Evangelical Reformation

The Democratic approach to winning elections has remained rather consistent across the years beginning with the New Deal. They promise to distribute your tax money in a way that will buy them the most votes. What is new about this presidential election is the extent and shamelessness to which this technique is employed. The Democratic candidates are working to outdo each other in promising handouts paid for with your money.

They are not the only ones dispersing your money. Congress and the President recently approved a plan to stimulate the economy by passing out money to selective groups of people. Financial experts almost universally agree that this free money program will not help the economy. However, it does serve to buy favor for those distributing it. It is redistribution of wealth to gain political favor.

This practice is problematic on several counts. First, at root it is dishonest. There is something essentially unethical about the government using its power to forcibly extract that which belongs to one person and give it to another. The so-called progressive income tax might be viewed as unethical for the same reason. However, the current practice of redistribution of wealth is even more egregious. It is one thing to force those who make more to pay disproportionately more in order to maintain highways and armies and make other expenditures that represent the legitimate role of government. However, it is quite another matter to take that which has been coerced from those who make more and hand it over to those whom the government deems worthy.

In addition to being unethical, this practice seems to be patently unconstitutional. Though a majority on today’s Supreme Court may not view it as such, one suspects that if the writers of that document could be resurrected, they might consigned to the stocks for robbery those implicated in this practice.

This practice is also problematic because it is destructive to our economy. It is the opposite of supply-side economics, taking wealth from those who create jobs, which leads to a decline in tax revenues, which leads to higher taxes to make up the difference, which leads to further decline in tax revenues, and so on.

Yet another problem with the redistribution of wealth for political gain is its tendency toward escalation to the point of ruination. This is evident in the Democratic primaries. We find candidates seeking to outdo each other in the amount of handouts that they promise. They have already passed totals that our economy can sustain. They are bankrupting us in order to gain office.

However, our greatest concern should not be with the problems of this practice but with its political effectiveness. The fact that it works tells us that many of the American people either can’t see the dishonesty and destructiveness of this political approach, or that they don’t care that it is dishonest and destructive.

If they can’t see its problems, we have finally become a nation too poorly educated to function as a democracy. If they don’t care, we have become a nation too perverse to function as a democracy. I would be interested in your perspective on which of these problems is making this political gimmick into an effective tool.

In our next blog our plan is to consider the cultural and spiritual roots of this problem.

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.