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).
It was a question, not a speculation - and could have been met with a denial, asking the same question in reply or laughing it off - none of which would be “making it personal.”
Fine. Please note, however, that the complaint was lodged over my comments about 1940s Lutherans, which he/she evidently took quite personally. The “getting personal” tripwire can be very idiosyncratic in these dialogues, and I want to make sure we’re dealing with objective rules.
Hitler was very involved in the occult. Something Protestant Lutherans don’t get involved in. If, for example, I define myself as a golfer but the extent of my golfing is a Arnie Palmer at the club, it would be absurd for anyone to call me define me as a golfer.
Dietrich Bonhoffer, a Lutherhan pastor who died at the express order of Hitler, would contest characterizing Hitler as a Protestant Christian.
Re-phrased version of the question: Did you not answer the time and place question because it would force you to conclude that societies subject to Christ’s word are more prosperous, more peaceful, more loving than those who have not heard His word?
All Religion Forum posters are held to the same standard.
Do you KNOW John MacArthur? I can’t think you know him or anything about him to make that kind of absurd statement.
Would you not agree, however, that the primary characterization of 1940s German Lutherans was, in fact, utter silence on the subject of the Holocaust? Would it be fair, conversely, to characterize most German Lutherans as proactively fighting against the S.S.?
I know what I need to know about John MacArthur in order to condemn his work? Do I golf with him? No. Have I attemtped to rebuke him directly? Yes. Many times.
What can I say, except that I disagree with you that the Bible ever says this.
I'll throw you a bone here - if Christians are not called to/incapable of redeeming the culture about them, then IMO you are correct in holding a Premil vision of the future, holding out the hope of being raptured/rescued as the means of escaping your current predicament, and in ridiculing us Postmils for believing in (and devoting resources to) doing otherwise. But likewise, if we Reformed Postmils are correct in believing we're called to (and promised to be successful in, long-term) redeem the culture, then IMO we're correct in chastising your side for being retreatist and defeatist (allowing the culture to slide further away from God), and for promoting failure as God's reward for any church growth.
If you're going to start labelling postmils "Dominionists" again, Terriergal, you might as well place me on that list also. And then drop me from all the other lists you have me on.
I don’t think it would be fair for me to characterize a whole nation of German Lutherans. I don’t know what they knew about these atrocities and when they knew it. I know this country turned away refugees when they could have welcomed them.
I can judge Hitler by the things that he did rather than how he was mis-characterized by others. But to call him Christian after the horrible un-christian acts that he did is absurd.
I know that many Germans took risks to protect Jews. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a better example of German Lutheran Protestant.
Of course, they are treating conservative evangelicals just like conservative evangelicals treat the LDS Church. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
I don’t know how the end times will play out except we are not called to redeem culture, but to preach the gospel. All these groups intent on ‘redeeming culture’ are not preaching the gospel.
I didn’t say anything about postmils. But those who think we as Christians can redeem culture are dominionist and ignorant of Scripture.
Well you couldn’t prove it by anything that they have said on line, because Huckabee is a true socialist. He justifies his socialism with biblical quotes, that’s the difference.
I asked you if you were. For example, if I were to ask if you don’t like Lutherans, I don’t think you’d have a problem. If you showed up here repeating the blood libel as if it were true, I think the religion mod would have a problem with that too.
Would you define yourself as a dominionist? In my understanding that would be someone who believes that the world is going to get better and better until Jesus returns. In fact, some dominists claim that he CAN’T come back until we improve.
No actually the presence of the church (the true church, not an apostate version) actually creates a lot of conflict.
So... the reason I didn’t answer was that the criteria for judging was not sufficient. I would rather go somewhere where the truth is preached whether it is ancient Rome where Christians were being martyred, or modern day america. But the point is moot.
Go back and read the links in my post #69, if you're not sure.
I would say you’re not a dominionist. We just have a difference of opinion then on when Christ will return - pre or post mill, or mid or pre-wrath! The Holy Spirit is currently restraining evil which I think will become very apparent when Christians are removed at the Rapture.
We are to be salt and light to the world but the Great Commission doesn’t tell us to do as Rick Warren hawks - wipe out poverty and disease, but to preach the good news. At that point, I would agree that a nation guided by godly principles is superior to others who deny that each person is worthy of value due to the fact that we are created by Him and in His image.
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.