On the Christian Right to Rule
I know I told you I was done with politics until after the new year, but I cannot be silent any longer. I hear so many people sounding off about the role Christianity played in the election that I feel like I have to say something.
I am only going to say this once: Do not blame/praise Christians for the re-election of Geroge W. Bush. It is not our fault/victory. It is indicative of a large scale political movement in America that just happens to somewhat coincide with the ramblings of madmen like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Richard Land.
First, let it be remembered that these "Southern fundamentalists" all reside in states that were blood red long before Bush or Kerry. The "solid South" is a phenomenon that is as old as Nixon. No red state was going to vote for Kerry with national defense on the line. Everybody south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Great Lakes but short of the coast "knows" that Democrats are weak on defense.
Second, the churches that the "moral majority" represent are not growing. Christianity in the South is in a long and slow spiral when you look at actual church attendance. You cannot have a Christian resurgence without a resurgence of Christianity. No massive revivals are breaking out anywhere, including the red states. The Southern Baptist Convention is in the midst of budget cuts, and the long-term prognosis is not so great. The church leaders have no national majority behind them. They just happened to be on the winning side.
Finally, take a close look at the election results in Oklahoma. All those Christians who flocked to the polls as a majority certainly voted for GWB and Tom Coburn and the ban on same-sex marriage. But they also must have voted against "Christian morality" as defined by their church leaders (www.gamblingmouse.com) when they approved both the state lottery and casino style gambling on Indian land. How can the church achieve such stunning victory yet also suffer such astonishing defeat? Simple, voters were not informed by religious convictions but socio-political concerns. (Isn't that a liberal democracy in action, though?)
I do not find a very convincing argument anywhere pointing to GWB riding a tide of religious renewal to a stunning victory. And do not think for a minute that GWB considers conservative evangelicals as anything other than a "part" of his base. He has not, and will not, recognize any of these religious leaders as integral to his win. There will be no cabinet appointements from Bob Jones University, or even from Oklahoma Baptist U. He had the red states before a single Christian ever marked a ballot. That is politics at work, America. Before we go to the press and claim to have a "moral majority", we better come clean and admit that our "moral" majority is not necessarily a "Christian" majority.
I am only going to say this once: Do not blame/praise Christians for the re-election of Geroge W. Bush. It is not our fault/victory. It is indicative of a large scale political movement in America that just happens to somewhat coincide with the ramblings of madmen like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Richard Land.
First, let it be remembered that these "Southern fundamentalists" all reside in states that were blood red long before Bush or Kerry. The "solid South" is a phenomenon that is as old as Nixon. No red state was going to vote for Kerry with national defense on the line. Everybody south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Great Lakes but short of the coast "knows" that Democrats are weak on defense.
Second, the churches that the "moral majority" represent are not growing. Christianity in the South is in a long and slow spiral when you look at actual church attendance. You cannot have a Christian resurgence without a resurgence of Christianity. No massive revivals are breaking out anywhere, including the red states. The Southern Baptist Convention is in the midst of budget cuts, and the long-term prognosis is not so great. The church leaders have no national majority behind them. They just happened to be on the winning side.
Finally, take a close look at the election results in Oklahoma. All those Christians who flocked to the polls as a majority certainly voted for GWB and Tom Coburn and the ban on same-sex marriage. But they also must have voted against "Christian morality" as defined by their church leaders (www.gamblingmouse.com) when they approved both the state lottery and casino style gambling on Indian land. How can the church achieve such stunning victory yet also suffer such astonishing defeat? Simple, voters were not informed by religious convictions but socio-political concerns. (Isn't that a liberal democracy in action, though?)
I do not find a very convincing argument anywhere pointing to GWB riding a tide of religious renewal to a stunning victory. And do not think for a minute that GWB considers conservative evangelicals as anything other than a "part" of his base. He has not, and will not, recognize any of these religious leaders as integral to his win. There will be no cabinet appointements from Bob Jones University, or even from Oklahoma Baptist U. He had the red states before a single Christian ever marked a ballot. That is politics at work, America. Before we go to the press and claim to have a "moral majority", we better come clean and admit that our "moral" majority is not necessarily a "Christian" majority.
7 Comments:
I watched the election results with a group of people I have recently befriended in Stillwater, Oklahoma and of which, I am the only Christian. Through listening to their complaints about the traditional southern vote, I realized how difficult this mission I believe to have in life, that of living the word and leaving the word with my peers, has become in light of the parallels the media and Bush supporters make between 'morality' and a vote for a republican. Suddenly, our society has created a system that makes many an unbeliever think that it is not possible to be a professing Christian and a political liberal. This "us vs. them" idea has permeated the minds of my friends and caused an even greater chasm in their willingness to even hear the message of God's amazing and simple yet profound gift of grace through Christ. To listen to this message (for them) would be to deny the fact that they cant support a war on Iraq when the true war to be fought is in a different country and to listen to this message for my unbelieving friends is to deny the value that they place on health care costs, public education and social concerns that largely are ignored and tampered with under the Bush administration.
This breaks my heart because
(sorry I'm not done) This breaks my heart because, in sharing the gospel message with my friends, I now have to overcome what our world has now deemed the "moral right" on the march hand-in-hand with George W. I see it very differently and truly believe that Christian conviction and morality can yield a vote for a democrat, but who will my friends (and similar unbelievers all over the nation) listen too...me, or the media's perception of Christianity? I would like to think that they would listen to me as I make the claim that God loves, give grace and is merciful to all, but unfortunetly the opposite is true. In their mind, to be a Christian means to be a hard headed Bush lovin,' gay hatein,' holy war insighten,' fundamentalist parallel to a Farwell. Who would want to be that guy? I certianly wouldn't. Is this disheartening for the Christian who happens to primarily cast votes for the democrats while residing in a eternally red state? Yes....but certianly no obstacle too great for God's love and grace.
Fire away, Car, but get your own blog :-)
Who's next?
Original,
I think your move to the NE is starting to affect how in touch your are with the bible belt culture. I had many discussion with people back here (I like to call it hell) and, with the exception of one I can remember, everyone one them were voting for Bush because of his moral "Christian" aptitude (of course killing wasn't on their list of evils and not surprising the name Christ was never mentioned). Not surprising that all of these same people, when I asked them, told me that most of their reasons for voting this way had come from religious convictions. Everyone was an evangelical and most were Southern Baptist. I would say that this "Christianity" they are participating in is something more like a political party but none the less these same people would have been much less likely to vote for Bush if he hadn't played his "Christian" card and taken scripture out of context from time to time. Some of the other countries news headlines hit the nail on the head, with my experience anyway, that, "The sheep bought it again!"
Thank you, Stick, for making my point even more obvious!
www.carlymariewitt@blogspot.com
Grant,
I'm glad that you feel the freedom to lump everyone who disagrees with Bush in the "hypocritical democrat" pile. I, though, am not a democrat either. Neither of the candidates had any respect for life, whether Iraqi or the unborn, they were both reprehensible in this matter. I do however see killing as a necessary evil, and I don't think any president (R or D) should claim to be a "Christian" if they intend on killing people. This however is another issue of whether or not a Christian can be president. Defending the country! Please spare this rhetoric. What were we defending against? WMD or Saddam's powerful military force, neither of which have proven to be a threat at all. We did the Afghanistan bit, if we really are going to be "World Police" then there are plenty of other places we should be paying attention to over and above Iraq. Its just that these are as monetarily friendly are they?
Post a Comment
<< Home