It has been a remarkable phenomenon taking place in the last few years, and the tide only seems to be getting stronger. Since the halcyon days of the Moral Majority, the Republican Party has been the proud defender of “traditional family values.” We knew that much of this support was tepid at best, but it was there nonetheless. The party platform opposed abortion, an unspeakable evil that must be opposed by anyone with basic moral sense. It stood for the “traditional family” against many initiatives pushed by the social progressives on the other side of the aisle.
But the struggle was most noticeable in the battle for a biblical definition of marriage. It is no easy thing to look into your Bible and come up with the idea that God approves of the marriage of two men or two women, requiring hermeneutical gymnastics that would amaze Gabby Douglas. Until 2012, the masses in America stood with us on the issue. Every time homosexual marriage was put on the ballot, “one man and one woman” prevailed. Even the socially liberal president Obama, the most aggressively pro-abortion president we’ve had, refused to announce his support for gay marriage until a year or so ago.
But, with a few RINO exceptions, Republicans stood foursquare and unyielding behind our convictions – that marriage was intended to be a union of one man and woman that lasted a lifetime.
Many years ago, Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas wrote a powerful book, “Blinded by Might,” which warned Christians about the fundamental difference between the church and political parties. It is nice when a political party shares our values, but we must understand that political parties have core principles that stand at odds with our mission even when some of our positions overlap. According to Dobson and Thomas, politics is about power – gaining it and maintaining it. Politicians will tend to do what they need to do to get elected and stay in office. The church is (supposed to be) about truth – proclaiming it regardless of whether it is popular or not.
That distinction has been demonstrated as truth in a startling way in the last couple of years. The media has engaged in a relentless campaign to paint those who hold to traditional marriage as bigoted, backward, hateful dolts. Slowly, the tide seemed to turn. The process got a huge shot in the arm when Obama changed his stance (to no one’s surprise) and became a supporter of gay marriage. The floodgates opened and public opinion shifted. For the first time, in the 2012 election, states voted for homosexual marriage and polls began to show that the majority in our land were in favor of, or at least accepting of, gay marriage.
Since the 2012 election in which Obama won reelection, Republicans have begun to abandon the sinking ship of “traditional marriage” demonstrating that their support was not so much rooted in principle or conviction, but in pragmatism. They supported our view largely because it was popular and would help them gain and maintain power. As soon as public opinion shifted, so did they.
Which leads me to the conclusion I stated in the title. We were used. Of course, there are Republicans of conviction and principle who will hold on to their beliefs even if it costs them at the ballot box. I’m guessing they are as rare and probably as endangered a species as pro-life Democrats. Some of the trusted luminaries of the conservative movement have already announced that they want to and want the Republican party to “get on the right side of history.”
Conservative Christians and our values were used by the Republican party as a voting bloc to win elections. We were a useful tool in their goal to wrest power from the liberal democrats and to hold it themselves. As public opinion shifts, more and more of them will “see the light” and announce that they are aboard the gay marriage train!
It shouldn’t have come as a surprise to us.
1) Republicans have never made social issues a priority when they had power. Some of the most liberal and activist members of the Supreme Court are Republican appointees. Even when Republicans held power, little more than lip service was given to abortion issues. We were a voting bloc, not a conviction, for the party most of us have supported.
2) Political opportunism is anything but new. George Bush (the elder) switched his views on abortion soon after becoming Reagan’s VP candidate. Mitt Romney was a pro-choice governor of Massachusetts but at about the same time his aspirations turned toward national office, he had a moment of enlightenment at which he became pro-life. Since I think pro-life is the only moral choice, I do not deny the possibility that someone could come to his senses and see the evil of killing babies in their mother’s wombs. But the timing of that is convenient at best and craven at worst.
3) The news over the last 20 years is full of stories of “family values” hypocrites, who while proclaiming conservative values lived secret lives of dishonesty, immorality and perversion – more evidence that these values were anything but heart-passions.
A legitimate argument can be held as to just how Christian America ever was. Even Christian historians divide on the subject. Certainly, there were some biblical values built into our governing documents and we see the hand of a sovereign God guiding us. On the other hand, racism has been deeply imbued into our national existence since almost the beginning, even defended by many in “Christian America.” Hypocrisy and hidden sin have always been present.
But “Christian America” is gone (or at least mortally wounded and in the throes of death). We are no longer a nation that sees ourselves as responsible or answerable to God. Our highest value is personal happiness and comfort. Following God’s law has been replaced as a goal by a “follow your heart” ethic.
I do not know what I will do in the future. I am blessed that my congressman (Steve King) is one of the few convictional conservatives among Republicans. I vote for him with enthusiasm. But by 2016, I would be willing to wager (if I were a betting man) that the GOP will have nominated its last “traditional marriage” candidate for national office. Abortion? Not sure. Right now, the mood in America is more split concerning the unthinkable brutality of abortion. But if the mood switches so will GOP support! We were never a passion for the GOP. We were used for their purposes, to be cast away when we get in the way.
All of this is to make this point. For years, some Christians have said that we should not put our faith in political parties. Back in the heady days of the Reagan era, a lot of Christians believed that the GOP would help to restore “truth, justice and the American Way” in this land. That hope is now gone. Not only should we not trust political parties, we CANNOT! We MUST not!
We have been used for our votes. As soon as public opinion shifted, we are being cast aside for the sake of political expedience.
The only question left is whether the church is a place of conviction or not. Will we hold to what the Bible says even when we are hated for it? Will we compromise as the Democrats and Republicans have? Are we committed to the truth even if it brings cultural rejection, ostracism and even persecution, or are we another political entity seeking power and influence, willing to shift our views to maintain it?
Time will tell.
Dave,
As tough of an evaluation as this is and as sad a truth it reveals, it is uplifting for me to see more and more Christians speak on this subject. I am hoping it will wake up a stagnant church to fight with spiritual weapons for Christ’s Kingdom instead of being deceived that our Christian duty is fulfilled at the voting booth and church attendance.
Thank you brother for some much needed encouragement.
All political parties, as you mentioned, exist to get others of their party elected. Period. This is why while some have serious convictions, the rest do not.
We as the church need to stick firm to the Bible; stick firm to the Lord. He is our lodestar, not public opinion. That is why I am less surprised at the shift we’re seeing in the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts were a secular organization that supported the prevailing values of our culture. That happened to be, for a long time, predominantly Christian. That is no longer, so it will follow the tide of popular “values.”
Our churches cannot fall for the same lies our culture falls for. We cannot allow ourselves to rewrite God’s word, God’s law based on our own feeling. God didn’t say, “Do whatever feels good for you.” That’s not God’s law, that’s man’s opinion.
Yep.
Thanks for posting this Dave. We (Evangelical Christians) are way late in realizing that establishment Republicans never loved us or our causes. They only coveted our votes. I tend to vote Republican as the lesser of the evils since abortion is a deal breaker for me, but I am under no illusion that one party is the righteous party.
I think that is the key, Ed. Too many have seen the Republican Party as “the Christian Party” for a long time. It is not. And that is going to be increasingly apparent.
Dave,
While I tend to agree with the conclusions of your last three paragraphs or so, I don’t agree, necessarily, with how you got there. I don’t know that you can base the idea of Christians systematically “being used for our votes” on one issue like gay marriage. Still, I conceded that there are many other issues that one can point to in order to make this assertion. However, this doesn’t hold true for all issues, particularly abortion. Republicans have tended to hold firm on their shared view of the murder of children, which until the gay marriage issue came to the forefront, was THE uniting moral issue among all conservatives and still is an issue that is relatively a no-brainer for Republicans. In fact, this is probably the one moral area where the political arena has been exceedingly helpful in pushing back against the culture. Today, at least in much of the South, abortion clinics are few and far between, with the closest one to the liberal, University town I live in being 40 miles away.
So my point here is that, yes, Christians have been used for votes and we do need to wake up. However, I don’t think we abandon the ship of Republicanism just because of the failure of party on the issue of gay marriage. For me, it’s simply not as important of an issue as abortion – the slaughter of children. In other words, I think it unwise to destroy the damn holding back the deluge of immorality because of the gaping hole that clearly needs to be patched.
DR, I am somewhat cynical about Republican’s (the party at least) commitment to the pro-life movement. I’m not sure that it has been much more than lip service. We will see.
Dave,
This is a confession that I thought that I would never read from a person that fits your profile. I guess your honesty, transparency, openess, and committment to truth are the reasons that I highly respect and value you as a brother and a friend.
I have consistently voted Republucan because of their conservative social and fiscal agenda since 1984. This past election, I cast a write-in vote for Jesus for President, but voted primarily for Republicans down line. But I must admit, I feel as if I’ve been used for the reasons your article indicates. More and more I understand evangelical Christians of all stripes who strongly oppose abortion, gay marriage and fiscal irresponsibility–but prioritize justice, fairness, gender equality and meeting the needs of the poor over the abortion and gay marriage issue. They are simply not convinced that the majority of the Republucan lawmakers are seriously commited to these issues. Most evangelicals that vote Democratic feel as if the Republicans only use these issues to insincerely gain evangelical votes. And then do little to nothing to advance those agendas once elected.
The one solution to this Republican problem/dilemma is Dr. Ben Carson. He may be the only hope for salvation for the Republicans. He is a strong social and fiscal conservative, yet he maintains political independent status. If the Republicans embrace him as their 2016 Presidential candidate, he is a convictional and principled person who will maintain the courage of his convictions once in office.
Dr. Carson delivered practically the same speech at the church where I pastor on Thanksgiving weekend to a predominantly all Black enthusiastic audience. I noticed that he kept the children attention spellbound while he spoke. I usually put the children to sleep. I asked his secret related to keeping children’s attention. He reminded me that he was a pediatric neurosurgeon. Therefore, trained to communicate with children. Perhaps seminaries should add this training to their curriculums.
Thanks Dave. You spoke today as a prophet.
Dwight
Dwight, interesting proposal regarding Ben Carson. Perhaps he should begin to enter the realm of politics (Surgeon General absolutely, and certainly a good choice for a Congression seat), but don’t you think 2016 Presidential candidate is quite a far-fetched possibility considering his lack of political experience? Would Republicans not be hypocrites for denouncing the inexperience of Obama and then embracing a candidate with even less experience? Also, I do have concerns over his 7th Day Adventist background.
But of greater concern to me is the fact that you seem to be doing exactly what I speak of in my comment below – placing your faith in a better king for solutions that only can come about through prayer and proclamation of the Gospel.
D R,
If God’s anointing is on a man or woman to be President of the United States, experience is a non issue. Jimmy Carter & Richard Nixon were experienced politicians, so what? My name sake, Dwight Eisenhower was an experienced military leader, but not an experienced politician and he performed admirably as President. Dr. Carson has what it takes to be President.
The hypocrisy of the Republicans is well established which is the subject of Dave’s post. The majority of Americans obviously didn’t buy the Republicans inexperience argument against President Obama and neither should it be a valid argument against Dr. Carson.
Exactly what is it about his Seventh Day Adventist background that would concern you as it relates to Dr. Carson serving as POTUS?
Dwight
If you remember, Saul was anointed as well. And look what happened there.
Regardless of what Americans bought as a legitimate argument, experience is important. God uses experience to prepare us for greater influence. Jesus even seems to affirm this in the Parable of the Talents. Certainly, it seems legitimate that if God is calling him to be President, He would place him in other political positions in order to gain the experience necessary to be prepared for that post. God certainly did this with many in the Bible – Samuel was under Eli, David, though anointed by God, waited his turn and was proven faithful. Even Jesus waited 30 years or so before revealing Himself – certainly He sat under many Rabbis and teachers in the synagogue before this.
I’m not saying that Ben Carson couldn’t be elected President or even that he wound’t be a fine one without experience. I’m simply saying that it seems quite legitimate both Biblically and practically to expect for the man to get some political experience first. If he is all you claim he is, then it will only help him.
Still, you ignored my greater concern, which was that it seems you are putting too much stock in a man here, when what we really need in this country is something akin to Jeremiah Lanphier’s Laymen’s Prayer Revival and Biblical, Evangelistic preaching in the streets like that of George Whitefield. No man, no matter how great he is, will be able to pull this country out of mire of immorality. The only one who can do that ascended to Heaven 2000 years ago and will one day come again to establish the True Kingdom on Earth.
I don’t think Dwight is saying the Dr Carson is the salvation of the country, but of the Republican party in that he could lead it to be big tented, but narrow of vision and not swayed by opinion polls because he is a man of conviction. He could be a great President, but not another Jesus and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that.
I think he would either be the leader the conservatives and moderates and not a few liberals could rally behind as he leads the party with a solid and unwavering platform, or, he could be the last man standing as the party leaves him and the rest of Christian America in the dust of pragmatic power plays.
D. R.,
I will address your primary concern & then I will await an answer to my question regarding your concern about Dr. Carson’s Seventh Day Adventism affiliation.
Yes!!! I absolutely without hesitation, qualification or reservation, maintain your position that nothing short of a move of God, wrought and led by the Spirit of God will save this nation from defeat. I will be meeting with a small gathering of pastors in early May praying toward this end. You are spot on in your conclusion. This is the heart of Dr. Luter & will be the theme of the upcoming SBC. May God bring it to fruition(Psalm 85: 6).
Dwight
I don’t buy this as a legitimate reason for not being a candidate for office. Nor should he have a track record of successful businesses or accomplishments in the work place or lesser office. He needs a vision, a calling, and Godly advisers.
How many would be pastors have success or experience before they enter the pulpit? I’d say the pastor is a more important office than President and we expect so much less in the way of experience or resume than a presidential candidate.
I think political naivete is undervalued because it means that one has not been corrupted by a corrupt system. It might be time for some idealists with strong convictions and a devotion to God rather than more politicians “who can get things done.”
I don’t know a huge amount about Dr. Carson, but I am very impressed with him. Unless information comes out about him that I am not aware of, I would be very enthusiastic about a Carson candidacy.
Dwight, have you read “Blinded by Might?” I think you would enjoy that book. It seems prophetic now.
Dave,
I have not read this book, but I will order it today. Sounds like a great read that perhaps inspired or certainly informed this great post.
Yes, it was formative for my views on Christianity and politics in America. I highly recommend it. Hope its still in print. You may have to go to Amazon or Ebay.
I don’t have a formed opinion yet regarding Ben Carson as a potential politician, but this past summer I watched “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story.” If you haven’t seen it, you definitely need to. Very inspiring.
Having made that previous comment, let me make another one that some might see as contradictory to the first. Nonetheless:
One of the biggest problems with the Church in America today is that we have placed our faith in political parties in order to change our culture and ignored our calling and duty, our only hope – the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And we have failed to proclaim Christ to the lost as well as we should have, with intense prayer and fasting, relying on the Holy Spirit and not on man-made, utilitarian methods.
Until the Church gets away from the mindset of the Israelites in 1 Samuel 8, who thought that the right earthly king would solve their problems, It will continue to be weak and worthless in the face of a mountain of American immorality and injustice.
D.R.,
Well stated! You have hit on the problem with the “church” in America today. Too many conservative, Bible-believing Evangelcals — including far too many Southern Baptists — have been more content using the weapons of our culture (i.e., politics) instead of using the Gospel and the spiritual weapons needed to prevail against the darkness. When we are more concerned about which political party is in office rather than how we can more effectively proclaim the Gospel, we will, as you stated, continue to be “weak and worthless in the face of a mountain of American immorality and injustice.” Thanks for the good word. Lord willing, look forward to seeing you in Houston this summer. There’s got to be a few good BBQ joints in the city 🙂 God bless,
Howell
Howell, you got it exactly right. (And that doesn’t always happen!)
Dave,
Every once in a while, a blind squirrel can find an acorn 😉
Yep.
Actually, we do pretty good until someone brings up the”ruling elites” or certain acronyms like GCR or GCB.
SPOT ON!!!
Howell,
I may be reading you wrong, and if so, then consider this as an aside, but I don’t think this is a either/or issue.
Your statement, “Too many conservative, Bible-believing Evangelcals — including far too many Southern Baptists — have been more content using the weapons of our culture (i.e., politics) instead of using the Gospel and the spiritual weapons needed to prevail against the darkness.”, provides no statistical proof, it is merely an opinion. Now you certainly have a right to your opinion and perhaps you understand your own church, but to blanket that SBC wide or anywhere else is pure conjecture.
While believers certainly need to be more concerned with the gospel than with politics, that doesn’t imply or mean that we should put our heads in the sand and allow either political party to ransack any good qualities the country has or once had.
This is a both/and situation and while believers need to speak plainly with Republicans, believers that vote Democrat need to speak just as plainly.
Nate,
Thanks for the comment. Let me clarify. While one I wrote is my opinion, I believe it is informed by what I have observed in our church culture (yes, including some within the church I pastor) particularly during this past Presidential election. I did not say “most” Southern Baptists, but surely there are “too many” (we can quibble on how many is too many) who have been more content to try to change our culture through politics than change it through prayer. My statement is an observation, but was not intended to be a blanket indictment upon the SBC or Evangelical Christians. I didn’t think that the language I used conveyed that, but if it did, that was not my intention.
Of course, as you rightly point out, this is a both/and situation. Christians do need to be involved in the political process and exercise their rights to vote, run for office, make their voices heard by their elected representatives, etc. However, that does not need to be the primary way that we try to change our culture. We are called to be salt and light and to use spiritual weapons as our primary weapons of choice in the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. However, the Gospel is the only thing that will truly change hearts and minds. I believe Dave’s OP and D.R.’s comment both paint an accurate picture of why we are in the mess that we are in today. Hope that helps clarify what I was trying to say. God bless,
Howell
D.R. Likes the wrong type of BBQ
Dave,
I meant to say that Dr. Carson delivered the same speech to our church that he delivered at the most recent Presidential prayer breakfast that caused so much controversy. I did not make this clear in my earlier comment.
Dwight
I would love to hear him sometime.
“Not only should we not trust political parties, we CANNOT! We MUST not!”
AMEN!!!!
We have been used. Political parties are NOT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!! God does NOT NEED them and I am sure he detests their willingness to conform and twist and use pragmatism just to gain power. Actually “used” is not the word for what has happened to us, PLAYED AND PLAYED WELL, is more like it. Many Pastors and preachers have let the politicians turn the Great Gospel of our Lord into a moralistic, compromising, pragmatic and patriotic dead religion. All the while singing to the tune of a politician of which most would sell their granny out to get elected. We Pastors just need to preach the gospel with God given passion calling sin sin like John the Baptist. If we do that we will be calling most the politicians out on the “carpet”, so let the chips fall where they may.
Alan Davis
I still think there are many good, Christian, “family values” Republicans. You mentioned Steve King. He is not alone. Not by a mile.
Besides, if my only choices are: (a) to be used by Republicans, or (b) to be abused by Democrats, I will choose (a) every time.
Pendulums swing. It’s high time for Republicans to run a social conservative for the White House again. This pragmatic, country club stuff isn’t working.
Rick,
Would you accept that we don’t need to relegate ourselves to only those two options though? I mean there are other parties in the USA. Are we obligated to vote only for those who might win?
In my opinion, Clinton won in 1992 because 18% of the electorate threw their votes in the trash by supporting Ross Perot. If instead they had voted for one of the two legitimate options, Bush would have been elected and no one would have ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Grouse if you must, but I believe we have a two-party system. I vote for the lesser of two evils, whether they “use” me or not.
The eternal battle between the ideal and the real.
If we settle for the lesser of two evils, we tend to always be presented with two evils as our options. If we hold out for the ideal, the greater evil often wins.
No grousing. I’ll quickly admit we have a two party system. We have it though because we accepted it.
Like Dave said the battle between the ideal and the real. As an individual who has never voted (now who is inciting grousing), I am being increasingly swayed to participate not to prevent the greatest evil but because I have a Christian obligation to the ideal. Just $0.02 … the going rate of a spleen these days…
Wow. You have really never voted? While I admire your idealism, I would not write in “Jesus” at the ballot box. He’ll take care of that Himself one day. In the meantime, someone very imperfect will have to lead, preferably a Republican, since they are generally a good bit less imperfect than the Democrats.
As for the going rate of a spleen, I think two cents is a bit high.
Rick,
I would never write Jesus on a ballot because He hasn’t asked us to establish the kingdom like that. He is King of kings and Lord of lords now. He is reigning now. He doesn’t need to be voted President of a vapor of a historical country. So I actually don’t even see that as the ideal.
I believe the ideal would be to vote the candidate who best supports Biblical truth made evident in laws. And I think this includes what the government should be in charge of fiscally. And because of this I could only very rarely vote Republican or Democrat.
Thank you btw for this: “This pragmatic, country club stuff isn’t working.”
“Besides, if my only choices are: (a) to be used by Republicans, or (b) to be abused by Democrats, I will choose (a) every time. ”
‘used’? ‘abused’?
‘lost and harassed and without a shepherd’?
No.
You HAVE a Shepherd.
Follow Him.
Christiane,
The context of this post is the involvement of Christians in the political arena. Dave did not really talk about Jesus in his original post either. It was unnecessary to rebuke me as though I were confusing the political leadership of parties with the spiritual leadership of Christ.
Yep.
Hi RICK,
my comment did sound abrupt . . . sorry for the tone of it
HOWEVER . . . IF you think about it, being ‘used’ is a form of manipulation except when you understand what you are letting yourself in for . . .
it is then, that you have made a choice,
and are responsible for that choice . . . and you can no longer claim that you were being ‘used’ if you are complicit by agreeing to go along with being ‘used’ voluntarily
I don’t know if that made sense . . . I hope it did . . .
again, sorry for abruptness . . . I just want something better for you than those choices, RICK 🙂
Thanks, and yes, I see your point. Have a blessed evening.
I would be willing to wager my spleen, Rick, that Republicans will NOT run a social conservative next time.
Okay, Dave, but how does this work? First, are officers of the SBC permitted to gamble their body parts? Second, do I have to put up my spleen as well, so the winner has two and the loser has none? Or is it simply, win and you keep your own spleen, but lose and it’s mine? In that scenario, I don’t really lose anything either way.
The troubling thing, Dave, and I want to say this as gently as possible, is that I really do not want your spleen anyway. Here you are offering me something that is of great value to you but absolutely no value to me at all. I don’t know whether Republicans will run a social conservative or not, but regardless, there’s simply no need for you to spill your guts.
You, sir, are a nerd.
Rick,
That was brilliant. I needed a good laugh. Thanks.
Dwight
Don’t encourage him!!
it was funny 🙂
Touche for Rick.
lol
David
“The only question left is whether the church is a place of conviction or not. Will we hold to what the Bible says even when we are hated for it?”
You do not need to look to far for the answer just look how your church, my church, and everyones church who reads your article handles the Divorce issue amongst the congregation. How does that stand up with what is taught within Scripture? The church gave up long ago the moral ground regarding marriage from a biblical perspective.
I am not so sure who uses who when it comes to politics. Could it also be the church has been using politicians to attempt to do what is not done by church elders? Who should be holding the congregation accountable for marriage issues according to Scripture? Politicians? I have not found that taught in the Bible.
“It is no easy thing to look into your Bible and come up with the idea that God approves of…….” Divorce of two heterosexuals.
You all are probably good pastors or ministers of the Bible , but , lousy brick layers and electricians . So it is with actually being a politician – not just getting elected . When you attempt to sit in that chair you’re either qualified or you’re not – and most of you are not . Listening to other people’s view points is a lesson that’s important if you are to succeed in any endeavor and not to consider yourselveselves experts in most fields including politics .
People mention third parties, and I have a lot to say about that, but I will try to keep it short.
So long as third parties (current and future) focus on a top down approach to elections, that is they focus on running a candidate for President and nothing else, they are doomed to fail. If as Conservative Christians we want to be serious about changing the party system, getting free of Republicans that are lukewarm to us, then we have to start not from to the top down, but from the bottom up. Rather then spending time and money trying to get a President in office when A) some stats would not even allow them on the ballot, and B) they have absolutely no chance of winning so long as the third party is unknown; how about we start at the local and state level. Start confronting state Democrats and Republicans with solidly Conservative candidates. Basically all but tell them that unless they run true Conservatives we will run a Conservative against them. Imagine if after 4-6 years in 3-4 states there are several dozen Party members in each state legislatures. Imagine if for US House in a few states a Party member wins. Maybe even a US Senate member! If that happens, one of two things will happen. Either the Republican party (I doubt the Democratic Party would) will swing back more conservative to avoid loosing any more power, OR they will completely abandon us and Conservatives will know for sure. Either way, Conservatives will gain a larger voice, and THEN we can start running candidates for President.
But let us not forget, Constitutionally the Branch that is SUPPOSE to have the majority of the “power” in this country is the Legislative Branch. If we really want to be Constitutional in how we Conservatives do things, it would be better to gain seats and influence in Congress rather than wasting money on a third party Presidential Candidate.
Ultimately however, the best answer, is to GET INVOLVED!! I do not wish to point fingers or make accusations, but I would be willing to bet that a least half of the people here (and elsewhere) who are rallying against the Republican Party are not involved in the local or state level. I would be willing to bet that most have never sent letters to their state or federal representatives. I would be willing to bet that most are armchair political junkies who like to speak loudly, but do nothing. Maybe, just maybe, if Christian Conservatives got more and more involved in their local/state political scenes, things would start to change for the better. But no, they dont, they give up, they say its a “lost cause”, and so nothing changes. That is the travesty of the whole thing.
I have been having trouble seeing the American political system as anything but a lost cause. That doesn’t mean I will give up, but it means that I will not look to the Republican Party or even to the government to do the work that matters.
You are exactly right. Conservative Evangelical Christians in America have lost their prophetic voice because they’ve been chasing after the Republican party. The leaders have had to buy into GOP policy and as a result, find themselves supporting non-Christian, and even anti-Christian positions on some issues, and practices in others. We’re portrayed as being supportive of a health care and health care finance system that is crooked, corrupt, and takes advantage of the neediest people. We have leaders who waste time and are distracted by stupid rumors, like the location of the President’s birth. We want to claim the moral high ground on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, but we pay big bucks and flock to idolize someone like Sarah Palin, who now has two grandchildren out of wedlock, can’t seem to keep her stories straight (in other words, lies), was a pathetic embarassment at the CPAC, and quit halfway through a term as governor of Alaska.
I don’t think that’s all of it, though. The public education system has, for more than two decades, been laying all of this out in its curriculum core objectives. Conservative Christians can’t get together on supporting their own schools, and while we fight over petty doctrinal issues, the public schools have been systematically teaching students that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality or homosexual behavior, and that same sex marriage is the same as any marriage. These objectives are found in every subject area, and they are vertically aligned, so that they are reinforced year in and year out. You would expect that the secular world would accept most of this without question, but since 80% of the children of conservative Christians are also in the public schools, they are getting a daily dose of this as well, while they probably make church three out of four Sundays and some Wednesdays during the school year. I fight that battle every day.
Tell us how you really feel, Lee.
Interesting comment. I think I agree with about 95% of it. Maybe 97%.
As I understand it, the dividing line (or at least a major dividing line) on this issue has to do with our understanding of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18–20: Is our task, as the Church, and as disciples of Jesus, to Christianize the nations (understood either as societal structures, cultures, or geo-political nation/states) or is it to make disciples of individuals from among all the ethnic groups of the world, and to gather them into the counter-cultural entity known as the Church, which functions as a sign of the coming Kingdom? As I understand it Christianizing the nations, in the sense mentioned above, is part of Jesus’ second-advent ministry, not His first-advent ministry. In the meantime, as the Church, and as the disciples of Jesus, we are commissioned by Jesus to continue His first-advent ministry (not including dying on the cross for people’s sins). In other words, be it Republican or any other political party, if we as the Church put our eggs in that basket, we are misguided and headed toward inevitable disappointment and poor stewardship of God’s gifts and the resources He entrusts us with.
I still say that your blog posts on patriotism and the mission of the church through the years should be brought together into a book. Right after you finish the one on ecclesiology.
I cringe whenever I hear the words “Christian Republican”. I understand it use, but it seems to imply a dual loyalty that I dont think is possible. It sounds even worse when you think of “Christian” being just the adjective to “Republican”, the noun. It makes “Republican” look like the main identifier
Either way, I think it was Paul Washer who said (paraphrase) that when you combine Christianity with a political party, “you degrade Christianity”.
I think he also said that whether the issue is left-wing or right-wing, “both are wings of the same corrupt bird”. I think that is largely correct.
“Evangelical Christians”…the cheapest date in politics.
Wow. That is tweet-worthy.
I WILL reissue this giving full credit to Adam G in NC.
I disagree that we’ve been “used”. What did we do that we haven’t volunteered for? And if we’ve put trust in a political organization, just how Biblical would THAT be?
From one side of our mouth, we claim that a minority of the population is born-again Christian, yet from the other side we express surprise that the majority of people now favor same-sex marriage, and abortion. That seems a pretty good definition of “double mindedness”, to me.
Frankly, it’s about time that the church is beginning to look like folks whose home is not the USA, or even earth. Folks living in, but folks not OF, this world.
Perhaps God is forcing us … the church … to be what we’re supposed to have been, all along.
Bob,
To piggyback of your last sentence. I have heard a similar thing said about education. It was something to the effect that “God will keep prayer out of school so that we’ll realize our children shouldn’t be there.”
I’m not arguing the validity of the point. Just seeing a growing trend of Christian thinking. Thank you for your words.
Prayer will stay in schools as long as there are math tests in schools.
Prayer in school was never the issue. Teachers and (others in authority) and the school system itself sanctioning prayer was the issue. And from a Christian perspective, the building of a structure of civil religion should have been recognized. As Christians we need to accurately understand and articulate the issues.
John
Dave,
Time magazine ran a cover article that provides an interesting timeline related to the public shift on same-sex marriage. There are interesting social/cultural/political points along the way that we might find interesting laid beside the Thomas book you mentioned.
Also, I wonder if one of the ways we might consider pushing against political tides would be to capture the very political move of Jesus. By political I do not mean party affiliation. Instead I am thinking of what it meant for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem having announced a new politic for all people – the Kingdom of God. Even more, when one considers the very archetypal move to mimic others who came to Jerusalem to do violence, Jesus came in weakness, took the full brunt of a violent response, and was raised by God vindicating his life’w work and the hope of the world.
I am want to believe there is a way to follow that political pattern for the hope of the world rather than, as you well describe, being ridden into the White House only to be tied up by both the actions of politicians, and sadly, our own.
Good post.
[rant on]
Umm…I think you’re looking at it the wrong way, Dave. The two parties (especially in a two-party v. a parliamentary system) are each coalitions of people who have some shared interests who work together. To win general elections they put forward candidates that first appeal to the portions of their base and then to unaligned independents and possibly to the opposite base.
The problem you’re actually pointing out is that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. The parties have very little choice but to respond to the majority or they’re doomed to being minority parties. To some extent that’s like complaining that last year 77% of Americans believed in the resurrection but this year only 64% do (recent news article.) The parties have some amount of minor influence on the positions the American people take. But they don’t make people believe something or another. The parties are generally followers not trailblazers.
Part of the problem right now is that the Democrats cobbled together a significant majority and have been able to usher in a huge portion of their agenda and it has created a sense of momentum. Republicans will only coalesce around fiscal conservatism because that’s the only place we have enough coalition partners to actually move the needle.
Focusing on social issues generally moves the needle in the wrong direction for assembling and managing a coalition. It’s even worse when the issue–such as focusing on restrictive immigration policy in a nation of immigrants–is viewed as being to some extent or another of questionable morality by the majority. Or in the case of gay marriage it’s viewed by the majority as being a civil liberties issue. AND a religious liberty issue in part because it is a civil liberty issue.
One of Cal Thomas’s continuing points is that God has no intention of accomplishing his eternal plans through one government or another no matter how enlightened it might be. The Kingdom replaces human government and Jesus Christ sits on the throne and governs us. In the meantime, God uses governments redemptively. Which is to say they’re part of his plan for governing the nation and when they fail to do their job under his authority he actively–according to the Bible–corrects them.
But just like with the Law, that isn’t perfecting people. We are only perfected by being conformed with the image of Christ Jesus. And those who reject Christ cannot be conformed to the image of Christ Jesus. This is why the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention have emphasized evangelism: we view it as the most direct path to the Invisible Kingdom becoming Visible. And that is not an eschatological claim and it is a shared opinion of our covenant theology believers and our dispensationalists, of our a-, post-, and pre-millenailists.
If any of us disagree with the coalition that subscribes to evangelism–including both discipleship and baptism–as our primary responsibility as a group of people, then that should be the point of division that divides us.
By a similar token, the Republican party will never agree to that viewpoint. They’re not committed to God’s plan for the nations. And we ought not expect them to be. It actually is the beauty of both the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State implied by the First Amendment: the politics of the nation should never be organized to accomplish a specifically sectarian or religious result. And that’s good.
We just thought the emergence of the Moral Majority meant something substantial and changed and we could rely on politics to usher in the Kingdom. Nope…it didn’t change and we were wrong to trust politics to accomplish the job that Jesus–with all authority in heaven and earth–explicitly gave to the Bride/Church. And every example of a state church feeling its oats in imposing morality through legislation (whether by fiat or representative process) has pretty much been an example of why that approach doesn’t work. And Romans tells us why.
[rant off]
If we want to make the real difference: we focus on God’s plan for accomplishing holiness. It is very precisely through teaching the nations that Jesus Christ is the only source of righteousness available to them. They can’t create their own. They can only create false, self-righteousness that is a repugnant to God as soiled, filthy rags are to us.
I fail at linking: the news article
Sorry for the length of the rant. I got on a roll. 😉
Good stuff, Greg. I agree.
Oh man, where to start.
First, I hate people who say I told you so, so I won’t, but I would like to point out that I’ve been saying the very things said in this post, on this site in comments, for over two years. If you’ll go back and look I have referenced the Cal Thomas book at least a dozen times. I’ve been called liberal, told that I voted for Obama (I didn’t), accused of being pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and God knows what else, and gotten hateful emails, etc. If after all that we can finally have a rational, Christian discussion about politics and the Gospel, then it was not only worth it, but well worth it.
Now that I’m done whining, let’s review the issues.
In 20+ years of the “Religious Right” holding sway on Republican politics, the Supreme Court nominees, and the national dialogue on “morals,” our country has gotten worse- not better- morally, culturally, and spiritually. Why? Because the Church left the Gospel at the door of the State House, We have surrendered the initiative of life change to politicians who regularly turned out to be forgetful of their promises and uncaring of our concerns once they were elected. Why? Because they are politicians and all politicians have to by nature be pragmatists in order to get elected. We supplied the votes therefore our concerns were worth championing. That’s no longer the case because while we were “getting out the vote” we were no longer “getting out the Gospel” and were in fact creating a “church” where no one who disagreed with our politics would give us a hearing- because they wanted nothing to do with Republican politics or the people who represented it. That my friends is how you lose a generation and render the “church” largely impotent in 20 years. It was a master stroke by the Enemy.
So what do we do now? First, we stop supporting politics and start supporting ideas. We need to bring the Gospel to bear on the brokenness of our nation. In what way? Well I’d start with the poor, the orphans and single moms, and the abandoned elderly. We need to start rescuing the poor from generations of poverty and government dependence by employing people at a living wage (not minimum wage), teaching job skills, budgeting and nutrition, and doing it in a dignified and Christ honoring way. We need to lose the stink of Romney’s comments about the poor during the last election by pointing out that he is not “one of us” and pointing out that the early Christians and Jesus Himself cared for the poor and marginalized. We need to corporately and personally repent of our callous disregard for the poor. And before you point out to me that churches can’t employ and train all of these people- I know that- we need Christians- who own businesses and work in positions of power in companies- to be the champions of this cause, even to their own detriment.
Second, we need to stop just saying we are pro-life and move to living as if we are pro-life by embracing single moms and adopting unwanted kids who would otherwise be aborted, neglected, or lost to the “system” that is DHS/Child Welfare. If we really believe abortion is an atrocity, then we need to open our homes to kids no one wants to have and our resources to single moms who will have the child but have no way to care for him/her. In Oklahoma, the 111 Campaign has done just that and it needs to happen in other states where people who follow Jesus rediscover pure religion in caring for the orphan.
Finally, we need the church to open up her doors for the neglected and forgotten elderly in our nation. It’s a growing population of people who are lying forgotten in government run housing and nursing facilities- having lived past their retirements and their kids means to care for them. They often waste away for years in places that resemble hell on earth and with caregivers who are prone to abuse them or ignore them. The church needs to enter their realm and provide companionship, dignity, and comfort as they spend their last days on earth.
Now I know many of you will say, where is the Gospel here? It is all over every one of those points. When we begin to care about people and not politics we will have doors open for us that will allow us to speak about the Gospel with a suddenly eager and willing audience- who will want to know- “Why are you doing this?”
What will stop us from undertaking these things? It’s not a fight. It’s not sexy. It’s slow. It does not end in power and control. It will strip all of these things from a group of people who have manipulated the church into all of these things for the sake of their own personal agendas and gains. Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, Richard Land, Michele Bachman, Sean Hannity, and all the rest that have grown fat off of all of this politicking and fundraising will be marginalized and they will not go quietly nor will their followers, and they will not buy into what I have outlined in this ginormous comment because it will not raise their profiles or their bank accounts. But why should the church care about their profiles or bank accounts? We are called to reach a lost and dying world with the Gospel.
I pray that more people will come to Dave’s conclusions and that we will see the American church repent from politics and return to the hard, unglamorous work of reaching men and women with the Gospel.
…exits soapbox…
Ryan,
Can you tell me from Scripture where politics became the realm of the dammed?
I grew up in a missionary kid and all my life I have observed the church doing the type of things you call for that you imply are outside of politics.
Lastly not sure why it is acceptable to slander/malign Dr Land. you say ,”
It will strip all of these things from a group of people who have manipulated the church into all of these things for the sake of their own personal agendas and gains.”
I know Dr Land well enough to realize this is a baseless charge!
I’m not sure where I said politics is the “realm of the damned” but I think God’s Word counsels us against making war as the world does- Ephesians 6:12, counsels us to avoid getting into useless quarrels and to instead seek peace and the common good- Titus 3, and calls us to live good lives under whatever government God chooses to place us under- 1 Peter 2.
As far as Richard Land goes, I can point you to one very public incident- Glen Beck’s Black Robe Regiment. What gain was it for the Kingdom for Dr. Land to put himself out publicly in support of a cult member’s squadron of ministers? None. But it sure helped his radio following, speaking engagements, and book sales.
I also have had a private interchange with Dr. Land that would back up my assessment. I choose not to share that in this forum but would be happy to email you the details if you would care to know.
Good evening Robert. Hope things are well in SBC Geneva.
Amen Ryan. Me too.
John
Perhaps the shift from moral imperatives grounded immutably in the Word of God…to moral values…should have been a harbinger of things to come.
“Values” change with the shifting sands of public sentiment.
Divine imperatives do not change.
Rick Patrick: “Besides, if my only choices are: (a) to be used by Republicans, or (b) to be abused by Democrats, I will choose (a) every time.”
Adapting: Besides, if my only choices are: (a) to be used by God, or (b) to be abused by Satan, I will choose (a) every time.
Me too, Rick!
Glad you figured it out, Dave. Republicans have been buying Evangelical votes for years, paying lip service to biblical morality in order to advance a crony-capitalist agenda (a few exceptions noted).
Evangelicals seem to be easy marks for those who want to foster group think. All one has to do is call Al Gore a wack job and we’ll believe the next fifty things he says without question. We’re so afraid of being completely marginalized that we grab on to any powerful-popular person who professes to be a Christian.
[Thanks Dave. Sharing something I ran into while on the web. Reaction?]
(The following paper was inspired by Bill O’Reilly whose TV show favors God Dumpers and not “Bible Thumpers.” Quotes are from “Vital Quotations” by Emerson West.)
DANGEROUS BIBLE THUMPERS OF AMERICA
ROBERT E. LEE: “In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.” (p. 21)
DANIEL WEBSTER: “If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper.” (p. 21)
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: “I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year.” (p. 22)
ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book.” (p. 22)
GEORGE WASHINGTON: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” (p. 22)
HORACE GREELEY: “It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people.” (p. 23)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: “I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him.” (p. 45)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian.” (p. 47)
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see.” (p.49)
WOODROW WILSON: “The sum of the whole matter is this—-that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit.” (p. 143)
PATRICK HENRY: “There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations.” (p. 145)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” (p. 225)
THOMAS JEFFERSON: “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” (p. 237)
GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.” (p. 283)
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped.” (p. 301)
CALVIN COOLIDGE: “The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions.” (p. 305)
GEORGE WASHINGTON: “The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young.” (p. 306)
Prior to our increasingly “Hell-Bound and Happy” era, America’s greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we’ve forgotten God’s threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22—-“Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.” Memo to God Dumpers: In light of Rev. 16:19, can you be sure you won’t be in a city that God has already reserved for destruction?
So you want to claim a diest who cut pages and sections out of his Bible- Jefferson, a man who did not believe that God was involved with the world beyond creating it- Franklin, and the leader of the army who fought against those who wanted to end the human misery that was slavery- Lee as members of the Religious Right?
God help us. No wonder our churches are shrinking and our culture is falling apart.
So – you take two examples – no three – out of a whole list of quotes – as proof of your thesis? Is it true that a Deist is always wrong? Or that a Deist being right one time makes the whole argument suspect? Or the fact that a God fearing man such as Robert E. Lee being imperfect and having flaws makes the whole argument above superfluous? No wonder the churches are shrinking and the culture is falling apart, for you swallow a camel while straining a knat, and are willing to snipe at friends rather than focus on fire on the enemy. Fallacious arguments aside, do you have a PROBLEM with the sentiments expressed in the quotations above?
Rob
The quotes demonstrate that our leaders in general had a respect for religion and saw themselves as responsible to God for what they were doing.
It hardly makes them precursors to the religious right.