Another Political Post: I'm on a roll now.
Even though I said the other day that it would be my one political post, I have continued thinking, and I would like to write about a few things that have come up over the past couple of days and that I think are quite relevant for Reformed Christians to think about. And since I have laryngitis, I'm not much good for talking about anything at the moment *croak*.
If the election had been about terrorism or the war in Iraq, I think Kerry would've won. Too much misinformation has been exposed lately about Bush's handling there, that I think undecided voters wouldn't have voted for him. But as the exit polls and the general political analysis since the election has shown, it wasn't about terrorism. It was about morals.
It struck me quite forcefully the other night. All of a sudden in a moment of epiphany, I remembered those videos we watched in "Self in Society" (core class at Cov, now, thankfully, extinct) about the Christian Coalition. They elected George W. Bush. They've been mobilizing for decades, and he is their Promised One. We really should be surprised that Kerry got so many votes. He, after all, represents the "Liberals" (read the "Anti-Christ").
The Christian Coalition provides a face for so many voters out there. Whether implicitly or expliticly, it has influenced the entire evangelical community deeply.
What is the Christian Coalition?
Let's take a quick tour of their website. At the top of the page is the name of the organization with their motto, "America's Leading Grassroots Organization Defending Our Godly Heritage."
The first thing that strikes me is a banner spanning across the top reading, "We would like to thank all the thousands of volunteers who distributed our voter guides throughout the country in churches, neighborhoods, and shopping centers...More Christians voted in this election than ever before...God bless you and your family!!!" On the navbar to the left of the page there are several links, one in particular highlighted in yellow--"Voter Education."
A message from the president takes a central position the main page with a point that strikes me as unique to the CC position, the rest of her message seeming typical of a political initiative, "To the Pastors, I thank you for your courageous stand to put the voter guides in your churches. You have all played a major role in educating pro-family voters so they can make an informed choice on Election Day." To the right of the president's message, there is a petition entitled "Take America Back!"
I continue to scroll down, because in my cursory glance, I'm looking for large print words and pictures. There are the pictures 6 congresspeople (one woman) with legislation they've contributed/trying to contribute to the CC cause, including: removing the IRS' ban over political speech in our nation's houses of worship; ending actual and virtual child pornography in America; stopping the removal of the 10 Commandments Monument in certain states' judicial buildings; and preventing enforcement of the ban of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance by school children in America.
The bottom of the front page has a verse: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hosea 4.6
Looking at the front page of their website isn't going to give a detailed description of who they are. But I at least would like to stop at this moment to comment.
What initially strikes me is how infiltrated they are into churches and how this doesn't seem to be a problem. It's not uncommon for a political initiative to want to educate its voters how to contribute to the endeavor. The CC has entered churches, provided bulletin inserts, given Sunday School classes, and rallied pastors to use their pulpit time to educate their congregrations. It's part of the mindset of churches like these to protect their children from liberals and the "philosophers of this age", so they most likely have Christian schools which teach the CC agenda in history and Bible classes, resulting in all the offspring (except for the few rebels) growing up to promote it thinking that this is what Christians are supposed to do. (This is free campaigning, btw. Pretty sweet deal of you're one of their candidates.)
And some response to the sampling of legislation they're working on as advertised on the front page:
A house of worship is not an appropriate venue for a political event. It not only violates the Constitutional provision for separation of the church and state, but I see it akin to those vendors whose tables in the temple Christ overturned in rage with the words, "My house shall be called a house of prayer." (Matt. 21)
[ begin slightly sarcastic tone of voice ] It's definitely a good thing that they are out there to stop child pornography, though. Those liberals--you know how much they love child pornography. [ / slightly sarcastic tone of voice]
I agree with the ban of the display of the 10 Commandments in public buildings. By splashing a document like that on a public building, it signifies that those who hold office in that building and all those these office-holders represent endorse the document. This is simply not the case. I point again to the Constitutional provision of separation of church and state. If you need a fresh perspective: what if someone wanted to paint sections of the Koran on a public building? Many Christians would be offended--"But we don't believe that!" That's why we have this separation, so that many religions can coexist. If a Christian wants to persuade someone of the truth of the 10 Commandments, there are other more appropriate ways.
Well, lest I get diverted from the main topic of discussion, let's go back to the topic on hand, the Christian Coalition. While their Five-Fold Mission seems inherently benign, what I have observed is that the way they implement their mission is to get as many Christians elected into public office is possible (as if this election isn't proof enough).
Why is that so important??? The key tenant of their mission is what they call "pro-family." They really believe that liberals are anti-family. So all you liberal mamas out there, be careful, you actually hate your children! This gets played out in anti-abortion, anti-gayrights, etc., etc. (Topics which deserve response in and of themselves, and where this angel fears to tread.)
But again why is this so important??? Why is it important to elect officials to office to promote one's beliefs about family values?
I think that it's because the CC (and by using their name I refer to all those tightly and loosely associated with the organization or those agree with it whether outrightly or implicitly) thinks that God will curse the country if values goes down the "slippery slope." If they believe that America is Promised Nation, which I can't help but imply from their motto "Defending Our Godly Heritage," then they see our country as heading in a direction that is not godly, thus God will not honor the country. In other words, they see the government as representing themselves before God.
A Reformed Response: Towards the Beginning of One
Many Christians, especially in the Reformed community, would agree with me that this is a little bit too right-field for us. We believe in Sola Gratia,Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!
But think about how the agenda of the CC has affected our community: Let's begin with the Francis Schaeffer generation. [Don't get me wrong. I think Schaeffer was a great man and did a lot for the Christian community, opening the door for Christians to think about culture, art, politics, philosophy in terms of their faith. He unlocked the door of the American Christian mind, giving Christians a chance to see how they could use their faith in their culture.] Throughout Schaeffer's writings he speaks of culture wars. A Christian culture is opposed to the culture of the world, so how does one live in both?--the old "Christ and culture" problem. For some it is to completely withdraw from the culture of the world (an extreme case of this is the Amish); and for others it is to try to change the culture of the world to be more like the Christian culture (essentially the Christian Coalition). In the Reformed Community you often hear cries to "reform the culture"--I think Schaeffer would endorse that.
So, though the Reformed community may throw its hands in horror at the rhetoric and methods of the Christian Coalition, when bathed in the rhetoric of "reforming the culture" things look quite different. E.g. "Let's get Christians elected to office so that we can reform culture!"
My response is this (so far). If we are concerned about the denigration of values and a decadent culture, then getting Christians elected to office isn't going to solve that problem.
Two key doctrinal points of the Reformed faith inform my thinking: the sovereignty of God and His covenantal faithfulness. God rules the history of this world in such a way as to bring Himself glory. He is still glorified even when the Attila the Huns and the Hitlers wreak havoc. He is still glorified when the economy is doing well and when it isn't. Not a leaf falls in a forest that God did not will--how much more does he have sovereignty over all the governments in this world. It is our concern as Christians to bring Him glory.
I go back to my point the other day if we're concerned about family values, there is a place for their preservation: it's the Church! God gave us the Church to be our covenantal family. We train children and pray for and with each other because of that. It is a taste of the communion we have in Heaven. This is our highest priority as Christians.
And I can't help wonder if our priority to the Church doesn't call for a certain amount of indifference towards the things like government. We pay taxes, live in a safe neighborhood, and work a week's work as part of our living here as good stewards. I also can't help but wonder if it's actually a bad idea to elect Christians to high governmental positions--can these elected Christians keep the Sabbath and give their highest priority--the Church--adequate attention while they jet around the globe solving the world's problems?
So now the Christian Coalition has elected their man. They're going to want something in return.
Comments
"It not only violates the Constitutional provision for separation of the church and state..."
Perhaps you are thinking of the 1936 Constitution of the U.S.S.R., Chapter 10, Article 124: "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."
For the historical American perspective, please observe this quote from only 23 years after the founding of our nation:
"...in a 1799 case of Runkel v. Winemiller, the court reported: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Ours is a freedom OF religion; NOT, most assuredly, FROM religion.
"I have observed is that the way they implement their mission is to get as many Christians elected into public office is possible...Why is that so important???"
Here is what John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, thought about your question. ""Providence [God] has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Here is what John Quincy Adams thought of our Government in regards to Christianity. ""Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation. Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"
"In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other."
And here is what George Washington thought. ""Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars."
"If they believe that America is Promised Nation, which I can't help but imply from their motto "Defending Our Godly Heritage,"..."
That you inferred what you did, I don't deny. But I do deny that the quote you listed makes your inference a just one. The authors of the quote may have been simply referring to our Heritage, which itself was a 'Godly Heritage.' Mind you, I am not arguing for or against what the CC meant by that statement.
My main point in all of this is that our historical heritage is quite different from what you seem to be implying with your statements.
Carl
Posted by: Carl | November 7, 2004 1:14 PM
After reading this well written post, it took me several hours to digest it. I think that it has been pounded into many of us that religion of all forms must seperate itself from government of all forms. However, I think that, when religion is properly viewed, we see that it cannot be divested from government and must neccessarily influence it.
Think of it this way: During the campaign, there were rock concerts for Kerry that acted as revival sermons for the Democratic candidate. People emphasized highened group emotions in voting that downplayed rational and logical analysis. Moveon.org members met almost as regularly as church goers to defeat President Bush. Political motivations come from all walks of life and saying that churches should not be at all involved in the political process is to damn Christians as the only people who cannot draw on their personal beliefs (be they theological or secular) to make political decisions. Some people make political points from the view that Mother Nature is in danger and needs our help. Others make their points from a belief that capitalism is inherantly unfair. Christians make their points from the belief that there is a supreme God who has shown himself in the Bible. This belief (at least for me) comes from a conviction that is as deeply held as Michael Moore's conviction that socialism is a much better worldview than capitalism. Moore's view is secularist and mine is religious. Both have wide ranging political applications, but because his doesn't involve a diety, Moore's views are valid politically while I must divorce my views from their source and make up some straw man to make them valid in a pluralistic marketplace of ideas. That is the very essence of religious discrimination.
I don't think churches should support specific candidates. But the Christian Coalition isn't a church. It's an intereste group made up of reasonable citizens and pursuing a speicifc agenda. Thus, I think it is no different than the NRA, PETA, or any other group of citizens hoping to change the world.
Posted by: Matthias | November 7, 2004 1:43 PM
Carl, I think your objections are largely historical ones? Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't really think America has a distinctly Christian foundation. I think that some of the founders were Christians, but in so far as the foundation of this government and country are concerned, they are more based on Enlightenment principles.
Most of my thinking about early American history and the idea of a "Christian heritage" comes from an excellent book that I highly recommend:
The Search for Christian America, by Marsden, Noll, and Hatch. It completely changed the way I thought about this country.
Posted by: Jeannette | November 7, 2004 6:15 PM
Matthias, well, if it took you several hours to digest, it actually took me several hours to write, too! :-) And then I thought, 'good grief, what did I just do with my Saturday afternoon?' And then I almost deleted it, because I realized after all that, there were so many unclarities and holes.
Anyway, you're right to point out the parallel fervor as a perfectly legitimate thing, and most importantly, that the CC is NOT the church, and as a political initiative, they are acting legitimately to promote the things the way the do.
What bothers me essentially about them is their affect on churches themselves. Pastors do promote specific candidates from the pulpit in the time that should be used for worship! And a moral obligation is placed on church communities such that I'm sure many people think they will be sinning if they vote for a certain candidate (one that isn't Republican).
So perhaps I'm more concerned about their affect on the political consciousness on the evangelical community?
I know I'm still a bit unclear. But this is starting point in my current thought process.
Posted by: Jeannette | November 7, 2004 6:23 PM
i think this editorial from yesterday's New York Times seems to sum up my thoughts on this whole idea that some "evangelical mob" was mobilized to elect G.W. if any exit poller was to ask a voter if moral values were to enter their mind when casting their vote, of course their answer would be yes, whether their liberal or conservative.
http://tinyurl(dot)com/3lga8
(i had to put the "dot" in because it wouldn't let me just post it. )
And honestly, it seems that since Newt left Congress, the Christian Coalition isn't as much of a force as it used to be, or at least isn't as prominent in mainstream politics.
Mark Noll's book was one of my favorites that we read for Morton. :)
Posted by: charity | November 8, 2004 8:27 AM
"I think Schaeffer was a great man and did a lot for the Christian community, opening the door for Christians to think about culture, art, politics, philosophy in terms of their faith. He unlocked the door of the American Christian mind, giving Christians a chance to see how they could use their faith in their culture.] Throughout Schaeffer's writings he speaks of culture wars. A Christian culture is opposed to the culture of the world, so how does one live in both?--the old "Christ and culture" problem."
"My response is this (so far). If we are concerned about the denigration of values and a decadent culture, then getting Christians elected to office isn't going to solve that problem"
Thses two remarks are related in that some people see what they do as a way to be an influence among the world doing what they do. Geprge W. is a politician in much the same way your dad is a greenhouse man. Should he not enter politics because he is a Christian? Isn't that like saying you shouldn't be a scholar because you are a Christian? Will it change the course of the world? The Proverbs are full of answers. "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord...." "Keep they heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life."
So , yes, God id sovereign in these things adn the course of our copuntry is determoinrd by Him. Yet, He chooses to use people like you and me and others I will not mention, to accomplish what he pleases. So we do have responsibilities, and I know you take them seriously.
On the other hand, Christ, by his own example, often puts us at odds with the culture of the world, but that is never a reason to withdraw as evangelical Christians have often done.
"What bothers me essentially about them is their affect on churches themselves. Pastors do promote specific candidates from the pulpit in the time that should be used for worship! And a moral obligation is placed on church communities such that I'm sure many people think they will be sinning if they vote for a certain candidate (one that isn't Republican).What bothers me essentially about them is their affect on churches themselves. Pastors do promote specific candidates from the pulpit in the time that should be used for worship! And a moral obligation is placed on church communities such that I'm sure many people think they will be sinning if they vote for a certain candidate (one that isn't Republican)."
I think this has been the case from the very beginning of the country and that there is considerably less of it in our day, but unless you can visit all the churches across a spectrum the latter part of this statement would be hard to verify. This is the country that went to war over the moral issue of slavery.
I think that you are on target about the Church being the place where family values are preserved, and we are probably fighting these battles in the political arena, because they haven't been. That doesn't mean that some won't fight for them in the arena into which they have moved, so you have the CC. Abortion rights, Gay rights, war, health care, poverty are real life issues and you are right to apply your understanding of who God is to your philosophy on these things. In heaven we will be unanimous about the how and where these issue are dealt with and who will do it, but right now, I have to get to school.
Posted by: mom | November 8, 2004 8:32 AM
Jeannette,
I certainly agree with you on the issue of candidate promotion: It has no place in the worship service.
Some of my most sorrowful moments of this last presidential race was to see a candidate speak at a church service. Services are definately a time for God and not for men, no matter how big they (or we) think they are. However, I don't have a problem with Christian groups giving out reccommendation lists of candidates based on voting history (which it sounds like you don't have a problem with that, noting the exception below).
The great danger is, as you mentioned, when people begin equating a certain flavor of political advocacy with godliness. That kind of thing is certainly less than uniting.
Posted by: Matthias | November 8, 2004 1:39 PM
I agree with you Matthias. (Hey, weren't we in the same May Term Intro to Philosophy class with Dr. Davis? Good times.)
Posted by: Jeannette | November 8, 2004 2:35 PM
"I don't really think America has a distinctly Christian foundation."
I disagree. I think that the voluminous writings of our "Founding Fathers," or historicity, disagrees.
I have enjoyed your site, and will continue to read.
Adieu
Carl
Posted by: Carl | November 8, 2004 8:08 PM
Oh Nettie! Did I ever tell you about walking into an OPC in So. California where the pastor, a rock-ribbed theonomist, was also WELL aquainted with Charlie D? We introduced ourselves as visitors from the Sewickley OPC, and he slapped his forehead in mock horror, and exclaimed, "OH NO! Another couple Charlie has ruined for life in the real world!"
I am so glad you wrote this post. It cleared up a lot for me about your thought. Welcome to the world above!
Posted by: mom2 | November 9, 2004 8:33 AM
Ma2, that is hilarious!!! Ain't that the truth, though? It certainly makes for a calmer me.
Posted by: Jeannette | November 9, 2004 9:36 AM
btw, what does "rock-ribbed" mean? :-)
Posted by: Jeannette | November 9, 2004 9:37 AM
rock-ribbed means "inflexible, unyielding, in your principles, loyalities and beliefs." I checked several dictionaries, and they ALL used one of the following examples:
"rock-ribbed Republican"
"rock-ribbed conservative"
Aren't any of you Liberal Democrats rock-ribbed?
It also means a geographical region protected by steep rocky cliffs, so I suppose that being unyielding in your principles means that you are like one of the cities of Sicily or Greece, built on the tops of rocky cliffs, insurmountable by foreigners or the enemy. The "rock-ribbed" see you climbing up, and can easily shoot you down before you make any headway.
Posted by: mom2 | November 9, 2004 2:19 PM