The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Phasing out of the Religious Right

By Joshua Carpenter, Random Knuts
February 02, 2011  01:35 p.m. EST

While fundamentalists are comfortable sitting in their pews singing hymns this Sunday, come Monday they may be singing a different tune.  The latest strike against the group often known as the "Religious Right" is a video of President George W. Bush's daughter, Barbara, speaking out in support of same-sex marriage.  A work in the making, the GLBT community has fought for over fifty-years to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Contrary to what many fundamentalists would like to believe, the GOP is now developing a strategy for the 2012 election and they are not going to like what they see.  Although the Religious Right may be informed about those candidates that are in opposition to giving rights to homosexuals, they still have to consider the increasing sympathy shown by many Republicans toward homosexual rights.  Take, for example, Dick Cheney.  It was widely known that his daughter was in a same-sex relationship, but yet he assured the Religious Right of his opposition to the matter.  Now, Mr. Cheney has made it public that he supports same sex marriage. But he is not the only prominent person in the GOP making public statements of support.  An interview with Larry King has Laura Bush supporting same-sex marriage.  All of this should come at no surprise, it has been noted in national newspapers that the entire party has been growing sympathetic toward the movement.  More recent, but less known movements like GOProud that are both Republican and support same-sex marriage.

What does this mean for the Religious Right and do they still have a voice?  That is tough to say.  Especially if the definition of 'having a voice' is being provided with a candidate that will support the Religious Right on all accounts.  Although they have grown accustomed to this, their influence on the GOP appears to be waning and waning quickly.

If the Religious Right would want to be heard on this issue, the best chance they have is to push for a concerted interdenominational and religious effort that sends a stern message to the GOP telling them that unless they deplore same-sex marriage and abortion and push to allow prayer in school, no one will show up at the voting booths.  This is nothing new, prior to the 1960s many people of faith would not cross the religious with the political.  But with the efforts of Nixon and Reagan, POOF the Religious Right appears.

The reality of the situation is that a concerted effort of many denominations is unlikely.  And without the help of a well endowed political party the Religious Right is more than likely on its way out the door.  The increasing focus on postmodern thought, secularism and the belief that morality is relative rather than biblical will eventually lead to this group's demise.  And then the legacy of the Religious Right just might disappear into the future.

The Christian Fundamentalist and Homosexual Clergy: A Critical Analysis

DISCLAIMER It does not matter if the doctrine of fundamentalism is right.  Nor does it matter if I agree or disagree with the views expounded in this analysis.  The point of this article is to provide an argument against a topic within a larger point of view.  So assuming anything about my personal views is prohibited, but pointing out the flaws in my argument is not.  I welcome and encourage your feedback.

There is a pattern that the United States is experiencing today.  Since the push for civil rights in the 1960s, our society has increasingly expected us to become more tolerant.  But the idea of becoming tolerant starkly contradicts one of the oldest traditions in the United States: Christian fundamentalism.  This analysis is not necessarily aiming to condemn or condone those who hold a belief in Christian fundamentalism.  For who is anyone to condemn an entire sect of Christianity with so little words?  The primary goal is to identify a fundamental flaw, a contradiction that many doctrines within fundamentalism share.

In America, social scientists classify Protestantism as a part of two categories: evangelicals and mainline.  Churches that practice Christian fundamentalism are evangelicals.  And one of the ways that they can be identified is that they tend to interpret the bible more literally than those mainline denominations.  Mainline denominations have a more liberal view than their Christian counterparts, the evangelicals.  The doctrines of mainline denominations tend to highlight knowledge in the theology of the scriptures as opposed to the knowledge of the contents of the scripture that the fundamentalists tend to emphasize.

Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, was a
prominent fundamentalist contributing to the rise of
what is known as the "Religious Right."

Take for example the creation story in Genesis.  Most mainline Christian denominations maintain that the story is a myth and not a verbatim account of how God created the universe.  Because fundamentalists take on a literal translation of scripture, their interpretation of the creation story is quite different, they believe that Genesis is a word for word account of how the world began.  Then it follows accordingly that if the scripture says that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib that is literally what happened.  But there have been changes in this view.

A large denomination in the fundamentalist movement, the Church of the Nazarene, has fine-tuned their statement of beliefs in a way that welcomes other arguments.[1]  And although the tolerance of this denomination is represented by the questioning of the church’s traditional stance on creationism – primarily due to the arguments of scientists at Nazarene universities – there has yet to be tolerance in sexuality.

There is an intriguing parallel that exists within the church today.  It has been brought about by a relatively recent change in cultural norms.  There have been many times when changes in the norms of society have played a significant role in influencing the grey areas of Christian theology.  The Reformation alone yields voluminous examples.  But a revolution is not needed for a change in doctrine; a doctrinal change could be  caused by the changing factors in society or an acknowledgement by the church that they have changed, maybe too much or too little, with the factors of society.

There were many times when the United States experienced such significant changes in culture that churches elected to change their position on certain issues.  One good example of this can be seen in the wide acceptance of the female’s role in church practices and position.  The suburbanization of America drew families away from their urban kinships and melded them into community groups.  This led to them becoming a more-involved part of community groups, including churches.  During this time the churches of America experienced an influx of women that felt empowered, civilly protected and ready to serve.  An increasingly liberal view which allowed women of the church to be integrated into the clergy became the norm for the churches of the United States.  

Even though there was, at first, resistance from fundamentalists to allow women to be leaders of the church, it eventually became a waning effort and, over time, many denominations came to accept it.  Keep in mind that, unlike women, it is not out of the ordinary for denominations that practice fundamentalism to condemn an acceptance of homosexual clergy in a “no matter what” fashion.  But regardless of whether or not fundamentalists are intolerant toward allowing homosexual clergy, they are tolerant in having women as clergy.  And whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this acceptance of women was spurred, in part, by a change in the culture of the society.  But regardless if there are firm theological grounds for women to be accepted as clergy, there is still a flaw in their argument for the criteria to hold a position within the church.

Fundamentalist Pat Roberson was also
a leader of the Religious Right movement.

The fundamentalist doctrine maintains that the practice of heterosexuality is the only acceptable type of sexuality, outside of celibacy, that, when practiced, can sustain purity.[2]  In addition to sex being between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, it is also necessary that they be married.  Any violation of or deviance from these specific criteria, is considered absolutely immoral as well as undesirable traits for those holding positions in the clergy.[3]  Therefore, the single act of having intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin and the ongoing act of being in a homosexual relationship is a contradiction to the one male, one female concept in Genesis.

This is very much an argument of fundamentalists.  Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and any marriage outside of the Adam and Eve covenant/model, like a marriage between two people of the same sex, goes against the perfect plan God set about in the beginning.  The basic argument here, that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve as clergy, becomes intriguing once the existential traits of a single act of sin is contrasted with those of ongoing acts of sin.

If, in having sex, a sin is committed, the violators are not necessarily obligated to continue in sin.  Jesus was the sacrifice that took the stead of everyone and therefore, anyone can be forgiven from any sin as long as they honestly repent – or, in other words, decide today what your purpose will be from here on out.[4] [5]

To sin is to err.  To continue in sin is to be devoted to sin.  And to be devoted to sin is to be a sinner.[6]  Scripture tells us that a person cannot serve two masters; to be devoted to one is to deny the other.[7]  Therefore sin can only be abolished if we truly repent from the way in which we were living our lives before we asked for forgiveness.

Take for example adultery.  If someone commits adultery, the initial act of having sex with a person outside of the marriage with your first spouse is a sin.  And to continue in the sin of adultery is to be an adulterer.  This is the same for homosexuality.  The act of having sex with someone of the gender is seen as a homosexual act.  And, as the logic goes, those continuing in homosexual acts are homosexuals.  Repenting requires both the turning away and refusal to continue the sinful act or acts from which they have asked for forgiveness.  Therefore, because no one can be forgiven for sin that will be committed in the future, those who elect to continue in sin are not forgiven, regardless if they ask for forgiveness or not.  To know forgiveness is to bear fruit.  Therefore, you will know those who are forgiven by the fruit that they bear.[8]  When Paul speaks about fruitfulness in Galatians, he highlights that those bearing the fruits of the spirit have “…crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”[9]

Those who repent are given a clean slate and are empowered by Christ to not continue in the same sins that are often treasured activities of their past.[10]  The sinner may be driven by his penitence to ask for forgiveness, but it is his repentance through the power of Christ that breaks the continuity of sin in his life.  Therefore, the sinner that is forgiven continues not in sin until he freely elects to do so.[11]

Continuing in sin implies that sin will be committed in the future.  And according to this view, even if same-sex couples often ask for forgiveness they cannot be forgiven because they obligate themselves to commit sins in the future by not repenting from their lifestyle.  But is the eschewing of the homosexual lifestyle congruent with the beliefs and practices of a fundamentalist church?  Well, not exactly, especially when considering their theological argument for a different, but rather more openly accepted group of continuing sinners.

As it has been established, the sinful nature of homosexuality is directly dependent upon the individual’s repentance of sin.  Although the repentance of sin does not, by any means, guarantee a sinless future, the individual does turn away from the particular life for which he had asked forgiveness.[12]  The interesting part of this is not in how adamant fundamentalist churches are in maintaining their stance on homosexual clergy.  It is in the absolute contradiction of holding tight to that view.

In the fundamentalist denominations, a key argument in condemning homosexual clergy is founded upon the idea of the unwillingness to repent, or, in other words, they choose to continue in sin.  But it seems they are ignoring something.  Homosexuality is not the only sin in the bible that defines a continuance in sin.  In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus defines another type of person that, in a particular situation, would be considered as continuing in sin.

Matthew 19: 1-9

 ¹ When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.

² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³ Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a]

⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]?

⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

⁷ “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸ Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

⁹ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10: 1-12

¹ Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

² Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

³ “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

⁴ They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

⁵ “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

⁶ “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’^[a]

⁷ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,^[b]

⁸ and the two will become one flesh.’^[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

⁹ Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

¹⁰ When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.

¹¹ He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

¹² And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” 

(emphasis added)

The lesson that Jesus teaches here helps to shine more light upon those clergy that are currently allowed in many of the fundamentalist churches, but, as with those who are homosexual, continue in sin.

In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus teaches that divorcing for the wrong reason, those reasons outside of what is given in the bible, is sin.  Further, the person who divorces in this particular situation and marries a person that is not their first spouse, in fact, commits adultery.  As scripture says, the act of marrying someone that is not your first spouse is a sin.  And, therefore, not repenting from the sin of marrying someone other than a first spouse sets into motion a continuous string of sinful acts.  Consequently, the only option of renewal from an adulterous relationship is to divorce any spouse outside of the first.  From there, the individual only has the choice to stay single or remarry his first spouse.  And just as the disallowing of clergy that are homosexual is built upon the idea that they live in continual sin, the allowing of clergy that are continually living in sin because of an unbiblical remarriage is, in fact, hypocrisy.

Fundamentalists have become extremely tolerant on the issue of divorce.  The changes of cultural norms within society have caused a change in their doctrine.  This increase in tolerance, though, has led to the discrimination of others wanting to become a part of the church.  The prominent counterargument is that those who have remarried outside of these guidelines can be redeemed by Christ as he redeemed the woman at the well in John 4.  The woman at the well had been married before, but it was not clear that she was married after her redemption.  Therefore, it cannot be rightfully deduced that there is redemption for those who wish to marry outside of their first spouse.  And just like the homosexual who continues in sin, so do those individuals who divorce for the wrong reasons and then marry someone that is not their first spouse.

This is the reality of the doctrine of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalist denominations have to make a choice: either support the integration of homosexual clergy, or rid their sanctuaries of those that clearly violate the doctrine they follow.  The denial of one group is just as wicked as the justification of the other.  Amending the truths set forth by a specific doctrine is a part of being an established church, regardless of how difficult the adoption may be.  And the adoption of those truths that may arise over time can only come in a church that is open and willing to change when they cannot provide a comparable rebuttal to a biblically based argument guided wholly by the doctrine they follow.

---

[1] Church of the Nazarene. Manual of the Church of the Nazarene 2009-2013. Nazarene Publishing House, 2009. (p.373). “903.9. The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless

interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind (Hebrews 11:3). (1, 5.1, 7)”

[2] When translated literally, these verses represent the fundamentalists’ position on condemning homosexuality: Genesis 1:27; 19:1-25; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1^st Corinthians 6:9-11; 1^st Timothy 1:8-10.

[3] 1^st Timothy 3:2, 12 – Although speaking of the clergy, it is still applicable in this context: ‘overseers/deacons are to be a husband of but one wife.’

[4] Metanoeo n./ Metanoia v. – Meta meaning "after" and noia meaning "mind" – having an “after-mindedness” or deciding today what your mind will be tomorrow and there on out.

[5] http://www.heavendwellers.com/sb_107_metanoeO.htm

[6] Hamartōlos – to be devoted to sin, sinner.

[7] Matthew 6:24

[8] Matthew 7:16

[9] Galatians 5:24

[10] Romans 7:14-25

[11] Not to be confused with the forgiveness that comes with salvation, the sinner spoken of here is one who has already accepted Christ.  Both Armenians and Calvinists believe that there is freewill outside of salvation.

[12] This assumes that the individual’s repentance was pure and true and not an empty, disconnected commitment.

Is the Church the Cause for the Moral Degradation of American Values?

           

Choosing to live a new lifestyle is often a conscious decision.  There are many areas in which a person shifts away from the established norm to partake of the fruit, forbidden or not, that is perceived as superior.  These paradigm shifts are not arbitrarily made.  At the least, a responsible adult capable of making rational decisions would be well-informed about the lifestyle they wish to adopt before they begin to think about whether that lifestyle would be beneficial to them.  This same principle can also apply to those that choose to follow a particular religion.  In order to have a full understanding, they should not only seek to understand the moral life that particular religion demands, but the context of the religion, the basic theological underpinnings of its texts and the way in which it evolved over a period of time.

Those who identify themselves as fervent disciples of Christianity often take for granted the logic and reasoning that have been worked through to rationalize their belief.  Knowing what your religious texts say means nothing if you do not understand the basic moral rationale for which it stands.  Knowing the parable is useless if you don’t know its purpose or the context in which it is written.  In order to determine its context, there must be an evaluation of the text.  This is the foundation of a subjective analysis which can ultimately lead you to develop an argument that holds up to the scrutiny of peer review.

It seems that Christian theology has lost this today though.  If there is a dispute, then it’s suggested that the disputers break off and start their own denomination.  American Christianity is often plagued with this denominationalism.  This lax of focus on publically debating the truth is what has led to the Christian’s over-acceptance of pluralism.  The over-acceptance of pluralism that spurred from denominationalism has made the Christians of today complacent in their desire to evaluate the logic behind their religious and political beliefs.  This negligence of striving toward truth in the church has now seeped into the political realm through the Christian church’s adoption of the political conservative movement.  The ideology of political conservatism has set its very strong roots in the Christian church, allowing a focus on practicing doctrinal truth to be muted by the screaming of the politically conservative news hosts.

This political activism that Christianity has become a part of states that the cause of the increasing immorality in this country is with a government that passes laws which support the granting of freedoms for lifestyles outside of Christian morals.   This, they say, is the cause of the degradation of the American moral values which were originally supported by the Christian principles of our founding fathers.  But is the issue really with a government that passes laws which allow the expression of a lifestyle a person chooses to live?  If not, can all civil views be given the right to practice and the country still be a country that lives by Christian principles?  Although the current conservative thought disagrees, it is hard to argue with the fact that it would be a better measure of how holy a country is if the country abides by Christian values even when rights are given to those whose lifestyles are contradictive to Christian belief.  That is, if the primary goal of the American Christian church is to truly honor God with their actions.

The God Given Freedom of Lifestyle

All the major theologians including Jean Calvin, Martin Luther and Augustine of Hippo, believed that we have freewill in our decisions, not considering salvation.  The freewill debate that started with Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo in the 4^th century was about the ability to choose one’s salvation and not the ability to choose the actions which please God.  As a matter of fact, the bible says that after salvation we are a new creature.  Therefore, since we are a new creature we begin to make different choices.  Consequently, new believers change the way in which they choose in order to reflect their understanding of God, seasoned believers consciously work to continually make choices that reflect their better understanding of God, and sanctified believers work to make choices that reflect a complete understanding of God.

Knowing that there is a change from the old to the new creature and that the choices we made after salvation are made from our own freewill, can we really say that mandating others, against their freewill, to obey theocratic-like laws will lead this country to honor God?  Moreover, are we so ignorant to think that the law directly reflects the holiness of a country?  Or is it a better measure when the holiness of a country is directly reflected in the actions of its citizens?

The conservative movement that America has experienced has demanded that laws be in place in order to honor God.  But was the law not formally written after the fall of Adam?  Did the law not always pertain to a nation of people as opposed to a people within a specific geographical space? And was the New Testament not written and canonized after the Jews and gentiles decided to adhere to the idea of Christianity?  The disease that’s leading us into immorality has not to do with the lack of laws which glorify God.  It is simply a symptom of the bigger problem.  The disease is with a faltering Christian force that is more concerned with political action which mandates others to live like a Christian instead of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a way that society can truly accept.

Congregational Complacency

A common belief of the conservative movement today is that society’s work ethic has diminished.  They believe that we are lazier today than those who were our age now, a decade ago.  And ultimately, this is seen as the poor, more so than those who aren’t, taking advantage of government benefits.  But why would those that claim to be Jesus’ followers be so concerned with assisting a population for which he so adamantly taught us to care?  It is simply because the conservative ideology has forced the Christian to become so complacent in their own political view that they refuse to question whether those views parallel Christian theology.  Moreover, their energy is spent more on nurturing the plants of the bad ground than sowing the seeds and fostering the crop of the good ground.

This same church is itself knee-deep in slothfulness.  A good example of this can be seen in 2^nd Thessalonians.  The Thessalonians became lazy.  Because of a misunderstanding of Paul’s first letter to the church, they believed that the second coming was in the very near future.  They ignored their jobs and actively looked for apocalyptic signs.  This, ultimately, led to the entire town being filled with what Paul considered “idle busybodies.”

So, is this any different than the current Christian church in America?  I don’t believe so.  The primary example being in the way the church is so overwhelmingly concerned with the second coming that any military action of the US government is justified only if the US supports Israel.  But even if this is the eve of the apocalypse and the US continues to support Israel, does that necessarily mean that all the actions of the government are justified?  No, because nothing, country or individual, is morally exempt.  The preoccupation with the second coming isn’t the only similarity to the church of Thessalonica.  The church has become dangerously complacent. 

We, as Christians, have become complacent and lazy in our ministry.  It’s not that we are lazy and resist working to support our families.  The American worker, on average, is not lazy and takes tremendous pride in earning the money to support his or her family.  The American Christian isn’t afraid to work for money and that’s the issue.  American Christians are not willing to give up their time to serve others unless they earn a wage.  This has led to the fact that they have become lazy in their ministry.  Instead of being consumed with ministering and serving our communities, which necessitates a personal accountability, we are consumed with passing legislation which makes it appear that our society exudes Christian values all the while basking in our ever-available leisure.  We have justified a trade of local community ministries and personal accountability for global ministries that offer little personal accountability.  The American Christian has traded a week’s worth of God’s work for a week’s worth of something else we would rather be doing.  We have traded the message of humility for a message of national religious pride.  We have shifted from an intimate person-to-person witness for a dull impersonal message from a televangelist.  We have switched progressivity for complacency.

It is hard to believe that with the passion the church has in serving God that the contradictory life we lead is intentional.  It is as if the church has been misled.  There has been such a break from the foundation of Christianity – love – that it has turned into hate.  This hate is justified by the church’s delusion that denying civil freedoms and mandating people to accept the Christian lifestyle is somehow a step toward holiness.  But passing laws that reflect Christian values is not the answer.  It does not correctly represent the way in which the nation is truly living.  In fact, it makes it easier for the Christian individual to live in society and it gives the Christian individual a social status.  Consequently, this oppresses non-believers, forcing them to consent to a lifestyle against their freewill.  This process is the literal converse of how God created the world to operate.  God gives believers the freewill to choose their lifestyle and does not force us to serve Him.  The establishing of a theocratic-morph only supports the claim that the church has become and is becoming dangerously complacent.

So, how could a country give its people the freedom to live the lifestyle they want and also honor God at the same time?  This can only be done with a complete paradigm shift of the Christian community.  First and foremost, the church needs to educate their congregations in logic, the interpretation of biblical languages, the interpretation of biblical context, theology, history and other subjects which demand critical reasoning.  This is the largest deficit the church has to overcome. Secondly, there needs to be an intense focus on the community which would require the joint effort of each and every church within that community.  Finally, there needs to be a new focus on the striving for doctrinal truth by means of inter-congregational, inter-church and inter-denominational debate that is civil.  This country’s focus on Christian values will only be truly shifted when the work of the Christian church and individual has impacted America with the gospel in such a way that it is truly accepted.  And if we are honestly concerned about being a country that honors God, the decisions that are made to follow Christ by those with lifestyles contradictory to Christian values must be made without any essence of forced conversion.  It is only when people have truly chosen to live by Christian values that society will begin to reflect the acceptance of Christianity and not by the establishment of any law.

On the Education of the Congregation

The dire need for Christianity to step up education especially applies to those who wish to be socially or politically active.  As Christians, we seek to proselytize the gospel.  Knowing what the bible and other religious texts say is important.  But if you want to argue with those who don’t believe in its authority, it’s just a waste of both of your times.  Using the logic behind the bible is the key for Christians, but it is impossible to do if you try to use the bible as a literal interpretation.  Literalism should immediately be discounted once the creation story, and the multitude of support against it, is considered.  The bible’s literal interpretation is not only disputed by science, but, interestingly, all the major Protestant theologians, including Arminius and Zwingli, of the Reformation.  Moreover, the majority of the early fathers, which provided the foundations for Christian theology, did not believe in take all scripture literally.  Further, even Ancient Judaism saw the first six chapters of Genesis to be strictly used for theological purposes and not as a historical reference.

Biblical literalism is what separates the evangelical Christian from witnessing and debating in a logical and rational manner.  And because there is more evidence that the bible should not be taken literally than there is that supports it, as well as ongoing findings in science which also supports it, this topic would be a good starting point to truthfully and subjectively address in a debate.  Generally speaking though, the debate is an important component that the Christian church of America has never used to the extent of its European counterparts.  Why have these debates stopped with the establishment of America?  Are we so proud to think that we have reached a true interpretation of the Word?  Why have we quit questioning our theology or setting it up to subjectivity?  The Reformation was a turning point in Christianity, but it wasn’t the ending point of theological truth.  Not questioning existing doctrine and positing new approaches is just another way to keep a church already complacent in ministry complacent in understanding its own theology.

Conclusion

It is often thought that the degradation of America over the years is because the government has become tolerant of lifestyles that contradict Christian values.  But the lack of focus on the part that the American Christian church plays in the moral degradation of the country should, itself, be seen as a red flag.  I can’t help but think of the message in Matthew 7: 5 – “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.”

We, church, are hypocritical, comfortable and lazy.  We are afraid to allow those of society to choose the lifestyle they wish to live because we are too complacent in our locality, not wanting to put in the effort that matches those efforts that came before us.  We have gotten too used to justifying our own ministry as the supporting of others who minister in our stead in faraway lands.  Aside from the controversial debate with salvation, the only way for anyone to truly choose the daily actions a Christian lifestyle demands is when they have the complete freewill to do so.  And ultimately, the only way to know that a nation has truly chosen to honor God is when they do so in an environment that allows them to do so willfully.  Therefore, legislation that gives others the freedom to choose lifestyles which contradict Christian values should be seen as progress for the Christian because it is a step in the direction to ensure those who decide to follow Christ do so freely.  And it is only when the nation, as a whole, freely chooses to adhere to Christian values, and is seen doing so, that it can be accurately said that this country truly honors God.

Has the Republican Party Really Represented the Social Conservative?

Before I begin, I just want to let the reader know that I do not support the political view commonly held by evangelical Christians or social conservatives. My political views will come out over the course of time.  Because I do not agree with a political ideology doesn’t mean that I don’t see flaws in the way in which these groups of people are being represented.  This blog specifically asks and addresses the question:

“Why, if the Republican Party represents the social conservative, have they accomplished so little, relative to the leaps and bounds the Democratic Party has accomplished for social liberals?”

 

PULLING A FAST ONE

• Engel v. Vitale in 1962 found that it was unconstitutional for a state official to write an official school prayer and require it to be recited in public schools.

• Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963 found that it was illegal to have school-sponsored Bible-reading in public schools.

• In 2000, the decisions surrounding the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe found that student-led, student initiated prayer at football games is illegal.

• On January 22^nd, 1973 Roe v. Wade established the right for women to abort unborn children up to the 28^th week.  This decision was led by a team of lawyers that were sympathetic to the Women’s Equity Action League which supported the Feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s.  Norma McCorvey is the ‘Jane Roe’ in the Roe v. Wade case and claimed in the 1980s that she was a pawn of two young and ambitious lawyers who sought a plaintiff to use so they could challenge the Texas state law that prohibited abortion.

• In 1992, the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey went to the Supreme Court that boasted eight of nine justices appointed by Republican Administrations.  The validity of this case could have been upheld or dissented by a majority vote of support or opposition of Roe v. Wade.  And although all of the members on the Supreme Court, except one, were appointed by a Republican Administration, the judges, in their entirety, upheld and supported, at the least, a portion of the Roe v. Wade case.

• On September 21^st, 1996, United States President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat, signed a public law which said that no state needs to treat a relationship of the same sex as a marriage – denying federally recognition of same-sex marriage.  More importantly to the conservative, this law defined marriage as a civil union between one man and one woman.  This was the most significant measure achieved for the social conservative, but it was accomplished under a liberal administration.

These cases are proof of how well the Democratic Party has represented social liberalism.  But what proof is there that shows the Republican Party has been a productive representative of the social conservative?  Are they abusing their resources and power in order to use those that support social conservatism?  Is their sole objective to get votes?  If we look at the Republican Party’s historical record, it is clear that the Republican candidate is more likely to run on a social conservative campaign agenda and then later ignore the promises made to social conservatives about legislation to focus on the economic conservative.  If the conservative is the same person, they switch the focus from civil issues to economic issues. 

So, how long has this manipulation of the social conservative been happening?  In a 1970 New York Times interview, Richard Nixon’s political strategist, Kevin Phillips, revealed the administration’s strategy to capture the social conservative vote:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the [black] vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they [softened their] enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more [blacks] who register [in the South as Democrat], the sooner the Negro-phobic whites will quit the [Democrats] and [join us on the Republican side]. That's where the votes are. Without…prodding…the blacks, the whites will backslide into their…arrangement with the local Democrats.”

The majority of the social conservatives in America, at this time in history, were Southern Democrats. The Republican Party’s decision to allow African Americans to register and vote freely set into play an ingenious political strategy.  This strategy was one that depended on the newly allowed African American voters to go to the Democrat side.  This necessarily forced the Southern Democrats, who were against giving African Americans freedom, to gravitate to the Republican side.  This, of course, was the party with the least amount of African Americans.  In order to gain support for the newly disenfranchised Southern Democrats, the new Republican Party, not yet considered “the conservatives,” ran on a platform that boasted its support for a small federal government and a large portion of power to be given to the state.  This, in turn, would pave the way for the Southern Democrats to establish the highly sought after disintegrated state.  Nixon’s strategy was to woo them with the possibility of establishing a state that would have enough power to legalize segregation and minimize the civil liberties that the minorities and alternative lifestyles begin to receive.

So what does the beginning of conservatism have to do with the social conservative today?  It’s probably no surprise that the politicians you vote for today are far from concerned with issues like prayer in school or the reading of scripture before class.  As cliché as it sounds, it is truly because they are primarily concerned with passing laws that put money in their pockets and votes on the ballots. The strongest evidence of this can be simply seen in the lack of headway that has been made for the social conservative.

So, what’s the answer? How can those who are being ignored be heard?  Because votes are the life of a politician, the greatest impact would come from a united front of the social conservatives. In order to speak up there must be an effort consisting of a majority of supporters who stay home during a mid-term and presidential election.  The message, formally sent by representatives of the movement, should let the Republican Party know that unless leaps and bounds are made which support the views of the social conservative, they will lose your vote.   If they do not listen then it won’t be any different than normal.   That is, a milk job by the Republican Party which tells everyone what they want to hear.  Then they’ll pass Mickey Mouse legislation that they’ll brag about only to make it look like they’re kind of doing what they said they would, but in all reality, they’re just focusing on and concerned with the economic side of conservatism. After all, economic conservatism keeps the Republicans in office and their wallets full.