19 January 2005

Tony Campolo, Troubled Evangelical

Tony Campolo on NPR's Day To Day, "It's one thing to spell out the moral implications in political issues, but it's something else to lend religious legitimacy to one particular political party."

3 Comments:

Expat Birds said...

Intersting. I was part of a panel discussion at the American Jewish Council's trustee meeting yesterday, courtesy of one of my professors who was their expert on "evangelicalism." One of the questions raised -- one that clearly caused significant anxiety amongst the attendees -- was the issue of whether evangelicals saw Bush as a kind of spiritual leader/holy figure. The speaker demurred considerably, arguing that Bush was seen as a political leader with few spiritual connotations for evangelicals -- an assessment with which I partly disagree. Good to see Tony make a similar point. Thanks for the link.

1/20/2005 7:34 AM  
hadashi said...

i'm currently reading an excellent book "Searching For God Knows What" by Don Miller. in the chapter called "Santa Takes a Leak," (really!) he talks about how there are people who like to tell you why God agrees with their political ideas and why that makes their political ideas right. and how this makes the Jesus they present an invention of the imagination, a justifier of whatever they think. "Listening to them make me feel tired," he says. "People like that should have an island." I rather agree.

1/22/2005 10:45 AM  
Paddy O. said...

This sorta sounds like sour grapes to me.

Essentially, he is undercutting the serious consideration of a massive amount of people who choose one direction over another in a current state of affairs.

The reality is that one party has a religious blessing, not a religious power. If GWB were to sign a bill allowing gay marriage or submit for consideration a supreme court nominee who is passionately pro-choice you would see how exceedingly quickly he would lose whatever sort of religious leadership some folks see other folks seeing in him.

The fact is that most people see one party as better reflecting their understanding of the religious issues of the day. To reduce this consideration by demeaning the choice is engaging in arrogance and perceived ownership of the "real" Christian view.

Spelling out the moral implications in political issues means in a practical sense choosing the position and candidate in specific elections. At this point in history this results in the broader support for Republicans.

The religious legitimacy is a reflection of the present theology of the church not a church beholden to a political party for its views. We are not living in Nazi Germany with pastors who will shape themselves for the doctrine of the State. We are living in a place where the Church has certain emphases in moral values, right or wrong, and thus lends support to the party which best seems to hold those values.

The Republican party, then, is more likely to change in order to retain support of the conservative Christians than conservative Christians will change to match the movement of the Party. This leads to the better statement that Republicans have lended political legitimacy to one religious movement.

Republicans are beholden to Evangelicals, Evangelicals are not beholden to Republicans.

There are certainly questions about whether or not this should be the case, but those are questions about the values and goals of the theology of Evangelical churches not a question of politics.

Though, that being the case, I do realize it is quite chic to be a Democratic Christian, and so I appreciate what it takes in order to maintain this status. If all the hoi polloi were to be respected for their views, then what would anyone who thrives on contrariness do with themselves?

1/22/2005 3:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home