Coercion or Conversion

In a speech to the Notre Dame student body during the 1984 U.S. presidential campaign, New York governor Mario Cuomo addressed the issue of church-state relations and the growing activism of the so-called Religious Right. The governor said: “Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin? The failure here is not Caesar’s. This failure is our failure—the failure of the entire people of God”1

As a conservative Christian pastor who seeks to uphold biblical morality before two congregations on a weekly basis, I find the above question both moving and disquieting. Though spoken more than two decades ago, it still strikes at the heart of America’s moral dilemma.

Perhaps the central rallying cry of the Religious Right concerns America’s presumed slide toward secularism. One may perhaps argue about definitions, but if one understands secularism as overt disbelief in the fundamentals of religion, it is difficult to apply this term to the United States of America.

Five years ago in U.S. News & World Report it was noted that 96 percent of Americans claim to believe in God.2 Recent surveys show that four out of ten Americans attend church or synagogue at least once a week,3 with 66 percent attending at least once a month.4 In one of these surveys, 59 percent declare religion to be “very important” in their lives,5 and in another, 90 percent claim membership in some religious organization.6 Most recently of all, a Newsweek poll published in December 2004 showed 84 percent of Americans calling themselves Christians, 82 percent declaring Jesus to be either God or the Son of God, 79 percent professing belief in the virgin birth of Christ, and 67 percent saying they believe the Christmas story as recorded in the New Testament to be historically accurate.7

Little wonder that conservative historian Garry Wills has observed that “the first nation to separate Christianity from government produced perhaps the most religious nation on earth.”8

Why, then, is biblical morality collapsing all around us? Cultural conservatives, especially Christians, are fond of blaming the media in general and Hollywood in particular. But too many fail to stop and consider that the entertainment industry, like all industries, operates by the golden rule—“he who has the gold rules.” What customers buy, merchants sell. It is fair to say that if even a majority of professing Christians in America would simply stop buying or viewing the moral trash produced by Hollywood, today’s popular movies would likely be very different.

On November 28, 2004, on NBC’s Meet the Press, moderator Tim Russert pointed out to a panel of mostly conservative Christian pastors that surveys show the television series Desperate Housewives, with its flaunting of suburban adultery, to be “especially popular” in the Southern Bible Belt. (In reply, the ministers could offer no explanation as to why this was true.)

I was reminded of the Meese Commission on Pornography back in the 1980s, when a state attorney from North Carolina reported that while at least 80 percent of his state’s residents were conservative, churchgoing Christians, North Carolina held “the largest number of pornography outlets” of any state in the Union.9* [Editor's note:We were unable to confirm this finding, but even if true, it may well not reflect easy availability of pornography at sources not defined as “pornography outlets” by the A.G.] The attorney then asked, “Is it the churchgoers who are creating the market or is it the other 20 percent?”10 A prosecutor from the same state answered with a bit of folksiness, “You know, we also have this saying in North Carolina—that we will all vote dry as long as we can stagger to the polls.”11

Some may find this amusing, but in reality it is both sad and frightening. Hypocrisy is frequently the twin sister of intolerance, as the saga of the Pharisees in Christ’s day bears witness. Again the words of Governor Cuomo come to mind—Christians asking the government to criminalize sins they can’t seem to stop committing. In light of this, we are compelled to ask, Is America’s problem truly one of secularism?

During the presidential scandal under the previous administration, Newsweek religion editor Kenneth Woodward wrote an editorial titled “Sex, Sin, and Salvation,” which examined the former president’s theological upbringing.12 Considering its implications for much of mainstream Christian theology, one is amazed that this editorial received so little attention in Christian circles. But it offered a stinging—and I fear much-deserved—indictment of the popular evangelical doctrine of grace and salvation.

Regarding this doctrine, Woodward wrote of how former President Clinton was raised believing that “once he was born again, his salvation was ensured. Sinning—even repeatedly—would not bar his soul from heaven.”13 Woodward closed his editorial by observing that Clinton “learned his worldview not in the dark of a Saturday night but in the light of a Sunday morning.”14

In a monstrous yet much-unnoticed irony, this theology is one thing the former president shares in common with those evangelicals who thirsted for his political blood. Many of those calling for his removal from office were mainstream, “grace-oriented” evangelicals who hold to the once-saved-always-saved, salvation-apart-from-obedience theology so common in those circles. But if, as their theology teaches, such sins couldn’t cost the former president his place in heaven, why should they have cost him the presidency?

The dilemma created by this doctrine of powerless grace is painfully evident in a popular book by one best-selling Christian author. At one point he offers a very appropriate criticism of the methods employed by the Religious Right:

“The state must always water down the absolute quality of Jesus’ commands and turn them into a form of external morality—precisely the opposite of the gospel of grace….It [the New Testament] commands conversion and then this: ‘Be perfect…as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ Read the Sermon on the Mount and try to imagine any government enacting that set of laws.” 15

Quite true. The problem is, this same author insists elsewhere that the perfection commanded by Jesus—and made possible, according to Scripture, by the Holy Spirit’s power through conversion (Romans 8:13; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:23)—is impossible to attain.16 Tragically, most Christians who profess to revere the Bible have embraced this clear departure from its teachings. And the end result is that those holding to such a view invariably find a comfort level with their more persistent shortcomings. Multiply this on the wide scale of our contemporary culture, and moral chaos is the sure result. Meanwhile, technology, communication, and the fast pace of modern life make sin ever more intrusive within the church’s once-safe subculture. Desperate to guard themselves and their families from what they know is wrong, conservative Christians have turned to politics, striking back like a cornered cobra. They mean well. They want the best for those they love. But the “gospel” at the core of their faith has long since made room for sin, and the society in which they find themselves—much of which professes the same Christian faith—reflects this accommodation.

The best-selling author cited above preaches a gospel that replaces the categories of “righteous” and “guilty” with “sinners who admit” and “sinners who deny.”17 Sadly, unlike the biblical book of Revelation (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 12:11; 21:7), this author lists no category for sinners who overcome. Elsewhere his book laments, correctly, that when Christians in past ages succumbed to the lure of politics, “grace gave way to power.”18 What he seems not to understand is that when the grace Christians teach is stripped of its power over sin, carnal forms of power become an irresistible substitute.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5, KJV).

Here we see, according to Scripture, what God’s power is capable of doing when received by choice into the life. In the absence of this power, accommodation at some level to one’s favorite (or most persistent) sins is inevitable. And when faced with sin’s destructive consequences in themselves, their families, and society, Christians know their credibility before the world is at stake. So they strike back with carnal weapons rather than spiritual ones. This spiritual bankruptcy is the direct progeny of powerless grace, the end-time condition described in Scripture as “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:5, KJV). When the church finds itself bereft of this power, another power is brought in. Coercion becomes a substitute for conversion.

1 “Abortion Not a Failure of Government, Cuomo Says,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 1984, p. A1.

2 “Divining the God Factor,” U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 23, 2000, p. 22.

3 “Hollywood vs. America,” interview with Michael Medved, Christianity Today, March 8, 1993, pp. 23-25; survey reported by Bruce Morton on CNN’s Inside Politics, Feb. 27, 2000.

4 Karen S. Petersen, “Poll: 59% Call Religion Important,” USA Today, April 1-3, 1994, p. 1A.

6 Survey conducted by City University of New York, reported in the San Bernardino Sun, April 10, 1991, pp. A1, A14.

8 Garry Wills, quoted by Philip Yancey in, What’s So Amazing About Grace? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), p. 235.

9 Philip Mobile and Eric Nadler, The United States of America vs. Sex: How the Meese Commission Lied About Pornography (New York: Minotaur Press Ltd., 1986), p. 58.

12 Kenneth L. Woodward, “Sex, Sin, and Salvation,” Newsweek, Nov. 2, 1998, p. 37.

I am strongly opposed to the threat constructing done against the "religious right."

I will make a point about "Desperate Housewives." The show is not a moral paragon but I was struck by some student comments I got in a college class I teach this past spring.

I presented Barbra Bush's well known Wellsley speech from the 1990s which defends traditional values and marriage at this very liberal women's college.

For the past several years of presenting it, students were increasingly hostile to the speech and the entire concept of marriage-- viewing it as archaic and outdated. As a married professor I found these attitudes rather alarming.

In the past two years I have noticed a significant reversal among my students. This last semester, I asked students to explain why this apparent change was happening.

The answer they seemed to agree upon most was that the TV show "Desperate Houswives" has made marriage seems chic and appealing again. So now students talk positively about marriage and even defend it against gay marriage.

I agree with many criticism of hollywood including this show, but I do think the effects of various programming efforts are complicated.

While the charge of hypocrisy is valid, and some general points in the column are valid, it misses some major truths and therefore comes up with irrelevant points. Morality has fallen. But not to the point that legislatures can get by with things like legalizing homosexual marriage or even abortion to the extent it is now legal. The problem is the courts. We the people have no power to make very fundamental moral decisions for our communities even when we are talking about the education of our children, nor have we the right to express the religious cures we used to be free to express -- not everywhere anyway. The government is actively working against religion to undermine any moral values. Religious expression gets the scorn of government whereas immoral expression and even action gets its blessing and support. The courts have turned the government into a force that favors atheism and amorality. Our first president called religion and morality the pillars, the vital supports, of government. The courts have treated them like the enemy of government.

The problem is that the argument is so frequently framed dishonestly. Conservatives are trying to KEEP things illegal that have always been illegal and that have always had the support of majorities to be/remain illegal. These are things fundamental to our social structure and the whole concept of inalienable rights coming from God. So while we the people are full of hypocrisy and phony religious faith, we aren't so far gone as to have willed this legislative colapse on ourselves. Blame the judges.

As imposing as anyone wants to frame it, thinking government should protect all humans, born and unborn, is totally congruent with the concepts of ordered liberty and God-given inalienable rights. What is imposing is the idea that a child due to be born next month has no right to life this month. Mom cannot kill him next month but can this month. Poor child! The government has failed him.

Likewise, government should have no obligation to equal that which is fundamentally unequal. Marriage would be none of the government's concern if it were just about love and/or sex. IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CHILDREN ARE CONCEIVED AND REARED!!!! To act like government is "imposing" because it refuses to give benefits to homosexuals and pretend homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality is totally and utterly ridiculous. Government can recognize obvious truths and respond accordingly. And government has no authority to give benefit packages to anyone without the consent of the governed. Nor should the government demand citizens "respect" immorality. Now THAT is imposing.

Morality is objective. As for "legislating" morality, when the majority of a population believes in God and His laws, "legislating morality" is a natural consequence of free men gathering together to decide how they ought order their lives.

Of course, men like Cuomo don't reallly like democracy. That is why men like Cuomo try and pack the court with collectivists whose Judicial Tyranny can supplant popular will.

I am all for the collectivists being honest and trying to legislate their own peculiar ideas about morality. For them, morality is personal and subjective not universal and objective.

If the collectivists could discover moral courage and tell us why they oppose morality then politics would be a lot more interesting

Of course, men like Cuomo don't reallly like democracy.

Actually, he probably does. But I, as a conservative republican, don't.

Democracy:: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Republic:: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

Training Manual No. TM 2000-25 on Citizenship, U.S. History and the Constitution

In a speech to the Notre Dame student body during the 1984 U.S. presidential campaign, New York governor Mario Cuomo addressed the issue of church-state relations and the growing activism of the so-called Religious Right. The governor said: “Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin? The failure here is not Caesar’s. This failure is our failure—the failure of the entire people of God

This all I needed to read. Perhaps I need to translate this quote into plain english for the author's benefit:

"Hey Christians- stop trying to be salt and light (and influencing government policy) and let my people go to hell in peace. If you don't want an abortion then don't get one!"

Wow. Great article. If we could see our misplaced desire for cheap sex as a twisted desire for God ... that sacrament of marriage would become just that ... the Sacrament of Marriage.

Through Christ's grace we have the ability to act in a way where our bodies are redeemed already. We can avoid sin, right here, right now on earth! Christ has asked us to overcome the "adultery" of thinking about a woman lustfully in our mind. And as Salvation implies with the "Theology of the Body" comment, Christ doesn't just arm us with "the I'm not gonna think about that - repression tactic", He arms us with his grace. And that Grace has produced The Theology of the Body that calls us to pray for understanding and acceptance of all our fellow humans as Children of God, never to be used simply for our pleasure, not even used in our minds. As Christ teaches in Mt 5:28!

Theology of the Body Ping!

If anyone wants on or off theTheology of the Body Ping List, notify me here or by freepmail.

Info on The Theology of the Body

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.