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.
Seems that way, MHGinTN. Then again, maybe it was a "trick question." :^)
Thanks so much for providing the important details!
Really? I would never have known.
"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.
You missed my point. I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts. AG was very clear in our discussion of what defines life that the continuum fallacy does not exist and had been debunked right here on FR. She in fact claimed that a pro-evo poster here invented that fallacy.
I find it very interesting that Sopater is using logic that was debunked by AG and others.
"And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.
The constitution protects the rights of a sperm and an ovum in their holy union? I never knew that.
The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life, but was the definition of life when the constitution was written the same as yours?
Actually, because the Constitution has substantial origins in Judeo-Christian thought, I would say: YES.
Judeo-Christian thought, as you may know, maintains that a Creator God created man and the universe; and that it is by virtue of his divine origin that man is naturally endued with unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty. It is not a coincidence nor an accident that the Declaration of Independence validates that understanding.
Where did people ever get the idea that something must remain forever unknown (and unknowable) until science weighs in? That is simply absurd! After all, scientists are living beings even befor they conduct their first experiment. Do they doubt they live, or is their status questionable, pending some future scientific finding?
I suggest you go back and read Sopater's post and my response. Sopater is the one claiming science cannot define a point where life starts.
DNA is alive?
On dead DNA whats missing?.."
Assuming you are referring to a cell containing DNA, the dead cell has reached energy equilibrium.
"Is DNA machinery? or more than that?.."
Define 'machinery'.
DNA is a large molecule made of chemicals which react to other chemicals in potentially predictable ways, just as all other molecules do.
Are you trying to say that 'living' DNA has some elusive, more than material, magical ethereal substance you label as 'life'? Is this something only those who live in the zeroth reality can observe, while those of us stuck in the materialistic first reality are doomed to never see?
"The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage."
"So what's wrong with that?"
It's an increase in restrictions and a reduction of freedoms. Do you really want a reduction of freedom?
"Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage."
They are not tying to impose their definition, they are trying to expand the current definition.
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between expanding a definition and contracting one, or is that only with religious definitions where you believe religious considerations should override freedom?
"The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life, but was the definition of life when the constitution was written the same as yours?"
"Judeo-Christian thought, as you may know, maintains that a Creator God created man and the universe; and that it is by virtue of his divine origin that man is naturally endued with unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty. It is not a coincidence nor an accident that the Declaration of Independence validates that understanding.
What does this have to do with the definition of life accepted at that time? I wasn't arguing that man doesn't have inalienable rights, my question had nothing to do with it. Your answer doesn't address my question. Did the writers of the Constitution believe life started at conception, at birth or somewhere in between? I'm not interested in your opinion about how much Christianity loves life, or how much the originators also loved life, I am asked a very simple question - what was their definition of life? Please answer that question.
Before you decide to just repeat what you just said in slightly different language, I understand that you believe that because of our putative special place in God's eyes, conception must be the place to start. However, the Constitution, although it protects life, does not define when it starts.
"Where did people ever get the idea that something must remain forever unknown (and unknowable) until science weighs in? That is simply absurd!
Where did this come from?
"After all, scientists are living beings even befor they conduct their first experiment. Do they doubt they live, or is their status questionable, pending some future scientific finding?
Non-sequitur much?
Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?
Good post.
So what? You want the Lite version of a theocracy instead?
B_sharp's description of DNA is spot on. It's a chemical. What makes it 'magic?'
Do you really want a reduction of freedom?
So can I have the freedom to help myself to anything you own if I feel like it?
Can I have the freedom to end your life is I so choose because I don't like something about you?
Can I have the freedom to do whatever I like, whenever I like, without being responsible to other for the consequences to my actions?
Um, yes.
They are not tying to impose their definition, they are trying to expand the current definition.
They're trying to expand it, which is changing it. They're trying to force people to accept and approve of their definition of marriage. They are changing the definition and trying to impose it on others through the abuse of the judiciary, because every time it comes up for vote, it gets soundly trashed.
Not allowing homosexual marriage is not an increase in restrictions and a reduction of freedoms. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. Keeping it that way is not increasing restrictions because it's not adding any new one. It's not a reduction of freedoms because no one is taking away a right anyone had before. Homosexuals were never *free* to marry to begin with.
"Do you really want a reduction of freedom?"
"As opposed to total anarchy?"
You are tying to slippery slope us.
We are currently in a state that is far from total anarchy. The changes suggested by the author and supported by you, if they are not imposed, will not change the current state. However, if they are imposed, current freedoms will be reduced.
To get specific to the original question, an expansion of the definition of marriage would apply to a very small portion of the population at no expense to the rest of society. The desire to keep the current definition static is based not on the affect it will have on your children, my children or society at large but on the Biblical view of homosexuals.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
For all the hysterical ravings about dangers of imposing a *theocracy*, would entail, there is an example of where following Judeo-Christian beliefs will get you; a document written by Bible believing men who advocated the overthrow of a corrupt and immoral government.
Belief that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. The horrors of Christian thinking.
You can google *Constitution of the United Sates* and get another document written by those same men.
Look at Europe, for the most part a area of the world dominated by Christian thought. The freest, most civilized area of the global for hundreds of years. The most heavily Christian nations have shown the most progress in many areas.
The other thing is, a theocracy is rule by God. Not rule by religion, not rule by denomination, not rule by whacko sect leader. Without God's direct intervention, a theocracy is impossible.
All this hysteria about religious leaders wanting to impose a theocracy reminds me of the global warming alarmists who over react to every little temperature change with cries of the sky falling.
Keeping the definition of marriage limited to man and woman, saying abortion is wrong, etc. is simply wanting to go back to the standards that existed in this country for the hundreds of years of its existence. It's nothing new; it's what we lived with that gave us a stable and orderly society. It's traditional values (Christian ones at that) and they worked.
Getting rid of the moral *restraints* imposed on people by having laws based on Christian values, does not eliminate God from the picture. It may get rid of the reminder of Him that so many hate to face, but He's still there and His principles work whether society's laws reflect them or not.
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.