A week ago (May 14, 2007) on Larry King Live, the discussion was made over what were evangelical priorities when it comes to voting for President of the United States. The theme of the show was “What’s God to Do with Politics?” and you can read the transcript by going here. As a lead-up, I want to provide a couple snippets from the discussion.
David Kuo begins, arguing,
“I think there’s something very interesting, however, about what’s happened with the religious right in the last, let’s say, 15 or 20 years.”
Later, King asks Kuo about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and whether if he had pre-marital sex matters. Kuo responds (emphasis mine),
“You know, I think we have become so focused on the tiny little details and we have missed the big details. Frankly, I don’t care whether Governor Romney — when Governor Romney and his wife decided to couple up. What I am interested in is whether or not Governor Romney is interested in caring about the poor. I don’t particularly care about what Rudy Giuliani’s Christian — religious faith is. I am interested in whether or not he has a particular agenda to care for people who are in need. You know, what’s ironic to me in this whole discussion about religion — about so many of these candidates talking about faith, is how few of them actually talked about things that, for instance, Jesus talked about. And one of those things that he talked about over and over and over again is caring for the poor.”
In a discussion about evangelical moral issues with King and Mohler, Jim Wallis comments:
“Well, Larry — Larry, I think the conversation could be quite different than it was last time and what Al is saying here, for two reasons. One, the agenda — the religious agenda is going to be very different this time. It won’t be the narrow two agenda issue that we’ve seen dominating in the past. Poverty is a religious issue now. The environment — climate change; pandemics like HIV. It’s Rick Warren said this week that to focus on just two issues is un-Christian. And so you’re going to see a wider, deeper agenda — faith applied as David Kuo said, to a whole variety of questions now.”
Mohler’s response:
” . . . I’m all for broadening the agenda. There’s a whole lot — given this country and given our responsibility that ought to be on our agenda, but evangelical Christians are not going to surrender those primary issues. We all have a hierarchy of concerns. And politically speaking, the sanctity of human life and the sanctity and integrity of the family are at the very top of the evangelical agenda. So, by the way, are issues of personal morality . . .”
David Gergen chimes in the exchange, adding,
“This is a little complex and it’s very contentious. I think what we are seeing is the religious right is going to be absolutely focused on the sanctity of life and the sanctity of family. And by family, this is about the gay issue as well as other issues. And so, they’re going to insist on that in the Republican nomination. So I think that that is right. But at the same time, Larry, something very important is starting to happen, and that is there are people in the religious right like Rick Warren who believes in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the family, who also believe that the environment and poverty are terribly important issues. And people on the religious left are starting to make — like Jim Wallis, who is a great leader on the religious left, are starting to find common ground with the religious right on these other additional issues that are also vital to the future.”
Do you see where the conversation is heading? I followed up this discussion with a post entitled “Evangelical Socio-political Priorities” where I asked five questions, including what a person believes are the issues topping the evangelical socio-political convictions. Another question I specifically asked was,
“Do you believe that there is an shift to the left in evangelicalism as a result of the emphasis on poverty and global crises?”
Well, according to the New York Times, that answer would be “Yes.” In their article, “Emphasis Shifts for New Breed of Evangelicals,” they argue that the younger generation of evangelicals, classified as “centrists” are a growing constituency (some 26% of the U.S. population) in contrast to the “traditionalists” who are considered “the Christian right.” They explain,
“Typified by megachurch pastors like the Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., and the Rev. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church outside Chicago, the new breed of evangelical leaders — often to the dismay of those who came before them — are more likely to speak out about more liberal causes like AIDS, Darfur, poverty and global warming than controversial social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.”
They also add that the new evangelicals are not politically activist-minded (contrast to Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson) and are interested in shaping culture through other means such as media and the arts. Anecdotally, they state that while the new evangelicals hold to the same conservative convictions, especially on abortion, they are more accepting of homosexuality than the “traditionalists.”
Denny Burk responded yesterday, opining,
“I think this line represents as much wishful thinking as it does reporting. The rest of the article bears out the fact that the life-issue still remains at the top of the list of policy priorities for evangelicals. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon, no matter what Rick Warren and Bill Hybels do.”
I tend to agree with Denny, but it appears that at least in politics, the issues have indeed broadened, and I do not hear conservative evangelical Christians talking much about issues like poverty, Darfur, or AIDS. Will this in turn come to impact the presidential race in 2008?
Politics or not, evangelicals are going to have to square with the issues facing the world today other than abortion and homosexuality. Don’t hear what I am not saying. Abortion and homosexuality should be top issues for evangelicals. I am simply saying they shouldn’t be the only issues for evangelicals. Am I wrong here? Does this make me a liberal?
I really don’t care either what Warren and Hybels think or do. Personally, they are irrelevant to me. But I do care about what the Bible says and having my convictions and conscience shaped by Scripture and manifested in my worldview. I think far too long have conservative evangelicals, traditionalists, or whatever you call us, neglected or ignored issues of social justice and concern for the poor. These should not be issues connected to a political party or liberal brand of Christianity; rather they should be issues connected with biblical Christianity with a comprehensive worldview that addresses all issues valued and appraised by God and His Gospel. It is not that there should be a new emphasis for a new breed of evangelicals; instead, there should be a renewed commitment of what it means to be Christian.
Great points to bring up. So far, the religious left’s strategy seems to be working. They are shifting the focus to thier agenda, though I have yet to see a candidate that truly fits thier agenda.
I gotta tell ya. I am getting beat into the ground by hearing about feeding the poor and the environment. I am speaking as an evangelical, in the context of Christianity, not politics. Why is this some new focus? I believer genuine believers, in as much is possible in the flesh, have always helped their neighbor, the poor, the sick. If they haven’t kept themselves to helping when the opportunity was there, it will be reckoned to them. Perhaps though many are doing these things and not telling others, so as to not lose their reward. We must resist the urge to wear these works on our sleeve.
I am just getting this weird taste in my mouth. The new test of spirituality is whether you actually “feed the poor” or other things. Young people focus on this at my college, yet while doing so, they neglect prayer, and the consistent time in the Word. They have no time for spiritual disciplines, yet they love to “do” good works.
I am sure that they will be of great use this next election.
One last note, while I advocate personal responsibility for the immediate enviroment, is not the Earth the Lords? Is it not groaning in expectation of that Day on which our King shall appear? is not the Earth ravaged with sin and corruption? Do we not know that History has a goal, and that goal is the appearing of the Lord? So then, why do so many believers when talking about the enviroment ( I am thinking of Warren here) sound as if their belief’s on the enviroment is the same as the non-christian? How could we show more concern for dirt than for life? These are sincere questions.
I still think a monarchy is preferable over a democracy. I even have a King in mind.
I totally agree, Timmy.
White evangelicals have allowed themselves to become pawns of the Republican party, much as African-American believers have been taken for granted by the Democrats.
How I long for a prophetic voice that challenges both parties, not a Jim Wallis who is as tied to the Democrats as Pat Robertson is to the Republicans!
For the global warming folks I present you with these words about who controls and can effect our environment.
Psalm 135:5 For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
Psalm 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
Psalm 135:7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.
Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:
Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Genesis 8:21 And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
When did poverty, environmental stewardship, Darfur, AIDS and social justice become “liberal” issues? These are OUR (read Christian) issues. Warren is right when he says that to be too narrow in focus is un-Christian. Abortion is a horrific thing. Homosexuality is an abomination. But these two things are not the only issues facing our culture or our world. A biblical worldview is a global worldview.
Another thing to remember is that Rick Warren and Bill Hybels are on OUR (read Christian) side. It seems that we are often bent on slicing the pie so thinly that there is room for only very few “like-minded brethren.” Do we run the risk of losing the war because we have turned on each other?
It isn’t unreasonable for people to look at the so-called religious right and see a band of keystone cops.
Ubergoober:
Some of us aren’t religious right. Some of us are mere sinners who use our obligations in this country to vote, while yet bieng “pilgrims and foriegners”.
Some of us are awaiting the “city of God”.
Steven,
I hear you, but I’m not sure what you’re saying. How does that address what I said? I think we agree…maybe.
Guys,
I apologize for not chiming in earlier. After I posted this yesterday morning, I went with my wife to the doctor for our second pregnancy checkup (my first). I was able to hear our baby’s heartbeat for the first time. It was truly a wonderful experience. After having thank God for the gift of life and our baby, I began thinking to myself, “How in the world could any Christian or any person for that matter think of murdering this baby?!” It was a profound moment for me to say the least.
To the comments:
Steven,
You are right that Christians have been caring for the poor throughout church history. Cool or not cool, Christians have been doing this because it is biblical, not because it fits an ideological agenda. A book of current Christian social action that you might be interested in reading is Timothy Smith’s Revivalism and Social Reform. It is a classic, historcal work especially on the 19th century where some of the greatest humanitarian works of benevolence in history were accomplished.
You made an excellent point also in that we can do these “good works” to the neglect of personal piety and discipline. I have been reading up on some of the recent emerging church books, and I read a whole lot of good works emphasis (praxis) and very little on personal holiness (piety). There are leaders who are thinking of Christianity more in terms of society and culture than terms of spirituality and Christ-like character. Now, biblically they are not two but one. Who we are and what we do should not be dichotomized, yet at times one can and often is emphasized more than the other. Looking back at the revivals of the 19th century will show that those who consecrated thsemselves to God’s service had a pasionate peity that was a wellspring to principled praxis. I think that is the way it should be.
Trevin,
That prophetic voice indeed is missing today, although I would argue that has been there before, namely in men like Carl F. H. Henry (who I hope to write more about really soon).
Uber,
You said, “When did poverty, environmental stewardship, Darfur, AIDS and social justice become “liberal” issues? These are OUR (read Christian) issues. Warren is right when he says that to be too narrow in focus is un-Christian. Abortion is a horrific thing. Homosexuality is an abomination. But these two things are not the only issues facing our culture or our world. A biblical worldview is a global worldview. “
Exactly. It is not an undermining of such issues as abortion and homosexuality; rather, it is not limiting the evangelical platform to merely these issues.
Whoa, Tonto! The horse needs a drink!
I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately, and I believe you should consider the notion that the number of political issues that we as Christians are called to deal with politically is really rather small. We discuss abortion because the unborn are people made in God’s image. We discuss marriage and relatia the way we do because people are made in God’s image and because the marriage as it has been recognized for six millenia of recorded history mirrors the relationship between Christ and the Church.
But we have room to disagree about how best to carry out “environmental stewardship,” including the responsibility to question the science behind the current hysteria (whatever it is this week). We have room to disagree about whether (and, if yes, how) to intervene in Darfur. We have room to disagree about the role of government in stemming the AIDS pandemic. We have room to disagree about how (not whether) we should be holding the government’s feet to the fire so that “social justice” (as nebulous as that term is) is carried out.
But the issue here is not what should be done, it’s what should the government be doing. These are distinct questions, and must not be confused.
Jim,
My reference point in my argument does not address the role of the government. I am specifically referring as a Christian to fellow Christians. Personally, I do not believe that the government was created to do the work of benevolence, but I do believe it is created to restrain evil, uphold righteousness, execute justice, etc. The roles of the church and government are unique and different, which separates my view from Protestant liberals who wanted to turn the government into a welfare state. If anything, the government should have a limited role, but it is unfortunate if not an outright embarrassment that the unregenerate world shows more love for their neighbor than the Christian. Before the 20th century, Christianity indeed as the leading movement for social change, and we should take note of that.
But going back to the political aspect of all this, I believe that Christians should have a theological framework (worldview) which encompasses more issues than abortion and homosexuality, and we should consider candidates and vote our conscience based on such a biblically informed worldview.
Jim,
I agree with you that among the issues that need to be addressed is the role of government in all of this. But since the United States is a nation that is ostensibly government of the people, by the people and for the people, our responsibility in these things stares us right in the face. This does not mean that we necessarily agree on the best strategies or even on the issues themselves, but our involvement is a non-negotiable. Not just because it is American, but because it is biblical. (Jeremiah 29 comes to mind.)
I posted a small piece on the environment on my blog (Timmy, sorry for trolling…delete this if you’d like). For us to abandon the issues because the “liberals and their wild-eyed sychophants” is to turn our backs on justice and those that need protection because we think the other guys are ninnies. There is much at stake, and I think we will be asked questions (a la Matthew 25) that go far beyond, “Was your theology orthodox enough?”
http://ubergoober.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/the-sky-is-failing/
If you refuse to support the pope on small issues like abortion, you have to agree to higher, more secret and military goals as absolution. Giuliani did not fight the mob, he corraled it away from drugs and into Wall Street, where he diminished the Jewish influence to make room for Dick Grasso, mafia boiler rooms and money laundering. The mafia was always the elite gladiators of the molesting fascist popes. Catholics are the most dangerous for our democracy. Roberts and Alito lied to get confirmed. Look at the difference between Ashcroft, whose offbeat religion everyone feared, compared to Gonzalez on the Comey affair. Our litigation explosion began with the election of JFK. They love casuistry. Every martyrdom of Christians under the Romans required a civil lawsuit! They love litigation yet Christ himself Mt 5:25 warned agaist their litigiousness.