So it seems odd that he thinks that National Right to Life shouldn’t be able to distribute voter guides on this "single-issue." Shouldn't Christian choose to support candidates who will uphold what Gushee considers to be a "moral conviction?" What would be the reason for such a prohibition? Because it might impede the electoral efforts of a political party that is committed to the absolute denial of this principle?
3. Christian leaders must not publicly handicap or comment upon the political horse race.
Conversation between a congregant and her pastor (c. 1932):
Congregant: "Herr Bonhoffer, what do you think about the Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party."
Pastor: "I cannot speak of such matters, for it would be imprudent for a minister of the Gospel to comment on this particular political horse race."
4. Christian leaders must not provide private or public advice to particular politicians, parties, or campaigns concerning how they can strategize in order to win evangelical or Christian votes.
If this rule is a prohibition against providing Machiavellian advice, I'm in agreement. But I see nothing out of line with providing prudent counsel on politicians, parties, or campaigns on how best to appeal to a group of their constituents. I see nothing untoward, in saying, "If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate a pro-choice candidate in '08, then they should expect evangelicals to abandon their support for the party."
5. Christian leaders must not calibrate their public teachings or writings in order to affect the outcome of political elections or to gain and hold the support of politicians.
Again, this rule would be dependent on context. For example, if the Sunday before an election a Catholic priest were to remind his congregation that to vote supporter of abortion would be a sin, he should be commended -- even if it might prevent the pro-abortion candidate from gaining office.
6. Christian leaders must not attend political rallies or campaign events of one candidate or party unless they are prepared to attend rallies and events of all candidates and parties.
Should Abraham Kuyper, founder of the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, have attended the rallies of the Socialist parties, groups that he considered a threat to the Christian worldview? Why should Kuyper--or any other Christian--attend a rally for a group whose views are antithetical to their beliefs?
And how far do we carry this principle? Should Republicans attend Green Party debates? Should Democrats sit in on Communist rallies?
7. Christian leaders must not invite political candidates to speak in church pulpits or on church grounds unless they are prepared to invite all political candidates of all parties to do so.
Legally speaking, this is already a requirement. Morally speaking, there is no reason why a church should be required to give "equal time" to political candidates who hold positions that they find repugnant.
8. Christian leaders must not identify the potential or actual victory of any politician as a victory for God or God’s kingdom.
Admittedly, it might be presumptuous for a Christian leader to claim to know whether an electoral victory is a victory for God's kingdom. But it is also presumptuous for a Christian leader (in this case, Dr. Gushee) to make a blanket prohibition about what others might know about God or his kingdom.
9. Christian leaders must limit their direct contact with politicians or staff in order to avoid even the appearance of undue loyalty or involvement.
This presumes that loyalty and involvement are things that must always be avoided. Last year Dr. Gushee wrote:
President Bush’s veto on Wednesday of any change in his stem cell research policy was derided by many as a sop to his conservative base. But the price that the president and his party are sure to pay for this decision leads me to the conclusion that, whatever the politics of the move, the president actually has been persuaded by the moral argument against embryonic stem cell harvesting.
What if it was a "Christian leader" that had provided the persuasive moral argument that had convinced Bush of this grievous harm? Would they have been acting unethically since that level of familiarity and contact could have been construed as "undue involvement?"
10. Christian leaders must not engage in voter registration campaigns or get out the vote efforts aimed at mobilizing the voters of one political party rather than another.
Why not? Should abolitionists not have mobilized voters in an effort to end the great sin of slavery? Should '50s-era civil rights leaders not have engaged in voter registration campaigns since it might have led people to vote against pro-segregation candidates?
11. Christian leaders must not direct the funds of their churches or organizations toward direct or indirect support for a particular political candidate or party.
In practice, I would tend to agree, though I wouldn't make this a moral absolute. While following this rule would certainly be wise here in America, there might be instances where it would be more prudent to directly fund a candidate who faced a corrupt or evil party organization.
12. Christian leaders may not sidestep these rules by drawing a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” over against their service in their public role.
Let's combine #1 and #12:
1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.
2. Christian leaders may not make a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” and their public role.
3. Voting in an election is a form of official endorsement of a political candidate.
4. Therefore, Christian leaders must not vote in elections.
If applied consistently, the logical conclusion would be the Christian leaders should not vote or do anything else that they would be prohibited to do in their "official" capacity.
13. Christian leaders must offer Christian proclamation related to that large number of public issues that are clearly addressed by biblical principles or direct biblical teaching.
Here is where Dr. Gushee's reasoning goes completely off the rails. For example, biblical principles would warrant the protection of innocent life, the prohibition of abortion, and the denial of the legitimacy of homosexual behavior, including the manufacturing of "gay rights." To offer Christian proclamations on these issues, however, would directly conflict with the official position of the DNC and/or specific Democratic candidates.
Following rule #13, therefore, could conflict with injunctions #1, 2, 3, 5, and 12 (and possibly others).
14. Christian leaders must encourage Christian people toward active citizenship, including studying the issues and the candidates and testing policy stances and candidates according to biblical criteria.
Again, this rule could directly conflict with many of the others on this list.
15. Christian leaders must model and encourage respectful and civil discourse related to significant public issues as well as political candidates.
Finally, a point on which we can completely agree.
16. Christian leaders must model and encourage prayer for God-ordained government, its leaders, and their policies.
Amen.
17. Christian leaders must teach and model respect for the constitutional relationship between religion and the state as these are spelled out in the First Amendment.
Based on whose understanding of the First Amendment? My interpretation differs from Christian leaders of various stripes, including David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, and the Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Whose interpretation should we teach and model?
While Dr. Gushee's intentions are noble, the last thing we need in the electoral process is legalistic rules that transform conscience-driven politics into political correctness.
As I once heard Tony Evans say (I paraphrase), "when Jesus returns, He is not going to take sides. He is going to take over."
Wow, that is quite some list!
We have to be careful not to slip into legalism and following man made rules just for the sake of it. Especially when as Joe points out they are not exactly good rules.
Is Hitler really that useful to use as a tool to analyze proposed 'political rules'? For example, "Evangelicals should never condone violence to change the political party in power"...."Ohhh, so we couldn't support US troops and Russian troops invading NAZI GERMANY!!!!!"
Boonton:
Your comment has no immediate bearing on anything in this post. It's what my kids call "random."
You have apparently mistaken this blog for Daily Kos.
Impacted Wisdom Truth:
I need to visit your blog just because of its name.
Gee, Boonton, whose case are you making here? I support regime change through violence when it becomes necessary, in Nazi Germany, Irag, Iran, etc. I think Joe's point, though, is that many of these points are not rules but rules-of-thumb. Maybe in 75% of the cases they make sense, but not in the other 25% (or even 1%). Then you have to haggle over the interpretation, and then it becomes everyone has to decide for himself, and then you might as well not have issued the command at all since the end result is the same.
Well we all know what they say about a foolish consistency but Gushee wasn't writing an article about how evangelicals should handle political questions in a fascist dictatorship. He seems to have been writing about elections in the US.
Now one of Joe's tactic seems to be to 'stress test' these rules by applying them against a hypothetical evangelical voter in Germany right before it went to the Nazi's. This, IMO, has no application to the US in 2007. It would be like 'stress testing' a dog house in northern Alaska to withstand a 110 degree heat wave.
There is no mainstream person running for President today who can remotely be equated to the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930's. I say that as a statement of fact but there are delusional people on both sides who think the upcoming election really is a vote for or against God. An example of violating this rule might be that America hating woman who held up a sign with Romney equating Obama and Clintin with Osama bin laden.
Myself I would condense all these rules down into a somewhat more simple one, "try not to be an idiot". If you are telling people that God told you to run for office, you are very likely to be in violation of this rule. If you're telling people that God will cry if they vote for the other guy you are very likely violating this rule. If you are holding yourself out to be infallible in your opinion on what you think God wants people to vote for in a rather unimportant upcoming election (unimportant in the big scheme of things) you are probably violating this rule.
Other than that, if you wan to say "Vote for X" then go ahead.
Joe writes: "no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as 'outrages against human dignity' (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). "
This raises a number of questions, including the stances of Jesus and Paul on slavery and Bush on torture. But my biggest question is this: Does this mean you are abandoning Fred Thompson since he opposes the "criminalization" of abortion?
ex-preacher Does this mean you are abandoning Fred Thompson since he opposes the "criminalization" of abortion?
Thompson needs to clarify what he means. If he is saying that abortion procedures should be illegal but that he wouldn't prosecute a woman who had one, I'll give him a pass. If he is saying that he really isn't pro-life and that he believes is it acceptable to kill human beings in the womb, then yes I will "abandon" him.
It would be interesting to know if Dr. Gushee would support his own rules if the political situation were reversed in this country. The evangelical right has a certain amount of pull, but the evangelical left, not quite so much. If the evangelical left were a serious political force and the evangelical right were not, are we to believe Dr. Gushee would think his rules so necessary?
I agree that his rules are legalism... man-made rules not mandated by a biblical (or logical) worldview. I'm consistently amazed how much legalism comes from the left. Conservatives typically have the reputation for legalism (of the anti- drinkin', dancin' and rock and roll brand), but to me the evangelical left has always been more than a little heavy-handed with its own rules.
- If you don't vote for socialists, you don't care about the poor.
- Jesus wouldn't drive an SUV.
- Don't own guns.
- etc...
I find #12 most troubling. Dr. Gushee's comments remind me of the Fundamental retreat of the early 20th c., and of the non-involvement of the Anabaptists of the 19th c. Yet there is a tone to this that can be appreciated -- our faith should transcend politics, not simply comply with it. It is easy to make our evangelical faith *appear* partisan, rather than principled, and that is something we should avoid.
It reads like a postmodern guide to political involvement. That is, we should be socially, personally, involved, but leave the government and politics to the professionals. (no way)
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Guys... Boonton's point isn't hard to understand. What don't you get about the basic idea that Nazism is ... um ... a special situation? And to think Joe considers himself especially logical.
What about the general rule, "We Christians shouldn't assasinate our leaders." Have I utterly refuted the point if I say "Well, I guess I couldn't have killed Hitler?" No.
Joe, the points Gushee makes are needed, desperately. For example, Dobson isn't a Christian leader anymore, he's a political hack who's blended Christianity with the Republican party. Christians need to get back to the basics.
Simple point: How can we evangelize if every non-Christian in America is convinced that conversion entails fealty to the Republican party? What a shame.
Marco,
But Gushee goes further than the simple matter of apparent party alignment. He is advocating a complete withdrawal from political involvment of any sort -- including no voter registration and limiting issue matters to simply studying what is happening. There is little room left for active involvement on a candidate level when, with some campaigns, the candidate *does* go directly to potential issue resolution.
And do you think the Religious Left is listening? Thinking so would be naive. They've been equally as active for decades longer than that RR.
Collin
So far so good on the comments to this post. I'm encouraged that a lot of believers are commenting and not letting the few who shall not be named devolve the conversation into partisan mud wrestling.
I agree with Marco. Evenagelicals have not done a very good job at transcending politics to reach the lost. Perception is reality, and when the rest of the country believes your faith is subordinate to your politics, you are in a precarious position.
Well, here's what Fred says about his position on abortion - or at least what he said when he was running for the Senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE
I honestly can't tell from his answer whether he's pro-choice or pro-life. Since you are much more of an expert on this issue, perhaps you can tell me what he means. Surely, he's not trying to straddle the fence!
James Dobson has said that Thompson was not a known ally of the pro-life cause. I wouldn't be surprised if Fred suddenly discovers that he is thoroughly pro-life. It happened to Reagan. And Bush Sr. And Romney.
If we took this direction more than a century ago, slavery might still be the law of the land. Probably not, but it definitely would not have ended in 1865.
This is only one step removed from the Amish.
"16. Christian leaders must model and encourage prayer for God-ordained government, its leaders, and their policies."
Gushee must not be a Calvinist.
Also, I'm surprised not to hear anything about the CNN/YouTube debates. I guess the Republican one hasn't happened yet, and Joe might not be interested in the Democratic one, but still, come on.
Christians would logically not be able to support the Bush administration. When the President was asked about his enhanced interrogation techniques in relation to the Geneva Conventions, Bush indicated he did not even know what "outrages against human dignity" meant.
So, JohnW, is this a rare case where you actually agree with Joe on this principle?
This is the box Fred checked on a candidate survey when he ran for the Senate in 1994:
"Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."
vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=22003
Yes, Wonders, I don't think either the democrats or republicans should be supported blindly. Christians should inform themselves on the issues and make intelligent decision-AND STOP LISTENING TO THE JAMES DOBSON'S AND TONY PERKINS OF THE WORLD.....
JohnW,
What if a Christian has honestly informed himself of the issues and come to a decision that happens to agree with Dobson or Perkins? Is there room in your worldview for other Christians who came to political views different than your own prayerfully and humbly?
I think we are all going to be surpised upon our deaths to find out what what really was and wasn't important to God. There are issues that I'm sure I'm 100% right about that God will show I was 100% wrong about. I'm sure the same will be true for you. The only thing that matters is that as imperfect and ignorant as we are, God's grace through Christ is infinitely greater.
Oclarki,
Good point and certainly people do draw their own conclusions. However, aren't there some absolutes.
Don't you find it curious that Dobson and company consistently support each and every military action our government takes and always supports increased military budgets? I love America, but isn't it governed by fallen men? Shouldn't there be a questioning of some of their policies when so many lives are at stack. Or must all christians be right-wing authoritarian followers?
What about Christ's word's, "Blessed are the Peacemakers..". And before you start quoting Romans Ch. 13 on me, please put it in context with Romans Chapter 12.
I think Dobson and a lot of evangelicals support military for a variety of reasons. I think most of those reasons have sound scriptural backing. As an evangelical who grew up in Colorado Springs, and then attended Wheaton college, I'd like to think I have a pretty good feel for what makes evangelicals tick.
First, the percentage of evangelicals in the military is quite high compared to the general population. Particularly in the Air Force. As such I think alot of evangelical support for the military has to do with the fact that most evangelicals know a lot of people in the armed forces, or have themselves served. I fall into this category. Theology aside, people are generally supportive of institutions they respect and have an association with.
Second, I would posit that evangelicals are more prone than the general population to view God's providence at work in the history of America. As a result, they tend to support the endeavours this nation undertakes. Plus, there is a sense amongst evangelicals, that America has been an instrument of God. Examples would include our support of Isreal, destruction of Soviet Communism, and more recently the liberation of 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As for the scriptural perspective, I think alot of evangelicals would hold that soldiers are the ultimate peacemakers, and that liberating the oppressed is a worthy form of service.
In conclusion, I'm sure that both sides sinfully try to squash Jesus into their view of politics. And in truth Jesus is not anything like the Che Guevera the left makes him out to be nor the George S. Patton the right sometimes projects him to be. In the end he is the Logos the word of God incarnate. Both lion and lamb. The one who lays his lafe sown for all, and the one to whom all will kneel before!
I live in Dupage County, Illinois not to far from Wheaton College and from Billy Graham's first Church in Western Springs. I attended Montreat-Anderson in Montreat, NC. I am familiar with american evangelical culture and grew up with it. It does not define christianity world wide-we would both agree the Gospel of Jesus Christ transcends national allegiances.
What you are describing in your second paragraph above is American Exceptionalism. I love America, but don't buy into that concept-I view it as a form of Idolatry.
Romans Chapter 12 instructs us not to conform to the ways of the world (which would have to include american evangelical culture), but be renewed in our minds by the Gospel. It's stresses peacemaking and loving ones enemies as well.
Sorry, Dobson and company remind me of the pharisees Christ spoke against.
john,
Just a quick question. How is Dobson a hypocrite? You might not like his teaching, but he is pretty consitent.
Joe,
I really agree with your analysis of Gushee’s 17 points. If we love our neighbor, we cannot withdraw from tough political arguments just to look good. There is a real danger of creating the impression on indifferent or arguable issues that Christians taking a political stand are staking out the one and only “Christian” position when that may not be the case. But the risk or error or misunderstanding is no reason for staying neutral on the important political choices of the day. If that were so Christians would have had to sit out every really important political argument in the last two thousand years.
I think you would agree neither party is pure or Christian or right all the time. I think the influence of Christians in the Republican Party is highly over estimated. But Christians really should stand against slavery, segregation, and abortion even if the Republicans have usually been the party on that side, and even if they may prefer the “common man” ambiance the Democrats so carefully maintain.
Some Christians believe that debatable political issues, such as whether the welfare state is the best means of helping the poor, are more important than moral issues like the definition of marriage. Some Christians take a pacifist position that sets them at odds with all uses of force – even altruistic attempts to liberate the oppressed. Many Christians are embarrassed by the bad manners or unrefined sub-cultural foibles of “conservative” Christian leaders. Some Christians are afraid the attractiveness of the core of the gospel will be compromised when the moral law of God is revealed in all its applied to real life. But none of these concerns outweigh the directives to love our neighbor, to rescue those being led away to death, to free the oppressed, to speak the truth in love, for government to punish evil and reward good, or to teach and bear witness to everything God has taught us. Following God’s commands in a Republic means being politically and socially active. Will we make mistakes? Of course. But doing nothing is not an option.
As for the Nazi examples, I agree with them. One of the main differences between different groups of politically active Christians is that some of them think the Nazi’s were a once in history exception to all the rules. I do not think so. Many of the ideas of the Nazi’s are alive and well today around the world – even in America and even on the left. And sadly, Hitler was not a once-in-history madman. There are many kindred spirits around the world today. Sadly I think the left has got it wrong in identifying Bush as a Hitler, but seeing so many tyrants as lovable.
Can someone explain to me how rules (or we might say "principles" or "guidelines") in and of themselves constitute something as legalistic? I think he's giving counsel, offering guidance in prudent behavior for Christians in the public eye (including Joe). Since some of us, Joe included, agree with rules 15 and 16, are we therefore legalists? Is this just loose talk?
It seems to me, Joe, that you've missed the forest for the trees. The point, as I understand it, is that the claims of Jesus Christ are all-encompassing, and therefore must not be reduced to a political agenda. Yes, voting and political involvement does have a moral aspect, but the moral aspect is all mixed together with other aspects that might not have a salutary effect on the church. Too-close identification of the church with a party or candidate might make the church seem like the party's handmaid, to the detriment of the gospel. To give an example, how much credibility does Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have as a Christian leader? None with me, and I fear that they have given a bad name to the church with some people. God forbid that we should do the same.
As for your specific reading of the rules, look at rule 12. I don't think he's advocating that Christian leaders shouldn't vote, nor do I think that you've drawn a correct inference from the rule to that conclusion. The idea is that Christian leaders shouldn't be "officially" neutral while spending every Saturday "in private capacity" handing out campaign literature in the mall parking lot in full view of everyone. Your right to vote doesn't have anything to do with that.
Your criticisms of the first several rules would be right on if the current political climate were something like what Bonhoeffer faced. But it's not, and we have to interpret Gushee's rules in the historical context in which he has offered them.
Your analysis is certainly thought provoking, and I'm glad you brought Dr. Gushee's rules to my attention. I'll have to think about them more.
Good all around commentary. However, I must admit that the constant Nazi analogizing was a tad... simple-minded? Reductive? Trite? There's a quote that I've heard recently that can apply to this: "As soon as one side of a debate invokes Nazi Germany or the Holocaust, they have lost the debate by default." (paraphrasing). While the 1930-1945 era may be a useful tool to apply to an idea or issue, it is an indelicate tool. Much more of a sledgehammer than a scalpel.
Also, Boonton writes:
"There is no mainstream person running for President today who can remotely be equated to the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930's."
I protest this sentiment. Mr. Giuliani appears to have a fondness for a certain type of rhetoric that was popular with the National Socialists in the early 1930s. I am only half joking, unfortunately, but I have defeated my own argument by my own rule, so the point is officially moot.
There may be problems with some of Gushee's rules, I think the overall thrust is quite valuable. We fantasize that religion will purify politics and set it right. But history teaches us that when the two intermix, it is politics that tends to dirty and destroy religion. Therefore I agree with Gushee that we need to keep Christianity out of direct politics, otherwise politics and politicians will sully or invade the church. We've seen this in the past, and I fear it in the future. Rather let us create good, loving, hard-working Christians, and have faith that they will vote they way God intends them to.
"This is the box Fred checked on a candidate survey when he ran for the Senate in 1994:
'Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.'"
Yes, but that was thirteen years ago. As long as he SAYS he has changed his views, many evangelicals will overlook the fact that he does so for political expediency. They know Brownback is a sure loser, so Fred's expediency would complement their own in this case. Better to have a president who at least gives lip service to their view on abortion, don't you know.
"As for the scriptural perspective, I think alot of evangelicals would hold that soldiers are the ultimate peacemakers, and that liberating the oppressed is a worthy form of service."
If liberating the oppressed were all that soldiers did, they might be considered as such. Given the reality of the situation, to say that soldiers are the ultimate peacemakers is like saying muriatic acid is the ultimate baby bath.
Rob,
Other than a few very isolated incidents what did you have in mind? I'm not one for interpreting overly veiled references. You do think we're the good guys don't you?
Theology aside, people are generally supportive of institutions they respect and have an association with.
Second, I would posit that evangelicals are more prone than the general population to view God's providence at work in the history of America. As a result, they tend to support the endeavours this nation undertakes. Plus, there is a sense amongst evangelicals, that America has been an instrument of God. Examples would include our support of Isreal, destruction of Soviet Communism, and more recently the liberation of 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Interesting how that is:
1. Self-aggrandizing...something that some in a previous thread implied was nearly impossible for evangelicals.
2. Totally non-Biblical.
3. Your use of the word 'libertation' is very suspect here. A citzen of Afghanistan came very close to being sentenced to death because he converted to Christianity. That wasn't under Taliban rules but under our 'liberated regime'. Do we even need to talk about Iraq? It would appear that instead of liberating Iraq we simply removed the lid that was holding back a civil war that has been brewing for the last 40 years. Whether liberation will eventually come to Iraq is anyone's guess.
SGEW
I protest this sentiment. Mr. Giuliani appears to have a fondness for a certain type of rhetoric that was popular with the National Socialists in the early 1930s. I am only half joking, unfortunately, but I have defeated my own argument by my own rule, so the point is officially moot.
I'll save you by rephrasing that, Giuliani appears to have a fondness for authoritarianism. To a degree that was good for NYC, such as when he put a stop to the 'squeege people' (dirty homeless people who accosted motorists coming out of the tunnels demanding payment for 'cleaning' their windows. But a real leader needs to know when to put the stick down.
His antics in NYC started grating very thin such as his rather bizaar jihad against hotdog vendors and people who wanted to own ferrets as pets. He has, IMO, been cashing in off of 9/11 both literally (recall this guy who wants to run our foreign policy got himself kicked off the Iraq Study Group because instead of showing up at the meetings he was collecting speaker fees) and figuratively.
Rob
If liberating the oppressed were all that soldiers did, they might be considered as such. Given the reality of the situation, to say that soldiers are the ultimate peacemakers is like saying muriatic acid is the ultimate baby bath.
Blaming the soldiers is a George Bush type of stunt. The reality is the soldiers are probably the only ones in Iraq who are trying their best to do something good. A lot has been asked of them and it was asked by people who don't believe in taking any responsibility for their own decisions, by people like Cheney and Bush who only care about their own power and status.
There's a lot of fame in doing something that turns out perfect & makes everyone love you. There's more honor, though, in doing your best at a mission that you know is doomed to long run failure yet you give it everything you can. This president had a lot of support from the military but he is losing it now.
Boonton,
Weren't the first two words of my quote "Theology aside"? I'm trying to be a person of good faith here and provide a little background about the thinking of evangelicals. do you come here attempting to understand us, or to mock us?
You're probably right about Fred's pro-life lip-service, Rob. Still, has anyone heard him give 100% pro-life statements?
What I'm really trying to get at is how Joe reconciles his ardent pro-life stance and ardent pro-Fred stance. Since no one here or at his blogsforfred site seems to want to talk about this issue, I've about concluded that the cognitive dissonance has caused them to compartmentalize the two matters. I'm well aware of how conservative Christians are forced to do that on numerous issues (such as reconciling their opposition to torture with a belief that God will torture unbelievers for all eternity; or opposition to slavery with the endorsement of slavery by the God of the Old Testament, Jesus, Paul and virtually all Christians for 1800 years).
ex,
I don't think its merely a Chrsitian phenomenon. By our vey nature, humans hold all sorts of contradictory beliefs, and fail to be consistent in many ways.
I myself am fairly conservative in my politics. (That doesn't mean that I think that everything the Republicans do is biblical!) I know and respect a believer who is a political liberal. And his position actually makes pretty good biblical sense.
The Bible teaches more than "don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't engage in homosexuality". If you read through the Bible (especially the prophets, but also the gospels), you find a lot of talk about social justice - about defending the orphan and widow, about taking care of the aliens among you, and so on. Things that we regard as traditionally Democratic concerns.
Biblically, both the Democratic and Republican platforms are subsets of what we should be striving for as believers, mixed with worldly dross. This doesn't mean that we should say "it doesn't matter who wins", but it does mean that, for those who seek to live out their Christian faith in the voting booth, the "right" choice isn't as simple as we of the "religious right" often think it is.
"You do think we're the good guys don't you?"
I much prefer the actions and intentions of our government to those of Islamic terrorists, Oclarki, but I don't think the actions are anywhere near optimal. It's not a clear-cut good guy/ bad guy scenario, unfortunately. We would have been better to not invade in the first place, since our invasion has undermined its own goals, with the specific exception of removing Saddam from power. If it were working, that would ameliorate somewhat the carnage and destruction. I think we have a right to demand better foresight and judgement from our government.
"Blaming the soldiers is a George Bush type of stunt."
Boonton, I'm not blaming the soldiers any more than I blame the muriatic acid. They are what they are, and it is what it is: useful in some applications, deadly wrong in others. I blame the agent that erroneously deploys the tool, not the tool itself.
As I once heard Tony Evans say (I paraphrase), "when Jesus returns, He is not going to take sides. He is going to take over."
And therein lies the root of the conflict between Christian authoritarianism and plurality politics. JJ paints the extremist left with the same brush, and he's correct.
There are authoritarians on the left as well as the right, and they should both be treated with the same disdain. We've been down this road before and we know where it ends. Authoritarianism from the left and the right are equally bad and should be stamped out without . It appears as though there are many people that need to relearn this lesson, the only open question is how much damage is going to be done before they learn it again.
You crack me up. What is your venue, Vegas?
Weren't the first two words of my quote "Theology aside"? I'm trying to be a person of good faith here and provide a little background about the thinking of evangelicals. do you come here attempting to understand us, or to mock us?
Can't I do both :)?
I didn't mean the post as an attack on your post, just a criticism of the mindset you are describing.
JJ
evangelical right has a certain amount of pull, but the evangelical left, not quite so much. If the evangelical left were a serious political force and the evangelical right were not, are we to believe Dr. Gushee would think his rules so necessary?
Let's leave aside black churches. Does the 'evangelical left' even exist? If so where are they? Why do I say leave out black churches? Because I think black churches serve as a central meeting place for many in the black community. The politics may tend towards the left but that it often happens in churches is incidential. The evangelical right, on the other hand, makes religion essential to their agenda. They may sometimes meet in churches but I think there's a clear difference.
I do not believe Dobson is a hypocrite in the sense he is hiding some sort of sexual or addiction problem. He more than likely never says things he doesn’t believe. He reminds me of a Pharisee because of his love of power . Christ warned us about people who love the choice seats in the temple to the powerful people and people who love to make long flowery prayers in public rather than praying in private, “Lord be merciful to me, a sinner”. He likes his access to power and the ability to tell people what to think about the issues.
Have you noticed how many of the religious leaders, like Dobson, who decry how America has undergone moral decay still identify America’s military strength as having a major role in the preservation of righteousness in the world? Why should we as individuals be concerned about working for peace when we have the military to do this for us. In other words, America is full of moral decay caused by God hating secular progressives (you know, “those people”, “the left”), however this same country miraculously has a military that can spread righteousness , peace, and freedom around the globe. We can just go about our lives never giving the issues of war and peace another thought because God has instituted our military to do his will. All we need to do is put a “I support the troops” bumper sticker on our cars and not pay attention to any of the bad news coming out of Iraq because we know that God’s will is being done-Freedom is coming to their land. As Christians we know that man is fallen and without limits and checks, those in power will abuse their positions, yet somehow we are to believe that each and every use of our military is not only correct, but is actually spreading peace in the world. This premise needs to be re-examined.
Boonton,
I really think you are onto something with regard to the black church. But I really do believe that those making the case that the evangelical chrches are politicized need to point me to some evidence. You'd certainly agree that I have more experience within the church than you do, so hopefully you'll take my word for it when I say that I have never once been told what party or what individual to vote for at any church I've attended. Even while attending some of the most prominent churches in Colorado Springs.
The church I attend now is a 3500 member suburban evangelical church in Parker, Colorado, yet one of my friends who sings in the choir has an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker on her car. There just isn't any thing to much of what the left projects onto the evangelical church.
Boonton,
Good question. The "evangelical left" seems just another inadequate label for the quasi-liberal evangelical, postmodern evangelical, etc. The classification just hasn't been fleshed out fully.
Collin
Collin:
The "evangelical left" seems just another inadequate label for the quasi-liberal evangelical, postmodern evangelical, etc. The classification just hasn't been fleshed out fully.
Confusing the issue further, many of the Christians who conservatives might be tempted to characterize as "left", are neither theologically liberal nor evangelical. I'm thinking of certain flavors of Roman Catholic or modern Anabaptists and fellow travelers. Basically, the spectrum of theological and political beliefs can't be shoehorned into left-right or conservative-liberal dichotomies
Please help me understand something-- in light of your rule that "no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones" abortion, why is a pro-life third-party candidate included among Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as a choice of the lesser of evils?
Nick,
To clarify:
I think for many people-"evangelical" means being conservative politically and socially. It also means saying you are always against big government, except when it comes to defense spending. Above all it means being a true "bible believing" Christian.
Members of "the left" are secular progressives or liberal christians (who are not really christians because they don't agree with what "evangelicals" think).
In other words, you can't really be a liberal or a member of "the left" and be an "evangelical"
I think when the media uses the term evangelical, they mean a fundamentalist without a southern accent. At least that's what it seems like to me. John, you must have to special order those brushes, they don't sell em that wide at my Home Depot.
Oclarki,
I know that the term evangelical is much more inclusive than what I described in Post 48 (atleast it has been in the past). Afterall, Tony Campolo, Jimmy Carter, and Randall Balmer fit into this category.
Generally speaking an evangelical is someone who believes in the authority of the bible, the existence of Satan, the sinfulness of man and the need for a born-again experience with Jesus Christ. However, if you asked the average person who is not a evangelical christian what the term means and it is quite likely you will quite a different more narrow definition like the one I gave in Post 48.
That's why I think 'religious right' was a much better phrase. But some chafed against it, acting as though it was some type of bigoted term in and of itself.
Boonton:
I grant you the accurateness of the phrase "religious right" as a descriptive label for those people who lean right politically and who are also religious. But it has been used as a pejorative, an insult, and a way of dismissing people - essentially, as a bigoted term - way too often by members of the political left.
When a phrase, however accurate, gets used not as an accurate description but rather as an attack, you can expect the recipients to start to dislike both the attack and the label...
"But it [religious right] has been used as a pejorative, an insult, and a way of dismissing people - essentially, as a bigoted term - way too often by members of the political left."
True, in much the same way as "secular progressive" has become pejorative as used by the political right.
It's a good thing you're not a secular progressive then, isn't it Rob? You're just an atheistic left-leaning non-regressive cynical scold, correct?
You said, regarding #7: "Legally speaking, this is already a requirement." But it's not. All this is related to is the IRS's rules concerning tax-exempt financial contributions to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, and there's no law on the books requiring churches to acquire 501(c)(3) status.
"It's a good thing you're not a secular progressive then, isn't it Rob? You're just an atheistic left-leaning non-regressive cynical scold, correct?"
I don't think I'm particularly cynical, but I may be a bit of a scold. People need a good scolding now and then. That is why married people are happier and live longer. ;-)
I am a secular progressive evangelical anti-war bible believing christan.
And proud of it!
Yeah... which version of the 'anti-war bible' do you read most often?
smmtheory,
The New International Version of the New Testament, specifically, the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
Yeah, right... which passage is it exactly that is specifically anti-war? I remember that passage about peacemakers, but nothing that is specifically anti-war. Being anti-war doesn't necessarily make one a peacemaker either. Of course, you are also aware that the New Testament isn't the whole Bible, aren't you? And as a few of the atheists that post here are wont to say, it's not specifically anti-war either.
Symmtheory,
Let's see, you can be a peace-maker without being anti-war? Or you could be anti-war without being a peacemaker. I suppose you a right.
Or maybe what you mean is that stuff Christ said really doesn't apply to real life or maybe it just means treat your friend and family nice, it doesn't have anything to do with supporting war-mongering politicians (that's ok) or speaking out against policies that kill hundreds of thousands of people we will never see except on TV. Besides, those Muslims aren't Christians, who cares what happens to them, right?
I guess you are right.
If that was what I meant, that is what I would have said. Take a look at how you choose to distinguish it... you say anti-war rather than pro-peace. Right away you are setting yourself in opposition to something rather than alignment with something. Your focus is on war, not peace. It is hard to be a peacemaker if that is not your focus. You are using adversarial (perhaps even war-like) actions to oppose war, which causes turmoil, not peace. When (and if) you focus on peace, then the next task is to ask, what kind of peace was Christ talking about in the Sermon on the Mount? The peace of Christ's, or the peace of man?
But it has been used as a pejorative, an insult, and a way of dismissing people - essentially, as a bigoted term - way too often by members of the political left.
When a phrase, however accurate, gets used not as an accurate description but rather as an attack, you can expect the recipients to start to dislike both the attack and the label...
I see a different game being played. If you're political people have a right to attack you for your politics. You shouldn't be attacked for your religion. But I notice the religious right likes to sometimes play the victimization card, pretending to be just about religion, when they are attacked for their politics.
Symtheory,
Nonsense.
Prove it.