Posted on 01/18/2012 6:37:30 PM PST by newheart
The 150 evangelical leaders who met behind closed doors on January 14 to anoint a Republican candidate for President were wise not to have invited me.
I believe that Christians have an urgent duty to engage the social, economic, and moral threats to a healthy society. That requires a wide variety of political action. However, one thing it doesn't call for is playing kingmaker and powerbroker.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
But a couple of things really troubled me. First was the anonymity. Aside from the five or six, "usual-suspect" names (Perkins, Bauer, Wildmon, Dobson...) it has been next to impossible to discover who the rest of the so-called leading evangelical Christians were. I don't think the anonymity is appropriate. Definitely not at that level. If you believe your opinion has that much power and is worthy of game-changing influence then you should identify yourself.
Second (and I know they will deny this) such an endorsement has been interpreted as the appropriate way for a true Christian to vote. Well, guess what, I am a true Christian and I am supporting Gingrich, not Rick Santorum. I like Santorum, believe he would make a good candidate and I will be proud to support him if he gets the nomination, but I still think Gingrich would be better. So, because I disagree with the 150 most important Christian leaders in the US, am I wrong? I don't think so. Am I less of a Christian? Again, I don't think so.
One other thing that troubles me very deeply was the intense personal attack on Callista Gingrich by James Dobson while he compared her to Karen Santorum, of whom he spoke in only the most glowing terms. Well, it turns out that even Mrs. Santorum has a past, and if the reports beginning to surface are true, it is one that might curl the hair of the average evangelical. So what. She strikes me as a woman who has made her peace with God and is genuinely living out her faith. But so does Callista. And so does Newt. It seems that Mr. Dobson has forgotten about repentance, redemption and the forgiveness of the Lord.
It is good to have Christians in politics. It is not good to believe that we will, thereby, usher in the Kingdom of God. Lest Mr. Dobson and others forget, that Kingdom is not built with human hands. And EVERYONE who will reside there, with one exception, will have been a sinner worthy of eternal condemnation.
Good points all. There is room in the Church for many different callings, from pacifists to centurions, from the apolitical to elected officials.
We are not a “bloc”, but a “flock”, and our Shepherd is not an earthy politician at this juncture.
But, I am reminded that some day “ Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end ....” Isaiah 9:7
That could rock some conservatives!
The weedy American protestant faction has no insight at all into the wisdom of the 'two kingdoms' perspective, and that is why their efforts to violate the boundaries is so damaging.
This was written by a Gingrich support who was one of the 150 people in that meeting. I put my comment on the bottom
The Evangelical Vote
RedState
Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
Monday, January 16th at 4:46AM EST
“The evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination.”
I had the privilege to attend the meeting of evangelicals in Texas this weekend. Due to pressing matters before me Saturday I could not make the Saturday portion, but was there Friday hearing the advocacy for the candidates, the run down, etc. I did not vote.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As with all meetings of Christian conservatives, we all pledge to have an off the record meeting and a handful of the sinners start leaking like sieves. It is aggravating and typically why I never say a word in these meetings.
Since a few have decided to leak so many details from the meeting as background and anonymous sources, I want to clarify a few things from my perspective and I will do it decidedly on the record.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The first thing you need to know is that taking shots at Tony Perkins for his statements this weekend is both ignorant and wrong. Tony was selected to speak for the group as a whole and he has done a tremendous job reflecting the views of the consensus whether they are his or not. He didn’t really volunteer as much as he was chosen (I cannot have been the only Presbyterian there) and he has done his job ably.
The second thing you should note is that I personally view the state of the Christian conservative movement poorly. It is such an honor and privilege to be in the same room with James Dobson. Truth be told, I’ve been in the room with him several times and have yet to work up the courage to meet a man who has meant so much to my wife and me. Hopefully I’ll work up the courage one of these days.
But Dobson and the other men and women in the room exemplify my problem with the state of the Christian conservative movement — it is getting really old and I do not yet see authentic, strong voices rising up to succeed these pioneers. I take it as a good sign that these men picked Tony Perkins as their spokesman. In the generation that bridges the gap, Perkins is one of the few honest brokers and genuinely authentic good guys in the evangelical community and conservative movement as a whole.
A great deal of the passionate, younger voices of the Christian conservative movement are focused on Christ and not politics. While that’s a far better position to focus on, I fear the Christian conservative movement is going to be handed down to a few good young men and women surrounded by others with less sincere intentions — people who advocate people and positions in furtherance of things other than Christ’s Kingdom. The up and comers will have to rely on men like Tony Perkins to avoid irrelevance and charlatans both.
The third thing you should know about this weekend is just how well the Gingrich and Santorum camps handled themselves and how poorly the Perry and Romney camps handled themselves. I won’t even get into the advocacy on behalf of Ron Paul, which didn’t go well.
There was a decidedly sympathetic view toward Rick Santorum going into the meeting. He has been one of the leading advocates for socially conservative views. They like him on that. I was, frankly, stunned that even when some of the people chosen to speak objectively about the field pointed out that this will be an election about economics, the crowd really was focused on social concerns.
I won’t go into quotes from the men who advocated for the various candidates. Even on the record here, I want to respect the organizers’ wishes more than others have on background, but both Santorum’s advocate and Gingrich’s advocate (each candidate had someone to speak for them) did those men a great service. The Santorum pitch was largely focused on what he had done for the movement, including for the babies. The Gingrich pitch really reflected what Jonah Golberg wrote recently in his column about Newt. If you think the end of the world is nigh, you want the Churchill, not the technocrat.
Rick Perry had a lot of supporters in the crowd, but too few who thought he could win and many who want him to get out and endorse Gingrich or possibly Santorum before South Carolina votes. His advocate, a friend, was not as well prepared as the others, but many in the crowd did speak up for him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Romney advocacy did more harm than good and I think the biggest story to come out of this event has to be both the hostility between evangelicals and Team Romney and the absolute endorsement for “Not Romney.”
If you are reading this from the media, I think the story you should tell is that Mitt Romney will probably become the nominee of the Republican Party with even less good feelings between evangelicals and him than John McCain had.
The problem for Team Romney is that the distrust of Romney is overwhelmingly about his record and shiftiness, but the Romney campaign fundamentally believes it is about his religion. When Team Romney concluded the pitch (read from an iPad seemingly without a passionate delivery) with an admonishment to not be an anti-Mormon bigot, it was game over. Several of the attendees felt like the Romney campaign was almost implying that they’d win without evangelicals and would expect everyone to line up when it was over even without Romney reaching out.
Note to Team Romney: when you are in a room full of Christian leaders like those who were in that room and who have all long been attacked by the left as bigots, it is unwise — no, it is damn foolish — to accuse them of being anti-Mormon bigots, something too many Romney supporters have descended to as the only possible explanation for daring to not get on board with Romney.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s interesting that the outreach concerns are so universal. Inside the conservative blogosphere, among social conservatives, and among specifically the evangelical community there is a great deal of concern that, unlike John McCain, once the Romney camp has it in the bag they’ll go off to woo independents and leave smoldering or un-repaired bridges back to the base.
As to the vote itself, there was a consensus, but not as strong as the reported vote would have you believe. According to several I talked to who were still there for the vote, it was divided with many thinking Gingrich is the only one who can win and many not sure they want to hitch a wagon to the Gingrich train. On this, there is no difference inside and outside the evangelical community.
What gets me is that given Rick Santorum’s polling in South Carolina, his funding and campaign apparatus, the admonition from one influential person that Santorum doesn’t have the campaign to run for President, etc. separate reports suggest a number of people present decided to vote for Santorum not to beat Romney, but to be Romney’s running mate — something that most likely will not happen.
At this point, a vote for Santorum really does help Mitt Romney, but few are willing to acknowledge that. When given the chance to beat Romney, I was kind of shocked by the people who were already reconciled to his win, though that was not the majority view. Most want to fight till the end, fight to the convention, broker a convention, or do anything else to stop Romney. But by voting for Santorum, the group largely undercut more serious efforts waged by Gingrich to stop Romney and, even more troubling if Romney is the nominee and loses, potentially sets up a claim by Rick Santorum, a man who will have been out of office a decade by then, to be the 2016 front runner.
In a year when we could possibly see Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and others, the evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination.
That brings up a problem with the evangelical movement within the political sphere — it is often poorly advised on strategy and cuts short term deals that undermine long term goals. But that’s a topic for another day.p
My comment:
I know many of you are upset with Dr. Dobson, but he is a really good man. I was a democrat with values like them. His teachings did show me that I must do more than call myself a Christian, but live like a Christian. He was not condemning, but encouraged people that we are all imperfect, but with God help we can be the people we want to be. He got me excited about politics to the point I changed to republican and started helping with republican campaigns. How sure are we this is true?
1. This was suppose to be a private meeting where people promised not to leak anything, so I don’t think Dobson was trying to hurt Newt. My guess is he wanted people to think about each candidates baggage and how Obama will use that info. Pretending it did not happen isn’t realistic. My guess (from the article below) is that the Romney team was ticked and leaked something to hurt Newt. Dr Dobson has warned Christians about the growing Mormon and other cults, push on young people. I’m sure he is not one of there favorite people.
2. How do e know Policito is telling the truth? Politico is a big McCain fan who also hates Dobson because he would not endorse McCain at the beginning of the primary. He eventually said he would vote for him when Sarah became his VP pick. Note how the Romney team became nasty in the article. I have seen dr Dobson viciously attacked over lies before. Please be sure of what you read knowing how the media manipulates people and stories. Dr Dobson is a Godly man, and a humble one.
There've always been plenty of preachers around trying to simultaneously lead us out of sin and to make us do what they want.
Doesn't work. That's why we're Protestants and not something else.
These "leaders" are actually "preachers", and sometimes they get too big for their britches. As usual a couple of them will get caught trimming their wicks in the wrong places (maybe at this particular conference) and that'll be the end of that particular advisory to the faithful ~ which, BTW, doesn't really work that well with Protestants.
Sometimes I get down and pray to God thanking him for saving us from the idea of having bishops and special authorities who give us orders. It's best that the servants be kept in their place.
I have always liked Dobson and do consider him a brother in Christ. And certainly one who has done far more than I have. But I do not always agree with him. And I do think it is important that anyone in his position needs to constantly be on guard regarding the “will to power” that Neff discusses.
I have seen his comments about Callista in several places. If they are accurate I believe he needs to lay down his stones, walk away and issue her an apology.
But i am equally concerned about the perceived need for secrecy at this meeting. It reeks of star chamber tactics, not transparency and openness that I would expect from such a group of leaders. And even if there was no desire to create a star chamber (and I really don’t ascribe evil intent tot the group) the appearance of impropriety is strong.
I have for some time had the utmost respect for Mr Dobson’s Christian values and his social advocacy, but not for his political wisdom. Like most evangelical leaders, he likes to get behind the person who has the cleanest background, thinking that person is the best candidate. His desire to back Godliest Christian candidate makes him blind to that individuals weaknesses. So thanks to him and others like him, evangelicals will help get an individual elected that will does fight against the enemy. ie George Bush. Santorum makes many excuses for supporting leftist ideas, but he is perceived as the the Godliest man running.
Another thing about Dobson. A few years ago I heard him say on a radio show that he believes the founding Fathers went against God’s will when they revolted against King George. He thought we would have been just fine down the road if we stayed with England. To me that was a very ignorant thing to say. It made him come off as very historically uneducated.
As I said, when it comes to social matters, Dobson has my highest respect, when it comes to things of politics and the way things get done in government, he lacks wisdom. That is why he was willing to trash a woman to defeat the man he disliked. If what was reported did indeed happen, and he said what he said, then I lost a lost of respect for him, and I expect him to publicly apologize to Gingrich and his wife for his comments.
Callista is a tramp who slept with a married man. May she not even bee a footnote in history.
Perhaps, with Dr. Dobson, you ought to lay down your stones as well.
Our Founding Fathers placed enormous emphasis - and a responsibility - on Christian principles being a part of the political process. That responsibility requires Christians to be active in the political arena on an on-going basis, month by month, year by year - attending local meetings, being a part of the process at the local level and state levels. But, what you see in this sad tale is the abdication of keeping the flock involved through education and encouragement to be part of the continuous process - devolved to the point where a few 'leaders' get together at election time to try to save the day.
Christians as a whole have an extremely poor record of showing up in their district political party meetings. The percentages are abysmal... less that .01 percent on average ever darken the door of local meetings, less than half of that ever get to district, state or national meetings.
Hence, no last-minute meeting of a few church leaders will alter nor heal the long-standing ignorance of the political process by the majority of Christian church leadership in this nation.
Evangelicals don’t have flocks or shepherds. They have ministries. There is nothing wrong for pastors to coalesce on one candidate that is in their view closer to our nation’s cultural and religious heritage. Heck if gay, abortion, secular and atheistic groups can band to support their preference why not Christian evangelicals. Go pastors, go.
“Another thing about Dobson. A few years ago I heard him say on a radio show that he believes the founding Fathers went against God’s will when they revolted against King George. He thought we would have been just fine down the road if we stayed with England. To me that was a very ignorant thing to say. It made him come off as very historically uneducated.”
Interesting, because a few years ago I heard him say that or forefathers had a tea party because they had found that taxation without representation did not work, and that after (however many) years, it seemed that taxation with representation was not working, and that it was time we had another one. At the time, I wondered who would be the generals and noncoms to lead us if we were to take him at his word.
I wonder how to reconcile these two things (though I can see some ways...)
I believe you are describing the boycotting Dominionists.
But i am equally concerned about the perceived need for secrecy at this meeting. It reeks of star chamber tactics, not transparency and openness that I would expect from such a group of leaders. And even if there was no desire to create a star chamber (and I really don’t ascribe evil intent tot the group) the appearance of impropriety is strong.
Your probably right. I think he has been so involved in helping people better their lives and this country, he doesn’t know the days we live in. Everything he did before was on the radio telling everyone of things a politician is doing. Today there are lots of leaders talking, some liberal on issues and calling themselves evangelical. That term needs to be redefined, I think that’s the problem actually. We need to trust God and do what we can. I know the left media is going to love seeing him trashed. They have been doing it for 30 years.
Not quite my point, but I’m not looking for an argument.
Christ didn’t get involved purposely in politics, but believers have that option. If we choose to do so, we should be careful and prayerful. I’ve seen a tendency to get pretty wrapped up in social issues; I’m personally interested in a bigger package that includes Constitutional fidelity, but I know that ultimately this system is going to break down, and at some point the Flag and the Cross diverge...
It is my fervent hope that we can forestall that day if God so wills- much as He promised to protect Israel from various threats if they would turn their face toward Him.
Some Christians, including Evangelicals are more interested in strictly saving souls thru evangelism. I can’t fault 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.