RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.
RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.
Excerpts:
... the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
...
Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
Comment: Transformational moral change only can be accomplished via the Gospel. The marriage of evangelicalism and politics is a failed strategy.
JP, you bring up an interesting point. Why can't IFB's realize this? Martin Luther King realized that you can't change men's hearts, only God can. But he did make a pretty amazing statement something to the effect of, "We can't change the heart of man, but we can constrain the heartless and stop them or punish them if they commit crimes." That's not the exact quote because I'm just going from memory.
ReplyDeleteWhy have so many IFB's been so utterly clueless about this? They think they can change a man's heart by making him obey external rules which he really couldn't care less about. Why do some conservative Christian institutions think they can change the hearts of their students by giving them rules to obey?.....I've never understood this. Again, I'm not a bright guy, but this has always seemed to obvious to me, just like it was to Martin Luther King.
In politics, you can't make a homosexual convert to normal heterosexuality by "forcing" them to change their lifestyle. But if nothing else, you can try to make it an equal playing field for all of the country by not giving homosexuals certain victim status and rights that others don't have. I think some people confuse issues and think that they actually can legislate morality and change a person's heart. I agree with you that if that is the goal, it's utterly useless.
Anon, those are some pretty interesting points you mention. But I'm not sure that "IFB's," as you call them, seek to change hearts by forcing rules on people. From my experience (growing up in FB churches), the "rules" exist to show separation, which they hope will speak to hearts.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the why, the fact that the rules exist is why so many of them go too far and end up mired in legalism. And (from my experience again) this leads to many people that are judgmental rather than loving.
Personally, I think there is a place for the religious right to put their values into politics. After all, does not the other side do it?
ReplyDeleteTo say trying to stop abortion, etc, has failed because it has not seen change in 30 years, I think is incorrect. For one, a number of states just in this past election voted to amend their states constitutions on things like marriage. Not only this, but to say we have not seen 'change' in 30 years, therefore it has failed is more an either or statement.(but I don't think it is either/or) For one reason, it is not so much about change as it is about proclaiming truth. My reward for trying to change this country and the world is not that people change, but that God be glorified. And in the end, I will receive my reward from God. If people change, if cultures change, then good, but my desire to see that change does not sway based upon how long things have not changed.(was that confusing?)
I am sure there are many politicians through the years that used their service to change culture. Their striving did not end after a few years. One man, William Wilberforce spent about 20 years abolishing the slave trade and another 20 years abolishing slavery.
So abortion has not been abolished. Ok, but does that mean we quit proclaiming truth. Does that mean we quit trying to keep our culture from going further into worldliness? I don't think so. Then again, that is my perspective.