Posted on 02/14/2008 4:28:15 PM PST by Terriergal
The Religious Left is successfully redefining what it means to be a conservative evangelical by misrepresenting what it means to be a conservative evangelical. In a recent conference call hosted by Faith in Public Life, one of the emerging voices of the Religious Left, Dr. Joel Hunter, said:
There’s also a change in the voices that are defining what is conservative now, and what is evangelical. In the past couple of decades you’ve had some very loud voices on both sides – hard right, hard left – and when those were the only choices, then of course many evangelicals are going to go with the hard right because, well, that’s kind of where we mostly are. Now there are many more voices that are expanding the agenda, and so those people that have always had kind of a holistic approach, rather than just a one or two issue approach, are now feeling permission and given permission to be more nuanced and more sophisticated in their approach, rather than just going in a very bifurcated system. And so, what you’re hearing now is that the old voices that appointed themselves as the definers of what was evangelical or what was conservative are not holding sway with the majority of evangelicals anymore.
By convincing America that conservative evangelicals are concerned only with two issues, stopping abortion and preserving traditional marriage, these new voices of evangelicalism are effectively making the case that conservative evangelicals ignore poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment. The history of evangelicalism tells a different story.
Evangelicals have set the standard throughout history for social action which continues into the present through numerous humanitarian relief organizations. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations claim 64 such organizations as members, including World Vision, Compassion International, Samaritan’s Purse, and Mercy Ships.
One of the largest humanitarian relief organizations in the world is the Salvation Army. It defines its commitment to social services as “…an outward visible expression of the Army's strong religious principles.” Those social services include disaster relief, services for the aging, AIDS education, medical facilities, and shelters for battered women. The Salvation Army impacts 30 million people a year in the United States alone. The founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth, was a Methodist minister. On its website the Salvation Army defines itself as an “evangelical group.”
To these readily recognizable evangelical organizations add the innumerable evangelical churches across America that in very quiet and unrecognized ways minister to the needs of the poor and suffering every day. In my own community a local evangelical church runs the oldest and largest homeless shelter in our county. Grace Gospel Fellowship in Pontiac, Michigan serves 127,000 meals a year, provides rehabilitation services and housing for drug addicts and single mothers, and creates jobs. It accomplishes its mission without one dime of government funding, and is “dedicated to recovery through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The Religious Left’s appeal for the Religious Right to “broaden its agenda” to include poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the environment ignores the fact that conservative evangelicals have always had a strong commitment to these issues. So if conservative evangelicals are already leading the efforts to relieve poverty and disease, what’s behind the call to “broaden the agenda”? Another agenda altogether.
What’s really happening here is an attempt by the Left to define evangelicalism down by moving it away from its emphasis on the power of the gospel to change lives. The church’s ability to affect social and cultural change, bringing relief to the poor and suffering, is rooted first and foremost in its commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what the gospel says about the condition of man in sin which results in the symptoms of poverty and disease.
The Religious Left invalidates the conservative evangelical commitment to humanitarian relief because we are achieving our ends in the name of Jesus Christ through the gospel, without the assistance of government funding. The fundamental tenant of modern liberalism is that a government program funded by redistributed wealth is the preferred method of humanitarian relief rather than what the church is accomplishing by faith through compassionate hearts.
The new voices of the Religious Left – Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, et al – are defining down what it means to be an evangelical by making the symptoms of man’s sin (poverty, disease, etc.) a priority rather than addressing the cause of those symptoms (sin) and the cure found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The argument for this reprioritizing is a convincing one, suggesting the new priorities for evangelicals ought to be determined by asking, “How would Jesus respond to (fill in your favorite social cause here)?” The implied answer is that Jesus would be more concerned about the treatment of the poor (especially illegal immigrants) and, at best, neutral on the questions of abortion and homosexual marriage because Jesus never spoke against abortion or homosexual marriage.
These new voices of evangelicalism wear the label “red letter Christians,” but they are in reality “white space Christians,” determining Jesus’ view of abortion and homosexual marriage by focusing on what he didn’t say rather than on what he did say. In Matthew 5 Jesus upholds the standard of the Mosaic Law, which is clear in its call for punishing anyone responsible for killing a child in the womb (Exodus 21:22-25). When Jesus wanted to illustrate true greatness, he set a child in the midst of the disciples and said, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In Matthew 19 Jesus clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman by validating the story of Adam and Eve, holding it up as the standard for marriage. As for the question of how Jesus would respond to illegal immigrants, I’m pretty sure he would tell them to obey the law (cf. Matthew 22:21).
The new voices of evangelicalism sound eerily similar to the old voices of the social gospel movement who moved their churches away from the priority of the gospel in the early 20th Century, focusing instead on positive thinking and welfare as a solution to social ills. The result was empty pews and even emptier hearts. I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, then I’ll get down on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again (with apologies to Pete Townshend).
The "Historical Jesus" then, however dangerous he may seem to be to us at some particular point, is always to be encouraged. About the general connection between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that "only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations". You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game,
Your affectionate uncle SCREWTAPE,
And I am going to meet with the elders next month to explain this to them and request a meeting before the church if need be.
Good luck on that. Organizational dynamics are going to be working against you, big time.
Emergent Church/postmodern church, the rule of noncontradiction does not apply.
Which kind of makes me wonder who these people are. You just can't function in the real world like that.
nice prooftext. read the whole quote. Because he supports my position. quite well.
Cuz see yeah none of us let our faith influence our political decisions ya know. That’s why his quote supports your strawman positon. Yup. /sarcasm
Interesting how people with a restorationist belief ignore 2 Tim 2, no?
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
I’m also reminded of this story:
Limbaugh and Hannity can no longer be trusted. (hannity and limbaugh are tools of satan because they don’t like huckabee the only true ‘christian’ candidate)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1970168/posts
(like we just took everything they said as gospel in the first place)
I did, of course, read the whole quote but the first sentence is given without qualification—a righteous, just society is a great blow to the adversary, and if it is a blow to the adversary, it is necessarily a victory for God. Certainly, the ends can be worshiped over the means (Christ), but C.S. Lewis is not indicating that because misplaced devotion can happen, it necessarily will happen. John McArthur is so worried that people will worship a just society, over Christ, that he and others like him end up critiquing one of God’s plain gifts in order to prove their orthodoxy; that is plainly absurd, not to mention ungrateful.
How sanctimonious. People always bring up the "jew-killing Nazis Lutherans" yet here we live in a country where unborn babies are killed everyday while 85% of us "believe in God" and 50% calls ourselves "born again". If one were to take some honest statistics, we've probably executed far more unborn than Hitler could ever conceived of the Jews. And I won't even go into pulling feeding tubes to starve people who can't feed themselves.
As for Stalin, do you think you're actually free to speak your mind? Do you think you can go to work and say exactly what you feel with no repercussions? You may wish to talk to Don Imus. We live in a country where if people just happen to mention the word "lynching" in the same sentence with a black person, many start calling for their firing.
I don't know you personally, but if you're like just about every other American you probably keep your mouth shut and do your work. You may speak up in the privacy of your home as long as there are people of like mind around you. Heck, you may even march with a large group for right to life occasionally; just so long as the abortionists don't photograph or identify you. Or you may get on a blog and complain like I'm doing, just so long as you remain anonymous. And on the 4th of July we wave the flag saying this is the best country on earth. (Which, unfortunately, is probably true.)
Governments don't do what we always want them to do but God has appointed them. Paul lived under one of the most oppressive regimes-the Roman empire. But even Paul understood that God had created the situation and Christians need to be submissive to it, regardless of how reprehensible it may seem to be. Certainly nobody here would advocate blowing up an abortion clinic (I hope). How can we criticize German citizens for not fighting their government?
The apostles didn't attempt to change political structures. Instead they simply preach the gospel knowing that God would change the heart. The only time that they got into legal trouble was went their right to preach the true gospel was taken away. Do you feel that you can put tracks out for your co-workers or put the Ten Commandments up in your office space? Have you complained? Well, neither have I to my shame.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge Christians living in one environment until you do an honest appraisal of our own environment.
Thanks for the very inciteful news that speaking the truth in a hostile environment might be dangerous. Peter found that out on the night of the Crucifixion, but the Gospel helped him find his voice again. John MacArthur’s gospel however, in its heretical instruction that all tyrants be obeyed all the time, is not quite so hopeful.
We all know cowardice is more likely than martyrdom or heroism, but with preaching like John MacArthur’s (”Obey Hitler”), you can be assured of getting cowardice ALL the time.
And what do you think happens, when people start obeying God after receiving the Gospel, Terriergal?
There's an assumed step in the middle there that isn't stated: That preaching the Gospel will cause people to receive it. That's up to God in His sovereignty, not man in his eloquence or even obedience.
Jeremiah & Ezekiel were obedient to preach what God told them to, but they saw no repentence let alone social change to the good. Jonah preached it to the Ninevites for all the wrong reasons, and they repented. In both cases God's will is done and He is gloried.
Absolutely we are responsible to preach the Gospel as we've been commanded. But we are not responsible for how it is received or rejected.
Hm. In my experience, Huckabee supporters, when they mention any issue at all (and a lot of the time, they don't, just saying he's a Christian as if that makes everything self-evident), it's abortion and that's it.
I supppose it could be my sources, though...
Hm. In my experience, Huckabee supporters, when they mention any issue at all (and a lot of the time, they don't, just saying he's a Christian as if that makes everything self-evident), it's abortion and that's it.
I supppose it could be my sources, though...
Wow. I wouldn't have thought it possible to miss the point of that story so completely. He's describing a society that everyone would say is good and desireable, but that has done it without God. That's the poison in Satan's plan in the story.
The mores of Christianity can be a mitigating influence in the world. And one could measure that, I suppose, though not its motivation. Similarly, one cannot measure the transformation of the heart by God's grace throygh the preaching of his Word. Only God knows that, and to put the pastor on the hook for it is going beyond the command of Scripture; it smacks of pride.
How would you interpret Romans 13?
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God.
If you have a different interpretation then I'd be interested in hearing it. People are quick to judge others just simply for preaching the word of God. Perhaps John MacArthur isn't a coward.
Rom 13:2 So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves.
Rom 13:3 For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good, and you shall have praise from it.
Rom 13:4 For it is a servant of God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for wrath on him who does evil.
Rom 13:5 Therefore you must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
Paul not only tells us to obey rulers; he tells us what a ruler is. In 13:4, he says the deakonis (minister of god, ruler generally) is a doer of good to those who do good and a revenger upon those who do evil. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all disqualify themselves here, unless you want to call God a liar. How could someone who tells you to help him kill innocents, or who is a terror unto those who do good (some of the Catholic Poles who hid the innocent and defied authority) be a “ruler” by God’s standard?
Paul not only tells us to obey rulers; he tells us what a ruler is. In 13:4, he says the deakonis (minister of god, ruler generally) is a doer of good to those who do good and a revenger upon those who do evil. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all disqualify themselves here, unless you want to call God a liar. How could someone who tells you to help him kill innocents, or who is a terror unto those who do good (some of the Catholic Poles who hid the innocent and defied authority) be a “ruler” by God’s standard?
“by their fruits ye shall know them..”
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.