Democrats have usually conceded the evangelical vote during presidential elections, but Sen. Barack Obama is trying to change that by mobilizing what some call the "Christian left." . . .
Obama's outreach to evangelical voters has also included private summits with pastors, an effort to reach out to young evangelicals and a fundraiser with the Matthew 25 political action committee, which describes itself as a group of moderate evangelicals, Catholics and Protestants committed to electing the Illinois Democrat president. . . .
Brian McLaren, a former pastor who spent 24 years in the pulpit and is now an informal adviser to the Obama campaign, believes a significant portion of evangelical voters are ready to break from their traditional home in the the Republican Party and take a new leap of faith with Obama.
"I think there's a very, very sizable percentage -- I think between a third and half -- of evangelicals, especially younger [evangelicals], who are very open to somebody with a new vision," McLaren said.
That new vision, he said, isn't focused on traditional social issues like abortion and gay marriage, but more on efforts to end global warming and the war in Iraq. "We've watched the evangelical community be led -- be misled -- by the Republican Party to support things they really shouldn't have supported," McLaren said, including "the blind support for the Iraq war when it was launched on either mistaken or false pretenses."
Readers, how do you feel about this? Is it appropriate for Christian leaders to involve themselves directly in politics? And I am not asking from the viewpoint of separation of Church and State. I am asking from the viewpoint of does it help, harm, or carry risk to Christianity? Does it fit with the example Christ set, yes or no?
Is Mclaren's involvement any different than that of James Dobson and others, except that they invovled themselves with Republican candidates which is more palatable to Christian conversatives?
Gethsemani Homilies by Matthew Kelty, O.C.S.O.
12 comments:
McLaren sounds less like a jerk than Dobson?
There's always a mistake to think that a government can bring the Kingdom of God to the fore. And I'm not saying that McLaren or Dobson think that. And honestly, perhaps the government can't bring the Kingdom, but perhaps one (someday) will be more open to being a tool for peace rather than division as most of the previous ones have been.
McLaren sounds less like a jerk than Dobson?
Like that is hard to do.
One thing I find interesting in scripture is that Jesus really had little to say about and no self-initiated involvement with the Roman Empire. And he went after the Jewish leadership on Kingdom of God basis and not on the political front although this was where they felt threatened and how they attacked him.
Paul and the Apostles also stayed removed for the most part from politics.
My underlying sentiment is that if you are truly focused on the sentiments of Matthew 25 and on God's will for saving the world from hurt, then you will have little time or energy for politics.
Getting into bed with politics may not be wrong for a Christian, but it carries high risk with little reward.
In the article, McClaren tells us the difference between himself and Dobson: "That new vision, he said, isn't focused on traditional social issues like abortion and gay marriage [typical Republican issues], but more on efforts to end global warming and the war in Iraq [typical Democrat issues]." The rhetoric may have different lyrics, but it's sung to the same tune.
The language of religious leaders with more Democratic leanings is essentially the same as that of religious leaders with more Republican leanings. "Here's what our politicians need to do" and "Call your senator/representative and tell him/her to vote yes/no on such and such bill." Such language undermines Jesus's call to discipleship: Instead of exhorting individuals and communities to band together and help each other in the way that Jesus modeled during his ministry, this type of language shifts the responsibility away from individuals becoming disciples who spend their time helping those in need and instead voting for the next "savior" who will fix everything that's wrong.
The rhetoric from both sides perpetuates the "which politician is going to make things better for me" mentality, when it would be more beneficial to everyone to preach a message of how to help yourself by loving others. One message pits "us against them" while the other message would foster unity.
That said, there's nothing wrong with Christians being concerned about political issues and in wanting to vote for the "better" candidate, but these concerns need to take a back seat to discipleship.
Well said JMG. I hope it raises some discussion among other readers.
Global warming is the biggest hoax ever. There are always spikes in temperature brought about by natural causes and not man-made. Are people so arrogant as to think we can influence the universe to any significant extent, what God has created?
This is a good thing for Obama because McLaren seems more in touch with the post modern world.
Matthew, do you have any thoughts on the activities or roles a disciple should seek or not seek in politics? I like your blog, and would like to hear any thoughts you are willing to share.
I like the new look.
Thanks
I found your blog through my obsession with pugs :)--it is amazing where those little dogs can take you!
I find it interesting that current discussion is ongoing on a Democrat having Christian supporters/campaign workers (not you alone, but rampant in the press--remember the hysteria about Obama's church and pastor) but I don't remember the same about Dobson, et al. IMHO they are much worse and have had such a toxic impact on our politics that we (Americans of all stripes) should have been concerned about them anytime in the last 12 years.
I have my faith and politicans have their own--may the twain never meet in public affairs. I want to see faith in action not verbal hate attached to nasty actions.
I find it interesting that current discussion is ongoing on a Democrat having Christian supporters/campaign workers (not you alone, but rampant in the press--remember the hysteria about Obama's church and pastor) but I don't remember the same about Dobson, et al.
Exactly why I was asking the question, "Is Mclaren's involvement any different than that of James Dobson and others, except that they invovled themselves with Republican candidates which is more palatable to Christian conversatives?"
IMHO they are much worse and have had such a toxic impact on our politics that we (Americans of all stripes) should have been concerned about them anytime in the last 12 years.
I agree. The candidates of choice for right wing, conservative protestants have ruled for about 20 years now and it has not been good. If anyone would like to get an insiders look into this very issue you must read Tempting Faith by David Kuo.
I read that when it first came out (I'm a C-SPAN junkie and he was on) and I agree with you that it is a must read.
Post a Comment