Are Evangelicals leaving the Republican Party?
Posted on March 16th, 2007 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryA Washington Post columnist thinks so.
Evangelical Protestantism in the United States is going through a New Reformation that is disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine. This historic change will require liberals and conservatives alike to abandon their sometimes narrow views of who evangelicals are.
It's about time.
RSS feed for posts
March 16th, 2007 at 7:09 am
For just one moment, imagine with me…what would happen, if all those who consider themselves to be Christians in this country, were to change their minds about voting for the lesser of two evils, and settled that it hadn’t gotten them where the promoters of that view promised it would get them, and instead, settled that they would only vote for someone who hated evil, loved God, and stood with godly principles across the board?
Since we were promised that voting for the lesser of two evils would work, abortions have risen in number, prayer has been taken out of our schools, the 10 commandments have been banned in many public and governmental settings, saying “Merry Christmas,” has been forced replaced with “Happy Holidays,” marriage between a man and woman has been challenged as the only reasonable marriage, nativity scenes have been banned from public and governmental locations, etc., etc.
Now, getting behind a “I will never vote in a lesser of two evils approach again” that’s the only civil war I could completely get behind…
Where are the Josiah’s in America?
Consider turning to your Christian neighbor, and saying what David said to his brothers, and those around him, when facing the insults of Goliath and the Philistines:
When they answer with their negative response, “Oh Tom, that would just be throwing away your vote,” look down on the ground, pick up 5 smooth pieces of faith, insert them in your conviction sling, wink back at them, as you head towards Goliath, and shout at that nasty approach to life, “Hell yes I’ll stand with God! Hell no Goliath…yur coming down dude!”
Is there not a Cause????
March 16th, 2007 at 7:16 am
If the 1 Samuel passage doesn’t do it for you, try on this Daniel 3 passage:
March 16th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Good job Tom…I think you just got Frank Damazio elected.
I admire your courage, but most Christians are sheep…really dumb sheep…not many are able to discern which candidates are truly Men of God and which are just using them.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I’m not completely convinced we need a flag-waving, Jericho-marching Evangelical FIRST and then a qualified Executive Policy Maker second. In my mind, we need someone who is good at being a president—and if that person HAPPENS to be a Christian, then Yahtzee.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:18 am
…and to think Tom was going to settle for Four of a Kind.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Yup, I think I’ll hold on 4 of a kind.
I respect your perspective Bloggy, but I’ve just seen that approach bear the kind of fruit we are all lamenting at this point.
I don’t feel any particular calling to the political field, other than voting for “godly” leaders, and a few issues that uphold righteousness in the land, but for those who do feel a call to uncompromisingly stand up for righteousness in politics, at least they have one vote…mine.
When I was at CBC, Jack Louman was always the champion for “why throw away your vote…go ahead and vote for the lesser of two evils.” It didn’t sit well with me then, and now, 14 years later, it still doesn’t, but I understand the logic, I just don’t support it.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:02 am
For just one moment, imagine with me…what would happen, if all those who consider themselves to be Christians in this country, were to change their minds about voting for the lesser of two evils, and settled that it hadn’t gotten them where the promoters of that view promised it would get them, and instead, settled that they would only vote for someone who hated evil, loved God, and stood with godly principles across the board?
That’s who I thought I voted for in 2000. I got this instead.
Fool me once…
March 16th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I hear you Chris.
I know there are those like Jack (Sam) who have pretty much drawn the conclusion the whole business is wasted effort, and I’m not so sure he’s wrong.
When given the opportunity to vote for a principled man or woman of God, I will still vote that way, but ultimately I don’t hold out much hope for this country turning around politically.
I certainly don’t place my hope for peace and security in the political arena. In a so called “representative” government, there is at least the “hope” of good government, but with a country that has become as pluralistic as it has, and having turned away from God, it seems less and less likely we are going to see a major turn around.
I believe our best efforts are spent walking closely with Christ, sharing the Gospel, and prayer.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Especially in Illinois, Tom. It’s a democratic stronghold - heck, in 2004 Illinois was so strongly in Kerry’s corner, neither candidate visited here … can you imagine writing off a city the size of Chicago?
With the state locked up by the likes of Kerry and Obama, voting Libertarian has been little more than a protest vote for me. I suspect my reasons for voting Libertarian party are about like your reasons for voting the Constitution party, Tom.
BTW, being from Washington state, it was really entertaining to follow the governor fiasco after the last election. Nothing like winning the election twice (Rossi), and then losing it on the 3rd count in the courts (Gregoire) when votes from King Co. were added … weren’t similar post-election tactics to include ’spoiled ballots’ overturned in the US Supreme court in Gore vs. Bush 2000? Never did understand that - as it sounded like the WA state courts ruled opposite the supreme court …
Here a couple years later, it sounds like Washington state got the governor they deserved …
March 16th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Tom says …
But what if they have no common sense, life knowledge, life experience, all that stuff… BETWEEN the ears??
The “Christian Voters Guide” has ALWAYS been dumb to me. So many “christians” wait for that to come out and vote on whichever candidate answers the questions “properly,” not caring if that candidate’s CHEESE IS ON THE CRACKER or not.
I’ll still be voting for what I deduce to be the “better of the candidates.” I don’t want to be casting non-votes for anything…
March 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
James Dobson and his Religious Right are concerned that they’re losing their grip on power. So, good for the NEA and Cizik for standing-up to Dobson and Co. Religious Republicans have allowed themselves to be defined by two or three issues (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and anti-taxes). Caring for the vulnerable, being good Samaritans to the sick and foreign, making sure children are well educated and healthly (real family values), being good stewards of the environment, and protecting the rights of all humanity have all been sacrificed.
March 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I don’t think there are any Tom, I really don’t. Most fall by the wayside when the heat comes. Come to think of it, you don’t see alot of Josiah’s in churches either because it’s not very popular and most churches would depopulate quickly if they had a Josiah type pastor. It wouldn’t be seeker SENSITIVE enough.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:54 am
There are plenty of Josiah’s, SBTK. They are *not* leading revolutions in the IC, for in doing so the Josiah’s get stoned, lynched, crucified, tarred and feathered, run out on a rail, etc., because the people in the IC believe they are doing God’s work, and the Josiah’s are the enemy come to destroy the church. Josiah if you recall, was KING and therefore over the people where he could direct the removal of idols, destruction of high-places, etc. Even in wiping out all the physical places, he failed to wipe idolatry from the hearts of the people.
Today’s Josiah’s are throwing down idols, but in a way that is not so obvious. They are exposing false doctrine and are joining God in calling His people out of the places of idolatry.
Out here (rural IL), there are some physical signs - drive the backroads and you’ll see boarded up churches - churches where there’s just 3-4 cars on a Sunday - those places are crumbling under their own weight and irrelevancy. In fact, there’s no need to tear many of them down, because in time, they destroy themselves … they are the buildings of men, assembled from things that burn, pieced together by the vain efforts of flesh, upon foundations of sand … as often as the Father sends ‘wind and waves’ to test what men have built, they crumble and fall … God is STILL knocking over towers of babel - and silly men - they blame the devil and set right back to work to patch up what they’ve built again and to build anew …
More than the “are there any Josiah’s” question, I question whether believers really know what it means to rest in Christ (Matthew 11:28-29 & Hebrews 4:9-11)? Or know what Christ meant by “it is finished”?
If one examines closely examines religious activity, often the root of it goes to the human need to somehow contribute to ones own salvation - to find a way to take some share of the credit for what Christ did alone - to find some redeeming quality within themselves about which they can boast. As if we will all wear a badge of honor that states: “He saved himself by virtue and religious works. Where he fell short, Jesus made up the difference”. Such vanity.
Psalms 39:5-7 KJV
(5) Behold, thou hast made my days as a handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah.
(6) Surely every man walketh in a vain show: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them.
(7) And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee.
Psalms 94:11 KJV
(11) The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.
Ecclesiastes 1:2 KJV
(2) Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
Ecclesiastes 1:14 KJV
(14) I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
If everything we do is vanity, what means “rest”? If all the works of man are vanity, what was the work of Josiah and the notion that a current generation of Josiah’s would be actively tearing down the IC? Wouldn’t someone just build another one, in the way the Kings of Israel returned to their old sinful ways after Josiah died? In fact, 1 Kings 23:35 says King Jehoiakim (2nd King, 3 months after Josiah died), taxed the people and gave the silver and gold to Pharaoh. Not long after, the temple was completely plundered of gold and silver under the watch of several more kings who are said to have done “evil in the eyes of the Lord” …
All things considered, perhaps the efforts of Josiah were in vain? This current generation of Josiah’s are after the hearts of men, where hopefully they are working in lock-step with the Father, who is calling men out of idolatry / harlotry and who is making them into sons of God …
March 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’ve been gone all weekend, but I like where this blog string is going…
I apologize for how long this is going to be, but I’ve done some real wrestling over this one.
Each one is obviously recognizing that these issues are extremely difficult to sort out. Each of us see a slightly different angle on it all. This is why I wouldn’t want to cast stones at any believer, for the approach they’ve chosen to take.
I spent some time in the mountains this weekend, just thinking over these issues, not because I feel inclined to the political arena, but because it is a curly matter facing the Church.
I hear what each of you have said, and I know what I’ve previously expressed, yet, as I got away to pray about this and other matters, I found myself unsettled in my conclusions. It often feels like mercury between my fingers.
Here is something I wrote, while sitting by a river in the mountains:
What do Jesus’ words tell us, about a goal to create human governments, in the midst of the nations, that accurately reflect His Kingdom?
John 18: 36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world . If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” 37Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
Is there no application of Jesus’ words, to the kingdoms of this world in which we live, including the United States? Could this be the verse that effectively hindered the early Church from engaging in Roman politics? I’m not saying there was never a Christian politician, in and around the early Church period, but we see nothing of a concert of effort to gather believers together towards confronting Roman laws and practices. The early Church seemed to have no sense of compulsion to fix their government. They seemed to believe that once a person came under the government of Christ that would take care of Roman society. It’s as if they recognized it would be a backwards approach, to solving the problems of their society, to enact laws to legislate righteousness, until the hearts of men and women were changed by Christ and brought under His Lordship.
Here is something Aristides, in 125 AD, wrote, and his description of the early Christians is compelling:
But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. For they know and trust in God, the Creator of heaven and of earth, in whom and from whom are all things, to whom there is no other god as companion, from whom they received commandments which they engraved upon their minds and observe in hope and expectation of the world which is to come. Wherefore they do not commit adultery nor fornication, nor bear false witness, nor embezzle what is held in pledge, nor covet what is not theirs. They honour father and mother, and show kindness to those near to them; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly. They do not worship idols (made) in the image of man; and whatsoever they would not that others should do unto them, they do not to others; and of the food which is consecrated to idols they do not eat, for they are pure. And their oppressors they appease (lit: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies; and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and their daughters are modest; and their men keep themselves from every unlawful union and from all uncleanness, in the hope of a recompense to come in the other world. Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. They do not worship strange gods, and they go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. Falsehood is not found among them; and they love one another, and from widows they do not turn away their esteem; and they deliver the orphan from him who treats him harshly. And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without boasting. And when they see a stranger, they take him in to their homes and rejoice over him as a very brother; for they do not call them brethren after the flesh, but brethren after the spirit and in God. And whenever one of their poor passes from the world, each one of them according to his ability gives heed to him and carefully sees to his burial. And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them anxiously minister to his necessity, and if it is possible to redeem him they set him free. And if there is among them any that is poor and needy, and if they have no spare food, they fast two or three days in order to supply to the needy their lack of food. They observe the precepts of their Messiah with much care, living justly and soberly as the Lord their God commanded them. Every morning and every hour they give thanks and praise to God for His loving-kindnesses toward them; and for their food and their drink they offer thanksgiving to Him. And if any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God; and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place to another near. And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins. And further if they see that any one of them dies in his ungodliness or in his sins, for him they grieve bitterly, and sorrow as for one who goes to meet his doom.
So, when Isaiah talks of a future Kingdom, in which righteousness dwells, maybe we can learn something from him. Perhaps we are wisest when we focus on that which we can do, and look to a future Kingdom, where the government is upon His shoulders. Let judges judge righteously. Let Presidents and congressmen and governors, et al, govern righteously, but perhaps the collective focus of the Church’s efforts are ill placed in governmental restoration.
Isaiah 9: 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.
Notice the continual reference to “will,” rather than “is.” It was one thing, when God’s people, Israel, were a separated nation, out from the midst of the nations, and formed into one people in one geographical location, to form a righteous government, hedged in by God’s laws, addressed by true prophets, and supported by the death penalty for “any” failure, but it is quite another thing, when His nation/people are scattered among every heathen nation and government on the face of the earth. God seems to have no anticipation of entirely righteous nations, while the hearts of men are turned away from Him. Our role seems not be focused on fixing the governments of this world, as much as reforming the hearts of those who come to Christ. His kingdom “will” come, and when it does He will rule and reign physically in the midst of His kingdom. Until that time our best focus is upon the repentance of the souls of men.
Imagine, for a moment, that you live in communist China, what is the wisest course of action for the Chinese believer’s, as relates to affecting their government? The very moment they were to surface, and attempt to combine their forces towards a confrontation of the laws of China, they would expose themselves to intense persecution. Is God not calling them to confront their government? Doesn’t the unbelieving perspective and policies of China concern God? Why shouldn’t the believers in China expose their lives to instant persecution and death, in their attempt to fix China’s government? You see…it just doesn’t make sense does it? So, are we so certain it makes sense for us to do so in America? Are we so sure our government is fixable, through legislation and Christian watchdog groups? If what we do here in America cannot be exported around the earth, then how biblical is our approach? Believers in every nation share the Gospel, gather together, receive teaching, and worship Christ. These are the commonalities that bind our hearts to theirs. If these are the common elements of correspondence, are we so certain we are to add our confrontation of our government to the mix? Has it worked? Not very well.
This begs the question…did the founding fathers of America set about a God led and realistic goal? Even they, when framing our constitution, admitted that the constitution they were forming would and could only work among a people who worshipped and served the Lord Jesus. Now that our country is as pluralistic as it is, are we wise to continue our efforts towards propping up a constitution, that only works among believers, instead of giving, at the least, the majority of our efforts towards the sharing of the Gospel?
I am not saying I won’t vote for a truly godly person, and I agree with Living Life, that person, that is godly, will not get my vote, unless they also evidence politic savvy and experience, but that being said, should as great an amount of our energy be spent preparing candidates and addressing our government, as addressing the souls of mankind with the Gospel.
I appreciate the efforts of Don Wildmon, James Dobson, the ACLJ, The Constitution Party, etc., but I wrestle with whether the effort and money spent is well placed, in attempting to rally the full forces of the Church, and turn that Church on the government.
It may come down to each man walking in his calling, and not attempting to place that call upon another. I just know that I’m not satisfied with the fruit of the last 40 years of Evangelical pressure on the government.
Sorry for being so windy here. I appreciate the things each of you are sharing, and I look forward to your replies.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:52 am
I’ve said it before, I’d sooner vote for a good Presidential candidate over a Christian one.
A President doesn’t make laws. Congress and state governments make laws. Except in rare cases where a veto might temporarily curb the enactment of a law that has some moral bearing, a President’s job is elsewhere. One hot button in particular for most Christians is the issue of abortion. At best a President has the power to appoint a Supreme court judge who may or may not ultimately rule in favor of the preferred morality when it comes to whether or not some moral law is constitutional. Personally, I think that is a poor reason to elect or not elect a President. Too many Christians make their voting decisions upon issues that have very little to do with how a candidate will perform as President.
More important to me, are the issues of how that person will wield executive power to do things like balance the federal budget, maintain healthy diplomatic relationships, address the issue of wars and terrorism particularly in the Middle East, growing the economy, etc. Things that have very little to do with moral issues, but everything to do with making America a great country.
As a side rant, in 2000 I think Americans chose a President based on ideology rather than competency. I think W is an ideological man, which is fine for a country in a time of peace. But an ideological person faced with choices of war vs. diplomacy too often sees in the black and white they are used to. Had 9/11 occurred 2 years earlier, I think someone else would be leading the country right now.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Quote of the year so far:
When LIFE asked comic Chris Rock if America is ready for an African American president, Rock tells LIFE: “It’s ready for a retarded president, why wouldn’t it be ready for an African American presiden…