Among the political casualties of the presidential election were evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly voted Republican and subsequently have sought to make sense of Mitt Romney?s defeat. Evangelicals made a decision this election. They recognized that the race was going to be about the economy, not their moral agenda. So they made the economy a moral issue. Big mistake, says Dallas First Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress in a provocative post-mortem published in the Washington Post and The Dallas Morning News.
Jeffress writes: ?We must differentiate between biblical absolutes and political preferences.? He says evangelicals made a mistake elevating higher taxes, Obamacare and gun control to the level of fundamental religious principles. ?We must never compromise on the former, but we must be willing to bend on the latter if we want to see our moral agenda enacted. Breaking a pledge to Grover Norquist and embracing higher taxes for even higher cuts in expenditures is not tantamount to denouncing Christ. Acknowledging the need for governmental health-care reform does not necessarily pave the way for the rule of the Antichrist.?
Jeffress? op-ed presupposes that the influence of religious conservatives in American politics isn?t over, as some analysts suggest. But considering the outcome of the election, isn?t it?
This week?s question has two parts: 1) Should Christian conservatives in the future follow Jeffress?advice and avoid making prudential issues in which voters can disagree part of their central moral agenda? And 2) even if they do, will it make any difference? Is the era of religious right?s considerable influence on politics a thing of the past?
?
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
When I read Pastor Jeffress? op-ed comments in The Dallas Morning News, I felt a certain amount of pleasure that there were some things in his words with which I agreed. He is correct in his appeal to ?differentiate between biblical absolutes and political preferences.? But I was also troubled by the hypocrisy in his statement. First, the opening portion of his column seemed to address only what is needed to repair the problems with the Republican Party?s approach to national issues. Second, while he seems willing to admit that taxation and gun control may not involve religious absolutes, he failed to mention birth control, legal rights for homosexuals, and abortion as topics also worthy of discussion rather than absolutist rhetoric.
For more than thirty years, the so-called ?religious right? has actually sold its soul to the ?political right.? It prominently began in the 1980 Presidential election, when evangelicals abandoned a genuine born again Baptist Christian named Jimmy Carter and embraced a lukewarm Presbyterian named Ronald Reagan?not for religious reasons or convictions, but for political ones. The past three decades have involved a more fundamental sort of compromise than any that Pastor Jeffress seems willing now to consider. The compromise already made was to substitute political power for religious integrity.
To be an evangelical Christian does not mean one has to be a political conservative. Now, what evangelical Christians have to hope is that the corrupting alliance with political conservative has not forever tainted the place that evangelical Christians can have in America?s social witness.
HOWARD COHEN, Lecturer in Jewish/Christian Relations and member of Congregation Shearith Israel and Congregation Beth Torah, Dallas
The influence of religious conservatives is not over any more than the influence of religious and political liberals is ever over. Nobody won or lost 90% to 10%. The conservative/liberal debate will continue in every election cycle that we will ever have. The first line of Jeffress?op-ed piece, however, was demonstrated by the election.
?Yet evangelicals need to remember that we are a diminishing minority in America.?
He is correct in saying that ?higher taxes, Obamacare and gun control? should not be raised ?to the level of fundamental religious principles.? In fact, part of the reason ?the political casualties of the presidential election were evangelical Christians,? was that they confused ?higher taxes, Obamacare and gun control? as being against their religious principles. Many in this country, apparently a clear majority of the voters, believed that these positions supported what they understood to be their principles, religious or otherwise.
I agree with his closing paragraph:
let?s also nominate a candidate who realizes that compromise with the other party is necessary if we are to restore our country?s fiscal integrity, protect our environment and provide the quality health care Americans deserve.
It?s just that the constituency he is addressing has not been able to compromise with their opponents whom they judge to be wrong with God on every issue that is discussed. Once folks believe that they know the ?mind? of God, and don?t add ?for me? at the end of their religious pronouncements, and are convinced that everyone should agree with them or they are damned for their disagreement, compromise on any issue is not likely.
?
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program
So, as anyone who has ever played Risk knows, there is this thing called ?Strategic diffusion?: The further a force tries to extends its reach into more and more places, the weaker its hold becomes, making it easier for the other side to push it back. The Nationalist Christian Right did the electoral equivalent of just that, trying to take all of Asia when it should have been fortifying itself in Australia for the counterpunch.
?
The fact is the electoral clout of the NCR is waning, and will continue to do so. Some religious groups certainly overreached in trying to declare their interpretation of the Constitution to be the 67th book of the Christian canon. But that doesn?t mean the NCR cannot influence American policy on narrower grounds well into the future.
?
Christianity historically has always had two impulses in tension with each other ? the alignment with the poor and powerless coupled with a humble self-effacing pietism in regard to the public square (see Matt. 5-6 for the entire agenda) vs. the Constantinian imperial impulse to bring the temporal world entirely under the sway of Christ. As an outsider on the receiving end of these two forces, I prefer the former over the latter, but that?s just me.
?
Being a creature of the Constantinian side of the Christian coin, the NCR isn?t really looking for my advice. But IMHO if they want to stay relevant, they should consider Jeffress? advice, drop the flirtation with anti-tax/pro-gun/xenophobia/militarism strain of American thought (most of which seems downright alien to the word and spirit of the NT) and maybe add just one agenda item ? making ministering to the poor through national policy a priority. That last addition would extend their prestige, and their influence, for decades to come.
?
DARRELL BOCK, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Center for Christian Leadership and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
I think Jeffress? distinction between biblical issues and those of political judgment is a good one. The Christian faith emphasizes compassion, care of those in need and being people of peace (Jesus did say, ?Blessed are the peacemakers?). Discussing how this is best done and meeting our budgetary needs responsibly is a matter for negotiation. (One hopes Congress can understand that and get that worked out and not fall back into its pre-election battle mode, a direction it seems to be slipping back into). So Jeffress is right on this one.
?
We also have to distinguish between moderate political influence, considerable influence or political control. The religious right is a group with potential moderate influence because it comprises so much of the electorate (as do many other groups). There has been the (false) impression the religious right controlled American politics or has had significant influence, but that has not been true for some time as most of the last several elections show. Even the Republican primary showed the religious right could not get its candidates nominated in the party it most favored. So the premise in the question about a loss of current considerable influence may be overstated. The influence this group will have depends on (1) it making the case for its cause clear in a way that keeps it united and (2) it appreciating what it is really able to accomplish, representing as it does about 20% of the electorate. That percentage is as significant as other groups that did influence the last election. Such limited influence comes by being clear about what it was about in a way that is persuasive to a number outside its group, by not diffusing its strength by taking on too much, or by overestimating what it can do on its own.
MATTHEW WILSON, Associate Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University
In my view, Jeffress is exactly right, and statements like this from prominent evangelical leaders are long overdue. First of all, there?s no question that religious conservatives will continue to be a significant force in American politics. Depending on exactly how one defines the category, there are more than twice as many ?religious conservatives? in the electorate as there are Latinos, and they show a roughly similar level of political cohesion (giving about 75% of their votes to one party). Is anyone suggesting that Latinos will not exert ?considerable influence? in American politics in the years to come? It would be even more absurd to claim that a much larger, more affluent, and more politically engaged group like religious conservatives will somehow fade into electoral insignificance. Pronouncements about the death of the religious right strike me as, for the most part, wishful thinking by more libertarian elements of the Republican Party, who believe that if we could only be rid of all that annoying ?morality? talk, we could focus more clearly on the vital business of cutting taxes on rich people. If anything, it is worth noting that the only two successful Republican presidential candidates of the last three decades (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) really energized the party?s evangelical base, while those received tepidly by religious conservatives (Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney) all went down to defeat.
This brings me to Jeffress? key point: conservative economic policy, with low taxes, low regulation, and a minimalist welfare state, are not fundamental Christian principles. This is not to say that these policies, within reason, are inconsistent with Christianity; moreover, they may be wise, prudent, and desirable for political/economic reasons. They are not, however, morally obligatory from a Christian standpoint. The Bible is silent on whether the top marginal tax rate should be 33% or 39%, and on exactly how the state ought to regulate banks and investment firms. While there are, in my view, many good reasons to oppose the specifics of ?Obamacare,? conservative Christians are wrong to suggest that there is something un-biblical about the idea of universal health care. One of the key mistakes made by Christian conservatives over the last several decades has been to extend an uncritical embrace to conservative policies that do not stem from core moral principles (or in some cases may even run counter to them). It is not the role of the Church to baptize the whole agenda of any secular political party, but this is exactly what many evangelical leaders have done with the Republican platform. Too often, conservative Christians have defended tax cuts, foreign wars, or a skeptical position on global warming with the same fervor that they defend the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, and religious freedom. Jeffress is right to call on conservative Christians to reconsider what their fundamental political objectives are, and what aspects of their political activity are truly driven by faith.
?
?
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
?
?
Pastor Jeffress is a politician in the religious garb, not a good politician but the one scanning for opportunities to his advantage, his advice is yet to make sense.
Like most of the right-wing conservatives, he lives in a bubble believing in self-aggrandizing information, and aggressively seeing to take advantage of his microphone to get ahead of others in the business of influence. He has done that both in politics and religion and has failed miserably.
When the evangelicals ganged up on Romney, and unleashed Santorum as the conservative candidate, Jeffress came down on Romney, ruefully representing the Baptist Church and denouncing Romney?s Mormonism. The Moderate Republican majority dumped Santorum and other candidates with sectarian views and opted for Romney, who represented moderation at that time, but when Romney donned on the conservative avatar to clutch the nomination, Jeffress was out again with an embarrassing compromise; supporting Romney.
The moral agenda of the conservatives is to stand firmly against abortion, and same sex marriage, whereas Americans want to live by the First Amendment: government out of religion and their lives. Ironic as it may sound, the conservatives wanted to impose their views on others, and go against the very essence of constitution they purportedly want to uphold. If I were his congregant, I would have advised him to preserve the dignity of church and stay out from falling flat on his face again.
On religious side, Jeffress made a preposterous statement, ?Qur?an is a false book written by a false prophet?.? to a standing ovation from his congregation. He knew he was wrong and did not take up my challenge, ?that if he finds faults with Qur?an, I will convert to his Faith, if not, I asked him to be a blessed peace maker that Jesus had wanted us to be. We held the Quraan conference anyway with 10 non-Muslim religious clergy and honored him for causing the truth to be otherwise. Details at www.QuraanConference.com
The era of religious right?s considerable influence on politics is indeed a thing of the past.
?
DANIEL KANTER, Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church of Dallas
Underlying the unease of religious conservatives with how their moral agenda meets their political one is a certain amnesia about their historical political positions. Before the 1970?s Christians as a whole, and even conservatives, were more involved in justice work that focused on the disinherited and disenfranchised of our society. They were active preserving the division of church and state as a way of protecting the church from the state not the other way around. They were more invested in keeping the government from influencing the church than decorating town squares with Christmas cr?ches or pushing for prayer in school. They were more interested in creating a society that fed the poor and cared for the elderly than creating enemies out of gays and lesbians or poor women. The so-called moral agenda of the post 1980?s became less about preserving our society and doing the work Christianity called them to do and more about creating a society that labeled some unworthy with agendas that became more about personal choice and human orientations than the health of society as a whole. In this regard the message from the recent election is people care more about how our society will thrive than about the ?moral agendas? of the religious right.
?
?
KATIE SHERROD, Progressive Episcopalian Activist and Writer/Producer, Fort Worth
First, it would be good if the media would not use terms such as ?the Christian right? as shorthand for all of Christendom. Not all conservatives are Christian. Not all Christians are conservative. To lump all of them together distorts reality and leads to erroneous conclusions, both by reporters and by readers.
Yes, the power of the Religious Right has been waning in recent years, and this election was just more evidence of that. Is the Religious Right dead? No, not at all. Their formidable organization and discipline, coupled with its followers reliably turning out to vote at all levels of government should not be overlooked in the rush to declare them on life-support. While they may be losing their grip on power on a national level, on a local level they are still a force with which to reckon.
There does appear to be a small outbreak of pragmatism among some conservatives ? Christian and otherwise ? In the wake of the election, the result of which shocked and appalled many of those who were not living in the ?reality-based community.? Jeffress? statement is a reflection of that pragmatism and religious conservatives would be wise to follow it.
When voters reject your message, it does little good to simply blame the voters. It can do some good to examine your message, and that is what Jeffress is advocating. And with good reason.
When the economy became a moral issue, it led directly into the insulting and condescending rhetoric of ?makers and takers.? The Right fell into the trap of believing that economic good fortune is proof of God?s favor, and its converse, that economic misfortune is proof that the not-so-rich and the poor are sinners who deserve their fate.
Such an outlook may comfort the comfortable and help them justify greed and selfishness, but it?s not a great way to get folks to vote for your candidates. Nor, in my opinion, is it very moral.
Americans as a group still believe in the Golden Rule ? do unto others as you would have them do unto you ? and in the idea that we are in this together, that what hurts our sister and brother citizens hurts us all. Americans still grasp the idea of the common good ? and they get that that is NOT socialism. None of this implies that morality did not inform their vote. On the contrary, a vote for Obama became for many citizens a moral statement, an acknowledgement of the second of the two great commandments ? to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Because here?s the thing ? voters are learning that we can be a moral nation without being an overtly ?Christian? nation. That?s a good thing for the country. Not so much for the Religious Right.
?
LARRY BETHUNE, Senior Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin
Unquestionably the religious right has discredited their own faith and religion in general by making issues such as gun control and school vouchers part of their ?moral agenda.? On the other hand, their access to power has been based on reaching their base for the broader range of conservative issues that nonreligious conservatives hold dear. Religious conservatives may find their ?strange bedfellows? abandoning them if they abandon such issues as Norquist?s pledge, corporate entitlements (also called ?incentives?), and healthcare as not being morally equivalent to biblical mandates. Doing so has allowed them to add moral issues which are less energizing to nonreligious conservatives ? such as abortion and homosexuality ? to the conservative constellation. Moreover, energizing their base requires the religious right to bundle all conservative issues as religious absolutes. Otherwise their agenda is shown to be more political than religious in nature.
However, their base is neither as religiously ignorant nor as easily manipulated as they think. They are weary with the substitution of politics for spirituality. They are changing their minds about homosexuality and alarmed about eliminating support for women?s health in the name of fighting abortion. Some evangelicals have even abandoned the corporate conservatives? resistance to earth care and denial of climate change. And they are confused about their leaders abandoning their historic condemnation of Mormonism for the sake of political expediency in the last election.
The religious right has been weakened by the recent election, but it is too soon to close their chapter in political history. Jeffress is religiously honest, but they are not likely to follow his lead. Their numbers are still significant. Their leaders have enjoyed their taste of power. They understand the necessity of keeping alliance with political forces less enthused by their ?biblical? agenda to maintain their power. And they are willing to let the ends of unholy alliances and nonbiblical ?moral absolutes? justify the means of attaining their ends.
?
?
JIM DENISON, Theologian-in-Residence, Texas Baptist Convention and President, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture, Dallas
?
The religious right exists because prophetic preaching doesn?t.
Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979. Bill Bright and Pat Robertson co-sponsored ?Washington for Jesus,? an evangelical march on the Capitol, in 1980. The Council for National Policy was formed in 1981. Pat Robertson ran for the White House in 1988 and created the Christian Coalition in 1989. Their common purpose: to give conservative Christians a voice in confronting the ethical and political issues of the day.
Meanwhile, what happened to prophetic preaching? You cannot read the Old Testament prophets without hearing a strong, clear word from God regarding the issues of the culture. In our generation, many preachers have offered therapeutic self-help advice, using biblical illustrations rather than declaring biblical challenges.
When pastors try to use politics, politicians usually end up using pastors. Chuck Colson: ?When I served under President Nixon, one of my jobs was to work with special-interest groups, including religious leaders. We would invite them to the White House, wine and dine them, take them on cruises aboard the presidential yacht. . . . Ironically, few were more easily impressed than religious leaders. The very people who should have been immune to the worldly pomp seemed most vulnerable.?
James Davison Hunter has proven that Christians change culture not by electing leaders but by ?manifesting faithful presence,? being salt and light where they live. If conservative churches would tell our culture what God?s word says about our moral issues, leaving the Republican Party to deal with political challenges through political means, both would be better served.
?
?
JOE CLIFFORD, Head of Staff and Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas
Dr. Jeffress advises adherents to? ?differentiate between biblical absolutes and political preferences.?? I agree.? Particular political strategies are not the purview of faith.? For example, many faiths call for compassion for the poor.? How that is accomplished is a matter of political debate.? Some emphasize personal responsibility and creating opportunity.? Others emphasize systemic programs.? Myriad possibilities exist in between.? As William Sloan Coffin once responded to Henry Kissinger when asked about specific policy matters, ?Mr. Secretary, my job is to say, ?Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,? and your job, sir, is to figure out the irrigation system.?? For this reason, I would never endorse a political candidate for office.? In doing so, the lines between convictions of faith and political preferences can get very blurry.
As to the influence of the religious right on politics, Robert P. Jones, director of the Public Religion Research Institute, suggests the influence of the Christian right is in fact declining.? To support his position he says,? ?Focus on the Family has laid off hundreds of people. The Moral Majority is no more. The Christian Coalition is no more. So these groups that really were able to translate these decisions made in closed rooms by a group of men deciding who was going to be the next candidate really don?t exist in the way they did.?* This is a good thing. Aligning faith with any political party?s agenda ultimately distorts faith and co-opts religion to serve political purposes.? That?s why we must differentiate between our faith and our political preferences.? Accomplishing this is the real challenge.
*The source for this was a 1/13/2012 story on NPR by Barbara Bradley Haggerty entitled, ?Evangelical Leaders Struggle to Crown a Candidate.?? Cited from this website:http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/
?
bigfoot sandra dee twilight zone december 21 2012 mayan calendar nfl playoff picture nfl playoff picture
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.