« All over but the Cryin' | Main | If the democrats are ever going to win again. »
November 04, 2004
Evangelicals and politics
I think there is a ton of disinformation going around about the Evangelicals effect on the election.
Here is an example from Sidney Blumenthal that a "less conservative" friend sent to me today:
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | A moral dilemma
The evangelical churches became instruments of political organization. Ideology was enforced as theology, turning nonconformity into sin, and the faithful, following voter guides with biblical literalism, were shepherded to the polls as though to the rapture. White Protestants, especially in the south, especially married men, gave their souls and votes for flag and cross. The campaign was one long revival.
I have been to a lot of evangelical meetings in the last few months... At least 2 per week, and I didn't see any effort by any church to make us vote for a particular candidate. I was encouraged to vote. That is it.
What compelled Evangelicals to vote wasn't a big conspiracy by Carl Rove or threats of eternity in hell from their pastors. It was liberal activism. "Under God" being removed from the pledge of allegiance. The imminent demise of the partial birth abortion ban. Activists deciding to write their own laws and begin performing gay marriages in several places across the country. The war against Ten Commandment monuments in courthouses. All of these activities have been going on in the last 12 months, and there are a lot of evangelicals who are offended by these actions. The only thing that they can do about these issues is to vote. And vote they did.
Most denominations opposed the Iraq war. Some very strongly. But Conservative Christians Where Biggest Backers of Iraq War The churches really don't have nearly as much power over politics as they are given credit for.
I would guess that if the IRS didn't prohibit churches from taking political stands, most pastors would be more moderate than the stereotypical conservative Christian. The values would likely be the same, but the intensity would be different.
We should be looking to God for solutions, not to the President, Congress, the Courts or anybody else in this world. People like myself who become consumed by politics get separated a bit from our prayer life. We argue pridefully, and not prayerfully. We become more human, and less Christian. When a non believer hears an unprayerful argument from a Christian, often it comes across as arrogant, and intolerant. A prayerful argument tends to bring out an internal examination. A non-believer will still be attracted or repelled by a "Spirit driven" the argument, but It will be much more effective, and much more reflective of Christ's love.
Good pastors know that too much faith in political solutions becomes competition for faith in the Living God. We should vote our consciences and do what we can in this world, but remember our prayer is much more powerful than our ballot.
I think that the real underlying issue that caused religious folks to vote heavily for Bush, and non-religious folks to vote for Kerry was moral relativism. Bush is quite "Black and White" while Kerry is mostly "shades of Grey". Religious people inherently accept the fact that there is a truth. Non religious people don't; everything is relative. Bush appears insane to the moral relativists, but those who believe there is an absolute truth don't get understand what the big fuss is about, and think that the anti-Bush activists are the crazy ones..
I would argue that activism nearly always helps the incumbent. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton and now Bush 43 where all quite controversial and had people marching in the streets, declaring them Satan and the like.. Moderates are turned off by this behavior. If they don't want to join your parade, usually they run the other way. These presidents all won their elections pretty convincingly. Jimmy Carter and Bush 41, where quite a bit less controversial, and they where defeated with a yawn.
What went wrong with the Kerry Campaign? Move-on.org, George Sorros, Michael Moore. Too much activism. Kerry's proper response would be to run away.. Instead he joined the parade at least here and there. This was the same parade that moderates where running away from.
Posted by jreighley at November 4, 2004 08:43 PM
TechnoratiTags:Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://liferoads.reighley.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/192.
Comments
Where are the evangelicals: http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html
Posted by: Freedom at November 11, 2004 07:18 PM
The Abolition movement was supported by a lot of evangelicals.
http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/abolitionism.asp
"The most important source of the radicalizing of abolitionism was evangelical Protestantism."
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092602c.cfm
"It was Bible-based opposition to slavery that drove northern evangelicals into the arms of a political party—the Republican Party. As historian Richard Carwardine puts it, “Republicans acquired their essential moral engery” from conservative Protestants."
There where definately Evangelicals on both sides, of the slavery issue, but without "values based" voters bringing Lincon to power, there is a good chance that abolition would not have succeeded.
Posted by:
Josh R at November 11, 2004 08:23 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)