Mainline Protestants: America's Moral Conscience [prepare the barf bags]

Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center released a survey on the views of religious Americans regarding torture. They survey found that white evangelical Protestants were the most supportive of torture--only 16% of evangelicals reject the use of torture. A whopping 62% of white evangelical Protestants think that torture is justified in most or many circumstances. Since the findings became public, numerous columnists, pundits, and bloggers have opined on why evangelicals support torture.

The unaddressed question is, however, why white mainline Protestants--those belonging to the historic "brand name" churches--do not support torture. Indeed, approximately twice as many mainline Protestants (31%) believe that torture is never justified and an additional 22% think it is almost always wrong. Their attitude toward torture is nearly opposite of evangelical Protestant opinion. More than half of mainline Protestants reject the use of torture against other human beings as justifiable means to political ends. They are the religious community most strongly opposed to torture.

Despite the fact that evangelicals garner most media attention, they do not represent the entire Protestant community. Depending upon what survey one believes, mainline Protestant churches--even after many years of numerical decline, internal struggles, and bad press--still comprise somewhere between 15-20% of the American population. The Pew survey on torture makes it startlingly clear why mainline Protestantism remains an important constituency in American political life: Mainline Protestants are the nation's moral conscience.

And it isn't just torture. In recent years, mainline Protestants were also the religious group that most strongly opposed the Iraq War, rejected waterboarding, and expressed worry about the admixture of religion and politics at the nation's military academies. In every survey, mainline Protestants see torture, violence, and military intervention as the strategies of last resort in national politics.

What makes mainline Protestant reject violence? Critics argue that mainline Protestants are wimps, theologically soft, and adhere to an "unmanly" and "feminized" version of Christianity (if you don't know, this is an unoriginal critique--it goes back to the nineteenth century) with no stomach for hard decisions. Real Christians, they will insist, are tough and know when to wield the sword in defense of faith and democracy.

But mainline Protestant apprehension regarding torture is more than taste or a matter of character. No, the divide between evangelical Protestants and mainline Protestants regarding violence is a sharp difference in theology that continues to shape the two communities.

The most significant Christian theological question is: What does the death of Jesus on the cross mean? In the last century, evangelicals and mainliners have answered this question in surprisingly different ways.

Evangelicals believe that Jesus' death on the cross--with all its brutality--saves them. Put bluntly, an act of political torture resulted in their "personal salvation" and entry into heaven. Jesus' death "substitutes" for the death of Christian believers and, in that his suffering, the rest of humanity is granted a reprieve for their sins. In a very real sense, God allowed the Romans to kill Jesus in order that God might accomplish a holy end. Hence, they don't see torture as fundamentally bad. Indeed, some evangelical theologians argue that torture is redemptive--that one person may die for the sake of the whole community.

Mainline Protestants generally reject this conception of Jesus' death. Instead, they argue that Jesus was a victim of political violence that revealed the essential ruthlessness of sin. And, in that demonstration, he also demonstrated that to "lay down one's life for one's friends," instead of revenge, was the way to redeem the world. Mainline theologians switched the focus away from the violence-as-salvation toward self-sacrificial love as the route to human wholeness. They do not believe that Jesus' suffering was good. They believe that it was a demonstration of the evil of a human political system that placed Caesar before God. Torture, as Jesus himself suffered, has no redemptive qualities. Salvation occurs as one loves one's neighbor as one's self.

We don't typically think of theology as having immediate social consequences. But, in the case of torture, the difference between evangelicals and mainliners should underscore that the fact that theology is important. The ways in which different religious communities interpret the meaning of scripture has profound political implications. This isn't an obscure argument between rival religious groups--it is a meaningful difference in a fundamental way of understanding the nature of suffering, sin, and human nature based on sacred texts.

Although some people think that mainline religion is irrelevant and deserves to go the way of the dodo, I don't. Their churches may be small, their congregations aging, and their worship, well, can be dull. But they are also right. What would we do without them? Somebody's got to protect America's moral conscience by respecting the dignity of every human being. And, while there may be some individual exceptions to the rule, from the results of the Pew survey, it doesn't look like we can depend on white evangelical Protestants to do so.

Mainline Protestants generally reject this conception of Jesus' death. Instead, they argue that Jesus was a victim of political violence that revealed the essential ruthlessness of sin. And, in that demonstration, he also demonstrated that to "lay down one's life for one's friends," instead of revenge, was the way to redeem the world. Mainline theologians switched the focus away from the violence-as-salvation toward self-sacrificial love as the route to human wholeness. They do not believe that Jesus' suffering was good. They believe that it was a demonstration of the evil of a human political system that placed Caesar before God. Torture, as Jesus himself suffered, has no redemptive qualities. Salvation occurs as one loves one's neighbor as one's self.

...he was wounded for our transgressions;he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.
-- Isaiah 53:5

Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

-- Westminster Confession of Faith (a "Mainline Protestant" document)
Chapter 11: Of Justification
Sections 3 and 4

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a Christian!

Last Monday night, I spoke at the local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This is the group whose national leader is Barry Lynn, a true tool of satan who is a former ACLU operative that spends his life trying to stop those true men and women of God who share His Truth in the marketplace. He has gone after many high-profile Christian leaders over the years, including me, using the IRS to try and remove the tax exemption from Godly ministries he disagrees with.

I have debated Lynn many times, so it was strange that the local group would ask me to speak, but I readily agreed. I arrived at the church where they were meeting, and walked into the foyer to find rainbow flags promoting gay pride. A gentleman greeted me and his first words upon seeing me were, "Is that a Bible?" I knew this was going to be an interesting evening when upon walking into a church, my first interaction with someone was asking me if the book I was carrying was a Bible!

The fact was, the 30 people or so who attended were all middle age to older. I have no doubt they were all respectable members of the community. They seemed to be very decent, kind people. They were a great representation of the vast majority of the people who make up our communities. Despite a belief in God, calling themselves Christians, they all believed there was nothing wrong with the sin of homosexuality, that a woman should be able to do whatever she wants "with her body," and that the Bible is NOT God's Word, but a book written by men.

THE POINT I WANT YOU TO HEAR LOUD AND CLEAR TODAY IS THAT THIS GROUP IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS NATION THAT ARE IN THE PEWS OF CHURCHES EVERY SUNDAY!!! I AM NOT EVEN TALKING TODAY ABOUT THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, BUT INSIDE THE CHURCH!!!

In case you have been sleeping, there is a new group of people in our nation who call themselves the "religious left." This is a relatively new term so you may not be familiar with it. That is why I felt it was so critical to take the time today to ensure you not only understood what it means, but who actually makes up this new group of people. Forty years ago, this group didn't even exist. They have actually evolved and grown tremendously over the past decade.

The "religious left" is made up of people who identify themselves as Christians and hold strong religious beliefs as well as sharing left-wing ideals. Obviously, this group has risen up in opposition to those who have been tagged the "religious right" or the "Christian right." The "Christian right" is that group of Bible-believing Christians who are politically active and seek to elect to office those candidates who hold to Biblical values on the key spiritual issues of our day that are also political issues.

These would be issues like abortion and life-related matters, gay marriage, family issues, the proliferation of the pornography industry, and the drive to remove God from the public square. Those in the "religious left" actually take an anti-Biblical position on these issues and are also heavily involved in the ecumenical movement, environmental issues, opposing war for any reason, world hunger, and social issues like healthcare, welfare, and education.

There is nothing wrong with pursing these noble social issues.Believers should be more involved on those fronts. The problem with this group is their anti-Biblical position on the key spiritual issues of our day and their involvement in these ecumenical movements that require you to set aside the Absolute Truths of the Bible.

I refuse to try and judge their heart, that is something only God can and will do. However, I have every right to judge them on their actions in accordance with God's Word. How can you say you are a person of faith, yet vote to support the legalized slaughter of over 4,000 innocent babies every day? How can you say you are a person of faith, yet vote to redefine God's Holy Institution of Marriage? How can you say you are a person of faith, yet support special rights for people who have chosen to engage in perverted sex acts God calls an abomination, including their ability to adopt children into their deviant lifestyle?

I guess the real question becomes, what is their faith really in? It is inconsistent to say you are person of faith yet continually take a stand in complete opposition to God's Word. Jesus said that if you love Me, you will obey Me. That means His Word. Of course, those in the "religious left" has been born out of the liberal "churches" of our day who make a mockery of Christ as they operate in open rebellion to the Truth of the Bible while claiming to be followers of Christ.

They support the legalized slaughter of babies, redefining marriage to include men with men and women with women, perverting the family by bringing children into homes with homosexual parents, and embrace ecumenical fellowships with all of the cults and false religions of the world. They deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, have rejected God's Word for the Absolute Truth it represents, and have bought into the lie of the world that there are "many roads that lead to God." These are the people who make up the "religious left!"

It is beyond me how a person can consider themselves a Christian, which means they are a follower of Christ and automatically a follower of His Word, yet take a public position in complete opposition to that Word. You better wake up, since this is the largest growing segment of Christendom, this apostate group who calls themselves Christians but go to churches who operate in complete rebellion to Christ and the Bible.

This is the group that is Biblically illiterate since they don't even believe the Bible to be true. They are the politically-correct crowd who has bought the lie a woman has the right to kill her baby. They are the group who lambasts those who speak out against the sin of homosexuality, calling them names like "intolerant" and "hateful." They call themselves Christians, but support the things Christ and the Bible condemn. Pray for these people since you can't call yourself a follower of Christ, yet stand on the opposite side of Christ on so many issues. Truth is not what we want it to be, it is what God says it is. We don't have the luxury of giving our heart and life to Christ and then live any way we want. A true follower of Christ is a follower of His Word. Jesus said, "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"

Apples and oranges.

Of course there was a voting pattern difference between white Catholics and hispanic Catholics, just as there was between black Protestants and white Protestants. The divide there was between cultural lines, NOT their worship style. Ditto with "weekly church going Catholics" and lapsed Catholics. I bet the majority of Protestants who don't ever attend church voted for Obama as well, regardless of whether they're "Evangelical" or not.

So you want to point out the differences between "evangelical" and "mainline" Protestants, make your case. I honestly don't see any major differences. There are plenty of "mainline" Protestants who are extremely fervent weekly church going Christians and hardcore conservatives, and plenty of squishy, moderate-to-liberal "Evangelicals", for example Harriet Miers. It cuts both ways.

So...what's the difference?

Are there "Evangelical" and "Mainline" Catholics? We're all just Catholics in this denomination. Some Catholics are much more fervent about it, but they don't declare themselves a separate group. Nothing bigoted about it. The only ones who seem to be a food fight are protestants dividing themselves up between "Evagelical" and "Mainline" types. I don't see any clear differences. I can certainly tell the difference between Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc., I can't tell a "mainline" protestant from an "Evangelical" one.

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.