Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts

Saturday, October 24, 2009

How Christians Really Change the World

I just came upon an excellent and articulate essay titled, RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P. by Cal Thomas that was posted November 5, 2008, just as President Barack Obama had been elected.

Mr. Thomas argues that Christians wanting to make a deep, long-lasting impact upon our culture must not make their primary focus and effort the attainment of political power, but should instead live out truly Christian lives before all, as in the revivals of yesteryear which history proves did bring radical change to our nation. This is a much needed reminder, for though in these days of Obama we rightly are alarmed over the direction this country seems to be headed, it is a mistake to focus all of our energies on political solutions if we neglect the most effective agent of changing the human heart-- the transforming power of the gospel in the life of individuals, which in turn impacts culture at large.

I am not saying Christians should completely extricate themselves from politics; in fact living as faithful Christians means that we as a community must continue to speak out on the moral issues facing this country by defending and applying biblical values and principles. Yet in his essay Mr. Thomas makes the excellent point that even when evangelicals attain the positions of power, this does not and has not of itself transformed the heart of the culture. Only God can do that. He does it by transforming individuals into His likeness, that they might become an example that shines its powerful light in the midst of the prevailing darkness.

I urge you to read his thoughtful essay, which appears below, or click the link to be taken to Mr. Thomas' website.


RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Blips on the Blogosphere 20- Post-Christian America?

There's been a lot of press and discussion lately about the United States as a "post-Christian" nation.

President Obama's phrase, "we are no longer just a Christian nation", spoken during a keynote address Obama gave in June 2006, later generated much controversy during his presidential campaign. Obama has frequently reiterated this view, including just 10 days ago in prepared remarks made during a diplomatic visit to Turkey. He said, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Newsweek's cover story this month by editor Jon Meacham is ominously titled The End of Christian America. Meacham notes troubling statistics about the state of American Christianity. According to the article, recent surveys by the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] and the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study have found that:
  • the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent;
  • the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent;
  • the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008;
  • the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)

Southern Baptist Seminary President and conservative blogger Al Mohler played a prominent role in the Newsweek essay. In a thoughtful analysis of the Newsweek piece, Mr. Mohler complements "the care, respect, and insight that mark the essay", and notes that the article "is elegant in form and serious in tone."

He agrees that Newsweek is right to designate, at least certain sections of America, as "post-Christian". But in his analysis Mohler highlights that the Newsweek story is primarily concerned with Christianity's waning political influence. Mohler notes that while this is hardly a "non-issue",

... my greater concern is not with political influence and what secularization means for the political sphere, but with what secularization means for the souls of men and women who are now considerably more distant from Christianity -- and perhaps even with any contact with Christianity -- than ever before. My main concern is evangelism, not cultural influence.


Mohler agrees in part with Meacham's argument that "what binds America together is not 'a specific faith' but instead 'a commitment to freedom' and, in particular, freedom of conscience. The founding generation did not establish the young republic on any religious creed or theological doctrine." But Mohler points out "there is something missing from this argument, and that is the recognition that
freedom, and freedom of conscience in particular, requires some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself. Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims."


Mohler, as usual, hits the nail on the head-- the incredible freedoms and prosperity this nation has enjoyed to date were built upon a Christian foundation, without which they would not have been possible. So when the President says that we are a nation of citizens "bound by ideals and a set of values", his argument is that there is some set of values that transcends any particular religion and which all may somehow come to recognize and embrace. But Obama's argument raises many questions.

Is it really accurate to say that a certain set of values is going to be universally recognizable and agreeable to all? If not, who gets to define which are the set of values acceptable to be promoted in schools and enacted in public policy? Does government have the authority to play the role of deciding which values are the right ones to be promoted? Are values to be decided by majority vote? And shouldn't religious views be allowed to enter the public debate about values? Even if really it could be, why should values discussion and public policy-making be a "religion-free" zone?


Mohler closed his analysis with these fine words:

This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America.


Now a few of the questions I raised above are touched upon-- albeit briefly-- by writer/pastor Tim Keller, speaking on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe" last week on a special Good Friday edition. Keller sat next to Jon Meacham and participated in the short but interesting discussion on issues raised by Meacham's article. You can watch a video of the discussion below.

Keller agrees with Meacham that there is danger when the Church becomes overly concerned with grasping for political power and worldly influence. "If the Church tries to turn the world into the Church it turns out that the Church becomes more like the world." But Keller points to the rise of a new generation of college-educated evangelicals that is seeing these issues differently and with more clarity and depth than did their parents, who were more of a "blue-collar generation" of evangelicals:

All public policies are based on views of human flourishing that are basically based on faith, they are not scientific, they are not empirical, they're based on faith. And therefore everything that happens in the public sphere is based on a kind of religiousness, a kind of "faith" view of human flourishing, human nature, the ultimate sense of what reality is about. And therefore Christians wouldn't want to say well, we're not going to bring our religion to the public sphere anymore because they actually see everything happening in the public sphere having essentially religious roots. And I think people that have gone to college see that a little better and they have a tendency to see that there's religious background to all the positions instead of looking at just certain hot-button issues, I think evangelicals in the future are going to have a more nuanced and comprehensive, you might say, public philosophy than they have in the past. So I think John's right, that the old approach is dying.


I agree with Mr. Keller's argument-- public policy is not and cannot be forged in some sort of metaphysical vacuum in which questions about meaning-- theological questions- are simply ignored. Inquiries dealing with profound questions such as the existence of God and the ultimate reality of life must be answered, and those who advocate secularism indeed have their own "faith-based" take on such questions but want to mandate that overtly religious and particularly, Christian answers to these questions cannot be entertained in the public sphere, citing so-called separation of church and state. But Keller's comments show the fallacious thinking behind this position. Additionally history proves that Christianity has had a most powerful role and influence, in policy-making discussions, in law-making, and in the adoption of various policies in the United States. Christian principles have been felt in the creation of American universities, hospitals, charities, and of course, in the creation of our unique form of democratic government. The positive outcome of all this Christian influence is well-documented. And if Keller is right, a new generation of smart evangelicals will continue to see the connection between faith and policy-making and insist that Christianity is allowed to continue to make its case in the public square.

HT: Alex Chediak

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Don't Be Fooled by Obama

Update 11-2-08: More articles on election 2008:

Tuesday’s Choice More freedom and prosperity, or less?
By Deroy Murdock


Ego and Mouth by Thomas Sowell

Born Gay or a Gay Basher? No Excuse by Frank Turek

It's just days away from the election. And its outcome is far from certain, despite the impression one might get from media with its constant references to Obama's lead in the polls. Interestingly, although Obama has hugely outspent McCain on television advertising, as much as 20-1 in some states, the latest poll results show the race has tightened. For example, as of Friday, October 31, 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll had Barack Obama with 51% of the vote and John McCain with 47%. An average of national polls also on Friday showed Obama with 48.8% and McCain with 41.6% of the vote.

Those who read this blog regularly know that it deals primarily with theological and cultural commentary, rather than politics. Nevertheless in these past few weeks I have felt compelled to bring attention to the presidential race, because I believe the stakes are high for America and for liberty.

Obama is clearly articulate and intelligent, but his views are far more liberal than that of most Americans. His vision of "change" is to turn America into a socialistic system like many in Europe. Abortion "rights" and gay "rights" will be high on his presidential agenda. He has pledged that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (to protect abortion rights), and that he will use the "bully pulpit" of the White House to promote homosexual causes.

For months Obama and his campaign have been treated with kid gloves by the media, which (except for Fox News) is clearly biased towards an Obama-Biden presidential win. Victor Davis Hanson of NRO brilliantly exposes this liberal media bias in "The End of Journalism".

As the above article shows, Obama flat-out lied to America when he reneged on his pledge to accept public financing for his presidential campaign if the Republican candidate also would do so. But the press left him alone for this, or applauded his act of political shrewdness.

Obama also attended a church for twenty years that was preaching "liberation theology" and the evils of white supremacy, and until recently, named the pastor of that church, Jeremiah Wright, as his spiritual mentor. But when it became no longer politically expedient to maintain his connection with Wright, Obama unceremoniously dumped him.

Similarly, Obama makes light of his relationship with unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers. However as the above article points out, up until 2005 Obama "was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist." In 1997, Obama even wrote a positive review of an Ayer's book, "A Kind and Just Parent: Children of Juvenile Court," and the blurb of the review appears on the book's jacket.

We must be grateful then that the web allows many to research for themselves Obama's record, and to see documentation of his prevarication, political maneuvering and ever-evolving stand on various issues.

It is hard to fathom that so many Americans, just seven years after 9/11, are willing to entrust the Presidency to a man of such little executive experience, questionable associations and liberal an agenda as Mr. Obama. It seems that for many, a vote for Obama is an expression of deep dissatisfaction and frustration with the Bush administration. With so many listing the economy as their predominant concern, it seems there is not much of a stomach to continue the expensive war in Iraq. Yet such a view is shortsighted, as Charles Krauthammer reminds us in his endorsement of McCain:

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?


So again I point you to more election 2008 resources below, to help you to make a wise decision come November 4th.


Joe the Vet Endorses McCain in YouTube's Most Popular Election Video


Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote
By Karl Rove


Top Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Obama
By Daniel Jordan


Sensibility: The Christian Pastor in the Age of Obama-mania and Why Evangelicals Love Him
by Bob Bixby


Can you be pro-life and vote for Obama?


The Tyranny of the Minority- How the Forced Recognition of Same-Sex “Marriage” Undermines a Free Society
By S. T. Karnick


Taxing Times- The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose
By Thomas Sowell


The True Meaning of 'Historic Vote'
By Daniel Henninger


Life of the New Party- A redistributionist success story
By Stanley Kurtz


Obama and the Politics of Crowds- The masses greeting the candidate on the trail are a sign of great unease
By Fouad Ajami


Why 'born-again' Christians are backing Obama
By Jim Brown


Obama's Leftism- The Democratic nominee is nowhere near as moderate as he sounds
By Joshua Muravchik


McCain for President, Part I
McCain for President, Part II
By Charles Krauthammer

The Silencing of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright
By Paul Kengor