Evangelical Reformation

How is the evangelical community contributing to Republican failure? The answer begins with the reality noted in the previous post, that that failure is primarily a character failure, a failure to do what is right because of the cost.

The contemporary evangelical community contributes to that trend by largely ignoring the importance of righteous living and by its corresponding failure to give priority to development of the Christian character necessary for righteous living.

Evangelicals fail to stress righteous living and character development because they tend not to view these issues as our responsibility.

However, righteous living and the development of character that enables us to live righteously are our responsibility. Two undisputable (I believe) truths, when combined, tell us that it is so.

The first is that even as believers, we are not perfect. Any questions about that—just ask your spouse.

The second indisputable fact is that God is perfect—this despite the psychologized evangelical assertion that it is okay to be angry with God.

Combining these two indisputable facts, that we are not perfect and God is, leads us to the conclusion that the imperfections in our lives represent our failure. Consequently, the responsibility to fix these imperfections must also be ours.

Undoubtedly we must draw on God’s resources to perform this repair work, but whatever the tools needed, getting the job done is our responsibility.

Though that conclusion may sound self-evident to you, it is not to many evangelicals.

Think, for example, of the popular evangelical cliché, “Be patient, God is not finished with me yet.” This sentiment connotes that fixing the imperfections in our lives is exclusively God’s responsibility. I am messed up because God has not yet gotten around to finishing His work. It has not occurred to those parroting this cliché that they may be responsible for the flaws in their lives.

Or how about the “let go and let God” approach to Christian living. That seems to imply that my righteous living is all God’s responsibility.

Those espousing this theory may contend that we do have a part of the action, that of getting out of the way. We are failing because we are trying to do it instead of letting Him do it. This approach minimizes our responsibility to standing aside. Our problem is that we are trying to do something when we should be trying to do nothing.

The problem with this perspective is the absence of Scripture that reduces our part to nothing and the many passages that call us to do something. For example, 2 Timothy 2:3 calls us to endure hardship as good soldiers of Jesus Christ.

This is not to deny that there are instances where God does seem to do it all. I know an alcoholic that had the desire to drink taken away when he was saved. However, he still struggles with smoking. God never does it all in all aspects of a person’s life. If He would, that person would be perfect.

The point is that righteous living is our responsibility. Though God plays a part in the change process, He assigns us a part as well. We can count on God doing His part perfectly. Therefore, success requires that we make righteous living a priority, learn how to do our part, and develop the character to do it.

Meeting our responsibility to live righteously is a tough job, perhaps the toughest job in all of life. Therefore, doing it well requires all the support available to us. The church, the evangelical community with all of its resources, should be the primary source of support.

The evangelical community has not fulfilled that role. It has failed to make righteous living and character development a priority. Instead, in various ways it has undermined this objective. The examples given above constitute just the tip of the iceberg. I plan in future posts to identify other, more significant, evangelical roadblocks to righteous living and character development.

Since God calls the church to be salt and light in our society, our failure to promote righteous living and the related character development has led to a scarcity of these commodities in our culture, including within the Republican Party where the evangelicals have substantial influence.

Yes, it is possible to be an evangelical and a Democrat. I even know one.

However, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of evangelicals are Republicans. The simple truth is that the Republican Party is more conservative socially and economically. So evangelicals tend to congregate under that umbrella.

This is not to say that evangelicals own the Republican Party. We are just one segment. However, we are a rather large and influential segment.

Therefore, our influence as salt and light should manifest itself within the Republican Party. That is, Republicans should display some evidence of a higher standard of character, and the righteousness produced by character, because of the influence of evangelicals.

However, my point in the previous post was that Republican are not willing to pursue policies that are best for our country because of the pounding they take in the media as a result. This shrinking from duty for the sake of personal comfort and benefit constitutes a lack of character.

Character consists of a willingness and strength to do what is right even when it is hard. The person who tells the truth even when it is costly has character. The person who bridles his passions when they urge him to do wrong has character.

While there are some individual exceptions, the general trend among Republicans is not to manifest the character displayed by Jesus or the apostle Paul or the prophets. They lack the commitment to righteousness that evangelicals should be instilling.

It is not surprising that people in our secular society lack character. The philosophy we have adopted since the sixties asserts the individual has the right to do his own thing—if it feels good, do it. This mantra in essence teaches that there is no need for character. If I have a right to do what I feel like doing, then I do not need to bridle my passions. Character has become a vestigial organ of the human personhood.

Character must be developed. A society that assigns to people the right to do what feels good has no reason to develop character in itself or its children.

In addition, our society attributes much of human failure to causes beyond the control of the individual. That is, it sees the individual as a victim. I eat too much because I have a food addiction, not because I lack character. Therefore, the solution is not to develop character, but to fix my addiction.

Therefore, we are not surprised that elements of our society under the influence of this philosophy and not under the influence of the Word of God will lack character.

However, we might hope that the presence of evangelicals within the Republican Party would make a difference. The evidence suggests otherwise.

Even more telling is the fact that many, perhaps most, of the courageous Republicans are Catholics. I think of Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback (no relation to my knowledge), William Bennett, Clarence Thomas, Frank Keating, et al.

Why are there not more evangelicals taking courageous positions and influencing others to do so? The answer is that the contemporary evangelical worldview does not promote character. In fact, in many ways, it reflects the character-negating philosophical orientation of our secular society. Future postings will support this assertion.

In my previous post I referenced Newt Gingrich’s eleven initiatives that he calls the Republican Congress to pass in order to survive the mid-term elections.

These initiatives would be good for the country and are supported by the American people. Why, then, haven’t the Republicans passed them already?

The reason seems to be that any time the Republicans advance a conservative agenda, the media beat them up. Therefore, they tend to pay the price only for issues of the highest priority such as Supreme Court justices.

The capacity of the media to make Republicans pay dearly for even good decisions is manifested in President Bush’s loss of popularity over the war.

The fact that the battle with the terrorists is taking place in Iraq rather than New York City or Los Angeles should boost the President’s stock. Five years without a sequel to 9/11, or even a minor success by terrorists on our shores, is quite an astounding accomplishment. 

However, the media, especially the television media, have the capacity to spin the war as a failure rather than a success, as evidenced in the President’s plummet in the polls.

It must be remembered that even with the advent of Fox News and the decline in the viewership of the mainline networks, the old liberal news sources still have overwhelming preponderance of market share.

This power of the television media is found in its many weapons.

One of its big guns resides in the power of pictures. Neil Postman, in his 1986 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, made the point the pictures have power because the viewer does not tend to process them rationally. While, reading an account encourages rational analysis, viewing pictures does not. Regular pictures of flag-draped coffins erode public support for the war, even if the sacrifice of those soldiers prevents an even greater number of coffins of men, women, and children somewhere in the United States.

Another weapon of the television media is selectivity. In their nightly news, they tend to select a handful of stories that they want to promote. This means that they can sell their slant on the world.

The power of pictures linked with the capacity for selectivity constitutes a lethal propaganda duo. The decision of the media not to show the events of 9/11 but to show the flag-draped coffins creates a significant bias among viewers. Imagine the difference in impact if the media constantly showing the fall of the Twin Towers and not the flag-draped coffins.

This power of this capacity to select is boosted by the trust many Americans have in the media, even those believe they are biased. This can be seen in the tendency of Americans to believe that what the media does not cover is not important—is not part of reality. For example, a major reason that most American evangelicals express little concern over the plight of persecuted Christians is that the media do not cover it, thus giving the impression that either it does not really exist, or it is not a major problem.

I could list a host of other tactics used by the media to promote its propaganda power, ones that can cast the most atrocious issues in a favorable light and commendable issues as negatives.

For example, one would have thought that the spread of AIDS would have resulted in condemnation of homosexuality. Rather, the media were able to use the AIDS epidemic to boost public acceptance of homosexuality.

Consequently, arousing the ire of the media tends to be politically costly. This is evidenced by the struggle Rick Santorum, one of the most conservative Republicans, is having in holding on to his Senate seat.

For this reason, Republicans tend to keep a low profile, especially when it comes to promoting conservative causes. Therefore, even though Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House, little of the conservative agenda is advanced.

How is this failure of Republicans to advance conservative causes linked to pathology in the evangelical community. I plan to discuss that issue in the next post.