Posted on 09/06/2007 3:58:17 PM PDT by Sopater
". . .Why do you not know how to interpret the present time?" (Luke 12:56)
In last week's commentary I wrote about the recent onslaught of accusations being leveled in print against evangelical and charismatic Christians to the effect that we are really trying to turn America into a theocracy---that tyrannical right-wing Christians want to systematically dismantle democratic institutions and usher in an American facism. As laughable as this may seem to most of us, these authors are deadly in earnest in pressing their attacks. Unfortunately, just as some folks took seriously the absurd fictions of the Da Vinci Code, people are reading these books. I have counted nine of them, one of which was ranked number one on the New York Times bestseller list for a while. So, instead of simply ignoring the accusations, I have chosen to respond in this two-part commentary.
In American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips is evidently afraid of the Southern Baptist Convention becoming the "State Church" of the South! Now, apart from the ridiculous supposition that southern Baptists could ever agree on enough things to actually become an established Church, the fact of the matter is that no denomination in America is capable of that kind of influence today in our society. The days of the old WASP liberal mainline denominational hegemony in American society are long gone decades ago. Further, the evangelical influence that these writers are attacking is characterized by the lack of ecclesiastical organization that would enable it to wield any effective sort of power. The power of evangelical Christianity with the American public is pretty much limited to the powers of persuasion.
One example of an attempt at persuading the public comes to mind---the boycotts of certain American corporations' products organized by my friends at the American Family Association. They have launched consumer boycotts of corporations such as Walt Disney and the Ford Motor Company. Both of these boycotts have protested the companies' blatant support of the homosexual rights movement. How effective are they? That's hard to measure. Ford's sales have dropped dramatically while the boycott has been underway, but American car companies are in real trouble anyway, due to explosive sales growth by Toyota and BMW. In the past, AFA boycotts have caused a few companies to change their policies, but even in those cases it seems impossible to tell how effective the boycotts were. Was it that the boycotts actually caused their sales to drop, or it was that they were so conscious of their public image that they wanted to get rid of the boycott quickly? We'll probably never know.
Or, to take another example, it is granted that Focus on the Family 's Jim Dobson can put out a notice that will unleash a torrent of emails, phone calls, and letters on the members of Congress or the President. But, even that kind of campaign can be, and frequently is, ignored by Senators and Representatives and Presidents who are determined to do what they want to do. The ultimate influence of Christians on policy-makers of any governmental level is limited to the same level of power as the influence of any other type of Americans---the vote.
As our society becomes more secular, it should not be surprising to anyone familiar with the New Testament that the number of attacks on Bible-believing evangelical Christians is on the rise. Still, the falsity of the accusations against us and the absurdity of the attackers' reasoning knows no bounds. Bill Moyers, who has drifted very far away from what (if memory serves correctly here) are his evangelical southern Baptist roots, accuses us of not caring about global warming or the environment. In a New York Review of Books essay entitled "The Evangelist Menace" he wrote: "Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture?"
Oh, good grief!! In the first place, Christians are just as divided on the global warming issue as the rest of the public. There are those who have jumped on the bandwagon, saying that this is a terribly urgent problem that the U.S. Government must address immediately. And, there are others that agree with me that although there are definite minor temperature changes, there is no demonstrably proven evidence that these are outside the limits of normal periodic change, and that the Michael Moores and Al Gores of the world are fomenting all this hype mainly to create careers for themselves.
Second, Christians are also quite divided on the issue of the rapture. There are those who believe that the Lord Jesus will whisk off the earth all true Christian believers before the period during the End Times that the Bible calls the Great Tribulation. And, there are many others, including myself (and ALL of the great 16th century Reformers, by the way) who do not look for the Rapture to occur until at least half-way through the Tribulation. In addition, no Christian knows when any of this will occur, whether soon or millennia from now. I have never met anyone, nor have I ever read about anyone adopting the attitude that Moyers accuses us evangelicals of having. No one in their right mind would choose to not care about the obvious deterioration of the world around us, if in fact it were obvious. Especially since no one has any firm idea of when the END is coming.
Third, both the Clinton administrations and the Bush administrations have refused to take drastic steps to deal with global warming. To view their refusals as based on Biblical teachings on the last days is a stretch that puts credulity totally out of joint. Would to God that these administrations had been that concerned about Biblical teachings! No, it really has much more to do with economics, and with good reason. To spend the kind of money attempting to fight global warming to the extent that is called for by the Kyoto protocol and many environmentalist organizations would bankrupt the American economy, for a very questionable cause.
Well, enough of the silly accusations about evangelicals wanting to turn America into some imitation of 17th Century Puritan Massachusetts. What is it that we evangelicals actually do want?
We definitely do not want to equate Christians getting involved in trying to change American society with their joining some political party or movement. In talking with a woman at the gym where I work out, after asking about some of my views she said, "You must be a Republican." "No," I said, "actually, I'm registered Independent. I vote for the candidate that seems to best stand for the values I believe in." In my experience there are literally tens of millions of Christians around the country that share my position on this. Sadly, several of the books mentioned in last week's commentary, especially Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, advocate "Christian" positions on issues that simply amount to the Democratic Party platform. He, and many of these authors attacking evangelical Christians, seem to believe that collective social action is the primary vehicle of Christian involvement, as opposed to the efforts of individuals. Taking that position inevitably results in party politics eclipsing religion. Which is precisely what they accuse evangelicals of doing---blindly supporting the Republican Party. Ironic, isn't it?
Proof that the Religious Left is really promoting political party action is seen in their advocated solutions for three issues: poverty, environmental concerns, and peace. In the case of dealing with poverty, to their credit authors Carter, Lerner, Meyers, Wakefield, and Wallis are indeed serious about feeding and clothing the hungry and poor. But, they think that this should all be handled by the government. Some of them are in favor of the government forcibly redistributing assets, which is Marxist policy, and not remotely Christian. Though government policies are necessary, Christian care for the poor and needy does not consist in lobbying the government to take care of things. Where is the private sector involvement? Trying to deal with poverty through politics simply excuses the individual from the personal responsibility to get involved---hardly what Jesus had in mind when he said that we should offer a cup of cold water in His name.
Some of these writers equate peacemaking with pacifism, which the Bible never does. In Romans 13, the Word of God makes it clear that the punishment of evildoers in society will involve the use of the sword. And certainly, there are times when the defense of my next-door or across-the-ocean neighbor will necessitate violence, such as deterring a rapist, or the present war on terrorism.
The positions of many on the Religious Left in regard to environmentalism raise serious concerns. Pressure from Western governments on developing nations to adopt our environmental regulations will stifle their fragile economies and thus bring more harm than help to their people. Besides, it smacks of what to them is an all-too-familiar imperialism. There is also the great danger of a proper reverence for God's creation sliding into a decidely non-Christian pantheism, or the worship of the creation. Any policy that denies the primary place in the creation to man, or equates human beings with the animals in value, is a policy that rejects Biblical truth, and must be resisted by Christians. A proper Bible-based environmental policy will be one that emphasizes proper stewardship of the creation as people who will have to give an account to the Creator. True environmentalism is an exercise in stewardship. We must neither rape and plunder the creation on the one hand, nor become captive to it and worship it on the other. As God instructed Adam, we are to "till" it, and to take care of it.
Christians are most definitely called to be involved in matters of public policy. To take seriously the call of the Lord Jesus Christ to love your neighbor is to accept the necessity of reforming whatever society we find ourselves in. We are also commanded by our Lord to be "salt and light," which means that we are to season and illuminate all issues of public policy with a Bible-based wisdom and discernment.
We seek no lasting strongholds of power, for the Kingdom to which we bear first allegiance is not of this world. I know of no Christian leader who advocates evangelicals "taking over" the reins of power. Our influence is to be persuasional, not coercive, after the example of our Lord. For no one can be forced to change his mind. Reformation and renewal in society can never be forced on people from the top down---from the seats of power down to the citizenry. Rather, reformation and renewal have to come about as a grass-roots movement of Christians being used by the Spirit of God to change their neighbors---one at a time, two at a time, a city at a time. By definition, it is a strictly voluntary movement, one that will have the characteristics of a revival. That is what we want to see happen.
What kinds of public policies do we evangelical Christians want to see take place in America today? A quick and by no means exhaustive list would include things like: a general prohibition of abortion; the allowance of prayer in public schools; the rejection of embryonic (not adult) stem-cell research; the Federal prohibition of homosexual marriage (either by law or by an admendment to the Constitution); further restrictions on pornography; a tightening of obscenity laws in movies and television; vigorous law enforcement against pedophiles both on the Internet and in the society at large; the replacement of sex education programs for students with abstinence-based programs; putting an end to the tyranny of Darwinian evolution teaching in public schools such that the flaws in evolutionary theory and creation science would at least get equal consideration; and stopping the Federal court system's twisting of the First Amendment to find some supposed "separation of Church and State" that in turn is used to remove all public expression of the Christian faith from American society.
Those of some of the things we want.
What the theocrats advocate:
And about this, you say:putting an end to the tyranny of Darwinian evolution teaching in public schools such that the flaws in evolutionary theory and creation science would at least get equal consideration
That right there is evidence of why theocrats of all stripes should be kept out of positions of power. You have defined your religious belief in creationism as "science" and defined real science as an ideology. Those are both absolute untruths, but ones of which George Orwell would have been very proud.Science should be taught in government schools, free from ideologies.
As Heinlein wrote:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100, 1953
Which is a good reason for not even attempting to debate them ~
OK.
" * A free society should allow students to pray in public schools.
A free society would not give one religion preference over any other. Either all prayer needs to be restricted or no prayer should be restricted. Your choice.
However, a theocracy would legislate a religious preference.
Which is the author advocating?
" * Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
Is this a case of the 'continuum fallacy'? I thought AG and BB debunked that idea?
By that logic, shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life?
" * The health of any society is significantly reduced when homosexual activity increases. Historical evidence supports this.
Do you really think that homosexual marriages will significantly reduce the health of current society? How does the legal marriage of gays increase gay activity?
The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage.
" * Restrictions to protect children are necessary for a healthy society.
Child porn is already illegal. Adult porn is restricted such that children have no access.
" * Same as above.
See above.
" * Same as above.
Absolutely!
" * Abstinence works 100% of the time. Nothing else comes close. What needs to be taught to children is both of those facts and what the consequences are for ignoring them.
Abstinence only works 100% if followed 100%. Abstinence programs have nowhere near 100% compliance and work more poorly than other programs.
The author's reason for including these programs is because of religious teachings.
" * Science should be taught in government schools, free from ideologies.
Indeed, but it should also not be taught free of research and logic. Creation science fails in that regard.
BTW, I have yet to see any Creation Science free from ideology.
" * Hey, the constitution works. ;-)
That wasn't the point. The author is playing the martyr and wants Christian preferential treatment. Theocracies are based on preferential treatment for a specific religion.
I can see that you are spinning this with all your might but you fail to be convincing in your attempt to show these are not religiously motivated points.
Actually, Sopater quoted an article that concluded with "What kinds of public policies do we evangelical Christians want to see take place in America today?" (followed by a long list of demands).
These demands are indeed religiously motivated--by evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians are a small percentage of the population of the US, but they would love to take over and establish a theocracy. Then they could get all of their demands enacted as law, and everyone would have to follow their particular beliefs.
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Answer: NO. Life comes from their synergistic combination, not from either one or the other standing alone. They call this process: fertilization, or conception. Not till fertilization does life exist. But once it occurs, it irrevocably specifies the "blueprint" of a living individual human being, from that inception (fertilization, conception) till natural death.
And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.
Or do you see this issue differently?
You can haveing living DNA and dead DNA.. On dead DNA whats missing?..
Is DNA machinery? or more than that?..
Heaven forbid that some group of religious right wingers advocate the overthrow of our corrupt and immoral government and institute one based on Biblical precepts because they feel that God lead them to.
Can you imagine what kind of mess we might get into then?
The very things you condemn about *religion* IOW the ones that worship a god, are the very things that can be applied to atheism, the religion that denies a deity.
As Heinlein wrote:
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100, 1953
After all, that kind of behavior is well represented by the most bloody atheistic regimes of the twentieth century.
You can't escape that by avoiding religion, which goes to show the problem isn't the religion, any religion, but human nature. Man will do this regardless of the religion and just use the religion as an excuse.
It looks like there's as much to fear from those who lack a religion as those who use it as a cloak.
Your fears of what would happen to this country if it returned to it's religious roots is closer to paranoia than reason. As this country has rejected God, society and civilization have deteriorated. The only reason it is tolerable yet, it that we are still living with the protection the Judeo-Christian ethic provides in morals. Another generation or so of this kind of deterioration, and even you *scientists* won't be safe. The Khmer Rogue spared no one for any reason.
There, fixed it.
Your list sounds exactly like theocratically imposed laws.
So what's wrong with that?
Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage.
Is DNA even alive? The cell it’s in is, but what about IT?
Can you imagine what kind of mess we might get into then?
Yes.
Exactly, thought I just said that..
Seems that way, MHGinTN. Then again, maybe it was a "trick question." :^)
Thanks so much for providing the important details!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.