Aaron,
In light of recent events, I thought you would enjoy this. Like I think you have been saying, the Church's main impact on the world is its own spiritual transformation, not its impact upon politics.
Tim
_____________________________________________
From: Hassett, Dan CIV USA TRADOC
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:35 AM
To: Obrien, Timothy M MAJ RES USAR TRADOC
Subject: Option for Evangelicals (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
from his FOX News bio: Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. Thomas is the author of more than 10 books, including, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America" co-authored with Bob Beckel.
Thomas is FOX News political contributor who joined FOX News in 1997. He also appears as a panelist on "FOX News Watch."
Thomas is a 40-year veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC News in Washington, D.C. and hosted his own program on CBNC that was nominated for a Cable ACE Award in 1995. Thomas is a graduate of American University.
He makes some good points in this column:
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for trying something else.
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?
If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?
Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.
Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?
Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Dan Hassett
USAMPS DOT
ITDD editor
Lincoln Hall, Rm. 2647
Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473
(573) 563-7245
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Amen! Amen!
Thank you for sending me this. My only caveat would be is that I do see a role for the church for advocacy in addressing structural injustices that perpetuate poverty. I would agree that even this role, however, is a secondary role. The problem with the religious right is that it seeks to address private morality issues through legislation (like gay marriage and abortion) when, if I'm understanding Scripture correctly, it's not necessarily the role of the church to try to force those outside our ranks to adhere to these standards. The Church is to be an agent of grace, not condemnation. When it comes to social morality issues however, like addressing labor and wage issues, I think the Church can play a political advocacy role in addressing these issues, much like the Biblical prophets did (e.g...Woe to you who write unrighteous decrees that rob the needy of justice). Even this, however is secondary to preaching the gospel and addressing issues of exploitation and greed from the pulpit of our churches.
Posts
4 comments:
Below is Pastor Tim O Brien's response:
You said:
"The problem with the religious right is that it seeks to address private morality issues through legislation (like gay marriage and abortion) when, if I'm understanding Scripture correctly, it's not the role of the church to try to force those outside our ranks to adhere to these standards."
I agree wholeheartedly. Jesus was surrounded by a pagan culture that controlled government, had an anti-God worldview, displayed their naked statues, ran their sensual Roman baths, embraced homosexuality, and worshipped idols... but Jesus NEVER addressed the Romans, He only ever addressed the people of God. The Pharisees believed that they only had to rid themselves of this pagan culture around them and their nation would be saved. It drove them nuts that Jesus never addressed what they perceived to be the real problem. Instead Jesus addressed their hardness of heart, their injustices, and their lack of desire for the Presence of God.
I absolutely agree! The issue that I'm dealing with is to what degree does the Church have a responsibility to speak truth to power on behalf of the poor? We know from Acts chapter 2 that the Church is supposed to be a company of prophets. We also know that the overwhelming emphasis of the Biblical prophets (at least from a public policy standpoint) was on poverty related issues.
As a matter of fact, there are 2,000 verses in the Bible that deal with poverty related issues and not a single verse on abortion even though abortion was, in fact, around back then.
I agree that the best way to deal with this is through agressive gospel preaching and by pastors addressing greed and exploitation issues from the pulpit (like do you know if the companies you're investing in are paying a fair wage to their employees? is the money that you're putting in the offering bucket tainted with somebody else's blood?) The question is, to what degree do we speak to the government on behalf of the poor to address structural injustice? And how?
This is an ongoing debate in non-religious right evangelical circles. Some advocate withdrawing altogether from political engagement in order to focus energy on creating an alternative society in the life of the Church. Others advocate cautious engagement. I'm curious to know your thoughts.
That last comment was me by the way.
Withdrawing from political engagment is not the answer, we just need to remind politicians that they do not have the right to our vote. However I do like the idea of creating an alternative society in the life of the Church by being the change we want. We need to be so bold about helping that the outside world can not help but take notice.
Also did Pastor Tim have these type of views before the silly film Jesus Camp? While I did not watch much of Jesus Camp for numerous reasons, I thought most of the Christians as portrayed in the movie would not hold to such view points.
Post a Comment