Posted on 01/19/2012 1:11:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The 150 evangelical leaders who met behind closed doors on January 14 to anoint a Republican candidate for President were wise not to have invited me.
I believe that Christians have an urgent duty to engage the social, economic, and moral threats to a healthy society. That requires a wide variety of political action. However, one thing it doesn't call for is playing kingmaker and powerbroker.
By conspiring to throw their weight behind a single evangelical-friendly candidate, they fed the widespread perception that evangelicalism's main identifying feature is right-wing political activism focused on abortion and homosexuality. In truth, it is hard to imagine the Religious Left in 2008 doing something similar: holding a conclave to decide whether they would throw their collective weight behind either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, unwilling to leave the Democratic primary results to the voters.
I am jealous for the reputation of evangelical Christians. And so are a host of other Christian thought leaders. In 2008, Presbyterian pastor (and Christianity Today board chair) John Huffman gathered a broad-based group to affirm and lend support to a defining document, entitled "An Evangelical Manifesto." The broad coalition included key seminary presidents, leaders of Hispanic evangelicalism, tall-steeple pastors, and leaders of key parachurch ministries. There were even denominational leaders: the national commander of the Salvation Army was among the first to sign up after the charter signatories.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
AUTHOR TRIES TO BOOST ARGUMENT BY POINTING OUT A BIT OF RECENT HISTORY :
____________________________
Christianity Today founder Billy Graham discovered this had happened to him. Out of an abundance of enthusiasm and good will, he tried to aid Richard Nixon in his campaign. Later, when Watergate transcripts revealed the true Nixon, Graham realized he had been used.
We are tempted to think we can be kingmakers and powerbrokers, that we can deliver or withhold the support of a voting bloc. But if there is any lesson in the story of this year’s primary elections, it is this: evangelicals have not voted as a bloc and many are not following their leaders. (Ironically, in December several news pieces described the lack of consensus on a candidate among Iowa evangelicals—and then referred to them as a voting “bloc.” How could they be a “bloc” if they couldn’t agree which they hated more: Mitt’s Mormonism or Newt’s infidelities?)
Rather than trying to demonstrate power through the promise or threat of votes, evangelicals should use influence. Influence is a matter of education and persuasion—informing and convincing constituents and lawmakers alike. In the past four decades, the number of evangelical advocacy groups operating in Washington, DC, has grown thirteenfold, from three to thirty-nine. These groups focus on a variety of issues, both domestic and international: human rights, global poverty, religious freedom, bioethics, family life, and immigration, among them. They advocate for legislation that will address these problems, but because they need everyone’s support, they have learned to work both sides of the aisle.
We should also exercise influence by focusing our talent on the institutions of influence—the universities, think tanks, and media outlets where elites shape culture.
I’m not a fan of endorsements anyway. They’re little more than deliberate attempts to manipulate the public.
Funny how the right has been losing influence and the left has been gaining for the past 50 years. And the left has NO PROBLEM chosing sides, endorsing specific candidates and very vocally throwing their political weight around.
But God forbid a Christian actually endorses a candidate out loud.
Unless the candidate is a Democrat or a RINO, then it’s perfectly “reasonable” to for a Christian to endorse a candidate.
Romans 13:1 in the KJV reads: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
He calls Christians dangerous. But he thinks that the evil that is infiltrating our government, our schools and our society is not a problem.
Christians should exchange ideas, unite and try to reach a consensus. Christians should identify those that support our beliefs and those that are trying to destroy us. Christians are citizens of the United States and have every right to endorse candidates.
The author doesn't think union bosses endorsing candidates is dangerous. He doesn't think leftist groups endorsing candidates is dangerous. He doesn't think Muslim groups endorsing candidates is dangerous. He doesn't think racists like Rev. Jeremiah Wright using the resources of their churches to promote politicians is dangerous.
But when sincere Christians support a candidate, and a principled candidate at that, he throws a hissy fit.
He isn't a Christian and he doesn't speak for Christians. He shouldn't pretend to be one.
Most evangelical voters = pro-life, with the exception of brown children in the Middle East whose parents happen to worship a different god than them
What do you expect from “Christianity Yesterday”?
I'm so tired of turncoats and half brains.
This says it all
“This says it all”
This might also explain it.
“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’””
Matthew 15:7-9
“This says it all”
This might also explain it.
“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’””
Matthew 15:7-9
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.