christian right - discredited?
Over at Ranges Community blog - Scott and Christina have highlighted a recent quote from Brian McLaren about the religious right in the US.
‘My sense is that the religious right has hit its high tide. I think on
a whole lot of levels it has been somewhat discredited. But I think the
true believers in the religious right will go down with the ship, and I
don’t think they’ll be willing to change their thinking no matter what
happens.’
Read their commentary here
June 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Heh. Wishful thinking. The progressives have been howling the same predictions for decades.
Brian had underestimated the strong convictions of millions of brainwashed Christ centered Jesus lovers out there who are willing to part with their money, in support of missionaries armies trying to spread their dogma in fertile parts of the world…like China, India and Sub-Saharan Africa.
So, where does this leave the deadmergent church movement? Err…well…pretty much still dead !
June 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am
this article is hopeless.
No-one named only ‘the christian right’. the author obviously did not read Christianity today where a strong debate occurred over the war in Iraq.
Then we come to Australia and I find Steve Fielding is a member of the christian right.
Except err he opposed both the war in Iraq and the Government’s refugee policy as well as workchoices for example.
Does the author actually do any research before writing?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I agree with BBEPALP… sort of.
Certainly I was surprised when FF did not simply become a third member of the coalition when they opposed workchoices. That was enough for me to realise that they were quite independent. So I think the assertion that FF is simply the same as an American evangelical political movement is spurious.
I would, however, agree with McLaren’s argument that Evangelicalism generally and the religious right specifically have hit a high water mark. I wasn’t aware of any major debates in Christianity today, but in the last few years almost every American Christian blogsite I visited was overtly supportive of George Bush and the Iraq War. Polls indicated that American evangelicals supported the Iraq war more highly than any other grouping. I think it was above 75% approval at one point.
What really stunk for me was The Land Letter. This is not a well known document but, to me, it is actually the moment that American evangelicals “jumped the shark”. The letter, written by some of America’s top evangelical leaders (including Colson and Kennedy), was basically saying “go get em Dubya!” in regards to invading Iraq. Every single argument that the writers of the letter put forward in support of the war has been systematically destroyed by post-war circumstances and evidence.
It is my belief that America is about to hit a secular age. And the reason is because American Evangelicals have just been so darn stupid and insensitive and bombastic and, above all, wrong.
I recently purchased “Year Zero”, the latest album by Nine Inch Nails. Inside the cover is an interesting juxtaposition of images. On the left hand side we see an arm with a bible in the hand. On the right side we see an arm with a submachine gun in the hand.
In the past, American unbelievers have parodied and criticised the church for their greed and their actions. But these days the feeling against Christianity is much darker, more angrier. It was the Christians who supported a war that has killed over 650,000 Iraqis and forced over 2 million to become refugees. It was the Christians who voted as a bloc for the Republican party, which is now embroiled in corruption investigations. It was George Bush, a self-proclaimed Evangelical, who sold the war based upon deliberate lies and distortions of the truth. Unbelievers are saying “If that is Christianity, there’s no way I’ll believe it”.
A few years ago I examined and posted my thoughts about the Land letter at my blog site. Click here if you want to read it
June 16th, 2007 at 11:52 am
while not wanting to express an opinion on the war in iraq. i think the rumours of the death of evangelicalism have been greatly exaggerated
oso
yes they have .. as have evangelicals here
but by and large i think the tide is turning (very slowly) regarding evangelical self awareness of thier lack of intellectual integrity.
the intellectual side of the evangelical community has been asleep for many years but was stirred from its stupor about 15 yrs ago and now there are a plethora of Christian intellectuals writing very good articles on all the hot spots of our culture, from intelligent design (leaving creationism in its wake as it hit its high yrs ago) to Christian responses to postmodernism/sexual ethics/consumerism and with good reasoned intellectually sound philosophical and apologetical arguments etc… although they are by and large ignored by the mass media.
Kai Nealson - one of the worlds most prominent atheistic philosophers complained to JP Moreland that he could not open one of his journals these days without some Christian having an article published - suddenly they just seem to be every where…
Evangelicalism will gradually be represented by more intellectualy astute persons rather than the ‘pat robinsons’ of the past
it hasn’t happened yet but there will be a trickle down effect from the academy to the pulpit to the pew.. i strongly believe that evangelicalism is about (in the next 10-20 yrs) come into its own.
Falwell awakened a giant from its political stupor and the giant was found wanting and was often embarrased… instead of going away quietly it has stuck to its position while the intellectual side caught up… i don’t think we have seen anything yet…
June 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I think you may be right abtruth. I also believe we may see the Pentecostal churches have their own ‘baptism of fire’ much like the Catholic and Anglican churches have in the past……
The refining fire will not allow the known sins of omission to be skeletons in the closet forever.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Evangelicals were split in the USA ( Christiany Today had numerous articles both pro and anti )but less so here as the best paper against the war was written by Andrew Cameron of Moore College.
It does seem emerging church is just another term for lberal now. social justice is a by- product of christianty but not the priomary target.
Preaching the good news about Jesus is the primary target.
Once that is accepted then social justice comes into play.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Evangelicals were split in the USA ( Christianity Today had numerous articles both pro and anti )but less so here as the best paper against the war was written by Andrew Cameron of Moore College.
It does seem emerging church is just another term for liberal now. social justice is a by- product of christianity but not the primary target.
Preaching the good news about Jesus is the primary target.
Once that is accepted then social justice comes into play.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I certainly think that there is some very good intellectual work going on in today’s church. There’s no way God’s church will die out… but at the moment I think that there is a lot of “fat” that will be trimmed off.
The difference between the US and Australia is that the US is a churchgoing culture while Australia is not. People who go to church in Australia are more likely to do it out of a personal, faith-based decision, while Americans are more likely to go because their culture supports that sort of activity.
The problems of modern evangelicalism in America will result in this cultural Christian faith being cut off slowly. This will be felt in ever declining attendances at mainstream evangelical denominations like the Southern Baptists.
Churches in America that exist/thrive in relatively secular areas (eg Oregon, Washington, New England) will probably not be affected too much.
Here in Australia I think that evangelical churches (like Sydney Anglicans and Presbyterians) will grow steadily. I can’t see that happening with the Pentecostals though. As soon as an economic downturn hits people will see the hollowness of word of faith teaching and either move to another church or leave altogether (that is, amongst Pentecostal churches that teach that stuff. Amongst more biblical Pentecostal churches, especially those that accept suffering as part of the Christian life, there will not be such a dropoff)
June 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
do you see this as a problem?
June 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
oops I see I stuttered, dunno how that happened.
The major problem with Pentys is that they cannot handle people who suffer from limited to full on depression or even melancholy. Their doctrine is very dry on this yet we read of it quite a bit in the bible.
The are ups and downs in life.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
do you see this as a problem?
Actually no. It will certainly cause some level of spiritual crisis in the US. Long term decline in church attendance has been experienced in Australia for decades and the ones that have survived have tended to be better at evangelism.
The problem will be, as I see it, a new secularism. People will be less inclined to talk about God, more people are likely to doubt, Atheism will rise in popularity. Essentially more people will go to hell because of the church’s abject stupidity. Even the most culturally bound, narrow-minded American Baptist church is still likely to hear God’s word and Gospel preached. That is an advantage.
The major problem with Pentys is that they cannot handle people who suffer from limited to full on depression or even melancholy. Their doctrine is very dry on this yet we read of it quite a bit in the bible.
I have to hand it to the Pentecostals for helping to rescue Christians from dry orthodoxy and emotionless faith. Expressing our emotion is not just human, it is also biblical. As a dreaded Calvinist, this has taught me to take joy in the salvation God has brought me - not just head knowledge.
The problem is that Pentecostals these days only view certain emotions as acceptable. Joy, happiness, enthusiasm - they’re all good but they’re not limited to that. Sadness, anger, horror - these are emotions that Christians can and should have as well.
Being joyful in suffering does not mean we put on a happy face in the midst of tragedy. Joy is a deeper emotion than just smiling. The Joy of salvation we have helps us to cope with the sadness and anger and horror we may feel at life’s events.
Joel Osteen has this catchphrase: “Your best life now”. Wrong. The best life we will have is with Christ in glory. Our time on earth is valuable, but it is also one that is beset by evil and suffering. If our faith can’t handle that then it is no faith at all.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
EP at LP,
Just to pick up a few of your points. Its not that I didn’t research, rather I didn’t explain myself very well.
Steve Feilding, you are quite right on his voting on these matters. Yet you are been selective.
Voting on the U.S Commission at Guantanemo , which was trying David Hicks, that it was wrong Filding voted with the government, Joyce crossed the floor on this one. Voluntary Unionism,( And a meeting with Howard) voted with the government Joyce crossed the floor, and changes to media laws, voted with the government. The tightening of the asylum seeker laws (and a lunch with Howard), got withdrawn so it never went to the vote. Though I suspect his intention after strong lobbying by Christians was to go against the government. There where many liberal politicians crossing the floor on this one, The governments own senate committee, headed by liberal Marise Payne gave it a damning critique. It was bad legislation.
This is an interesting critique of Feilding perfomance by Bob Brown
Fielding has been a part-time senator for the families he claims to represent. He was absent from 43 votes in 2005 and 105 Senate votes in 2006. Many of the votes he ignored were family friendly, concerning eradicating poverty (June20, 2006), the effect of petrol prices (August 10, 2006) and improving antenatal care in rural Australia (August 16, 2006).
He was also absent from 29 votes to protect the environment, including those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and votes dealing with the effect of climate change on Australia’s water resources.
‘After criticism, Fielding has begun attending more votes. He has voted against increasing the use of renewable energy; against ending old-growth logging; against assessing the effect of Gunns’s Tasmanian pulp mill on endangered species; and against Australia contributing fairly to global efforts to keep temperature rises to less than 2C. He voted against my amendment banning junk-food ads during children’s TV viewing hours. He voted to abolish student unions and to increase foreign ownership of the Australian media. And when I moved to stop more salary hikes for politicians until the wages of childcare workers increased, Fielding stayed out of the Senate.’
In regard to the War in Iraq it is all very well to have a debate retrospectively on the matter. I didn’t read or hear of many U.S Christians saying no at the time when the bombs where launched.
Thanks for pointing this out to me EP at LP, I always enjoy what you have to say on signposts, often giving much needed balance. Keep it up.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I suspect Fielding is the left side of Family First (ie others in the party are further right than he). Was he at one stage with ALP? And I suspect if it weren’t for that, the ALP would have been less inclined towards the preference deal that elected him.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Robert E Webber has written an interesting book “The Younger Evangelicals” that provides an historical sketch of evangelicalism and the direction it will go when the current crop of young evangelical leaders hit their prime. He’s an optimist that evangelicalism will change significantly… (and for the better).
Well… time will tell.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
“deadmergent church movement?”
Well… we’ll see about that too. NCLS are attempting to quantify what’s going on in the generally “under the radar” house church etc. movements… so we should find out what the number-crunchers say about the Australian scene within the next year or two. I remember Al Hirsch refering to a highly respected international Christian number cruncher who claimed the numbers involved in the highly diverse “emergent” phenomenon (mostly house churches) is massive on a global scale… can’t give you a reference off the top of my head though.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:33 am
EP at LP,
I forgot this one, Feilding not a member for the Christian right. During the last election the candidate for Family First, phoned and asked if he could put up his banners etc in our church! No other party wanted to do this….His voting with the Government on the majority of issues would make him more right than left?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
what then was the point of portraying as one of the ‘religious right’ in Australia.
you try to say evangelicals were united in support of the Iraq war. As I showed they were not. A simple reading of Christianity today , the website for most evangelicals, would have shown that.
It was sloppy writing but sloppy research.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
I’m not sure what type of point you are trying to make, Ep at Lp. Other than I can see your accusaion of sloppy writing and reasarch starting to be dribbled on your comments. A reading of Christianity today. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/special/wariniraq.html would show Christian in the county is divided. The point been retrospectively, they where not. I think it is hard place for you to argue when 70% of Americans at the start of the war war in favour of the invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
The point, maybe you didn’t read,
‘What is of interest to me is what will be mirrored in Australian politics.’ I think you are trying to be pedantic trying not to say that Family First is not a Christian party.
Anyway I stick to my opinion.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Abtruth, I disagree with you re Australian evangelicals. I think many Americna evangelicals have been “darn stupid and insensitive and bombastic and, above, all, wrong”, but I don’t think that Australian evangelicals can be compared to American evangelicals. Guys like Andrew Cameron, Gordon Preece and Brian Edgar could hardly be described in those terms. I might have major gripes with some of what is said in Sydney and Melbourne Anglican churches, their cultures etc, but I don’t think that they should be tarred with the same brush as American evangelical institutions. I certainly don’t think that they have meddled with party politics in the same way American churches have - that phenomenon appears to be found more in Penty churches in Australia.
Scott, I am with Homer on this one - evangelical thought re: the war and a huge number of other issues has been far from united. I’d also point out that Fielding probably wouldn’t describe himself as a pentecostal (not evangelical) and he goes to CityLife (previously Waverley Christian Fellowship) which is very much a pentecostal church.
Homer, I’d be very interested to know what makes you say that emergents are liberal. In my view, the theology of most emerging church people in Australia is pretty evangelical. Where they differ from those attending evangelical churches is in their views about how the people of God can/should gather and worship. I’d be interested in hearing how you define “liberal” and why you think the emerging church is liberal.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
bec,
I am very amused to hear my old football compadre Gordon Preece describes as an evanglical!!
I just read liberal lines every time emrging church is around
June 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Homer, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him describe himself as “evangelical”, and I’m not sure why that’s amusing…I assume we’re all talking about the evangelical tradition when we use the word here?
Can you explain what you mean by “liberal” and then explain why you think the EC is liberal”?
June 18th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
btw…the point I was trying to make was that “evangelicalism” and “conservative politics” can’t be lumped together in Australian the same way they can in the US. It’s not even necessary to look at individuals to see this is the case - just looked at the Evangelical Alliance (now I assume, Homer, you’ll accept that EA is ‘evangelical’?!)
June 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Bec,
I do know Gordon. I would not describe him as evanglical
June 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Yes, I know you know him. You’ve pointed it out many times before!
If you knew who I was you would realise that I know him too.
June 18th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Homer - what is your definition of evangelical?
June 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I know a guy named gordon as well - and if either of you knew who I was you’d keep well away…oh, you are.
June 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I once got off a train at Gordon.
I also saw a crime scene that was gordoned off.
My children get told when they’ve done something wrong -”Uhoh you’ve gordon done it now”
June 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I would agree that most (not all) of the EC thinkers and practitioners are more at the evangelical end of the theological spectrum… believing in Christ as the one mediator between God and man gives motivation to go the extra mile to connect with various subcultures in mission, IMO… which is more an evangelical than a liberal viewpoint.
But they are usually not fundamentalist… I think those who veer toward black and white thinking theologically are less likely to be highly innovative / creative in their approaches to mission.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I agree Janet, although I’d never thought of it like that before.
My husband’s got lots of stories from his days as worship leader at a big church. One of my favourites is the one he tells about how the band used to turn around and say “but it doesn’t sound like that on the CD”!!
There’s this weird phenomenon we’ve both observed…amazing musos who suddenly become full of cheesy cliches the minute they walk into a church building…