Evangelical Reformation

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.

Listening to academics, politicians, and commentators both conservative and liberal, one gets the impression that the greatness of America stems from our form of government. This position is suggested in the commonly held theory that if only we can spread democracy around the world, everything will be just fine.

One reason this is such a popular position is that it is nonsectarian, that is, it offends no one. In today’s climate, who could object to the spread of democracy?

One problem with this perspective is beginning to surface all over the world. Democracy can be the handmaiden of cruel and unrighteous causes. For example, Muslim countries can democratically choose to institute sharia law, which is the source of untold human suffering. In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez has been able to distort democracy to serve his purposes, to the injury of many, and ultimately, I believe, to the destruction of that country. The point is that democracy can be used as a tool to serve the purposes of good or of evil.

Another problem with viewing democracy as that which made America great, and consequently what can be the salvation of other nations, is that some nations can’t seem to make it work. Russia seems to be so riddled with corruption that democracy there is struggling to survive.

If not democracy, what did make America great? Our nation thrived because our culture was shaped by the Word of God. Democracy can only work in an environment where people are willing to be honest and moral rather than dishonest and self-serving.

Multiculturalists notwithstanding, only the Bible can produce those qualities. America has been great because of its integrity, and that integrity was a product of our commitment as a culture to the truth and authority of the Bible. It might be noted that even those who have not made a commitment to Christ are still influenced by the presence of the Word of God in a society and by believers who function as salt and light.

As liberals succeed in rewriting history, the impact of Scripture on our heritage is becoming lost. One bit of history trivia reveals the depths of our Christian roots as a nation. Recently I discovered that Harry Truman learned to read by following along as his mother read to him from the King James Bible.

We don’t normally think of Harry Truman as one of our more spiritual presidents. He is better known for getting theological words at the wrong places in sentences. Nonetheless, this little factoid reveals that even he was influenced substantially by the Word of God from a young age.

Democracy is not working in many places, or it is not serving the cause of righteousness, because we have tried to transplant it in cultures that lack the necessary biblical foundation.

Though this may offend some, this is like placing chimpanzees on university campuses and expecting them to become intellects. A university is a wonderful tool for those who have intellectual capacity, but it will not supply it to those who do not. Likewise, placing people without a Christian foundation in a democracy only provides the shell, but not the vital internal principle necessary to make democracy work.

As the United States continues to reject its Christian heritage, we are becoming more like chimpanzees at a university. Our handling of the immigration and oil issues make that evident. This can only change when evangelicals gain the vitality to reshape our culture, and that can only happen if we experience an evangelical reformation.

This past week saw the Muslim world inflamed over cartoons that portrayed Mohammed in an unflattering light. This resulted in demonstrations, burned flags, a burned church, and dead bodies.

This spectacle raised the question of how Christians should respond to insults of Christ. Two diametrically opposite perspectives surfaced.

John Piper presented his thoughts in an article entitled: “Being Mocked: The Essence of Christ’s Work, Not Muhammad’s.” How should Christians respond to insults to Christ? Piper expressed the gist of his position as follows: “On the one hand, we are grieved and angered. On the other hand, we identify with Christ, and embrace his suffering, and rejoice in our afflictions, and say with the apostle Paul that vengeance belongs to the Lord, let us love our enemies and win them with the gospel. If Christ did his work by being insulted, we must do ours likewise.”

Dinesh D’Souza, in “Blasphemy,” an article on his website, wondered if we might not learn from the Muslim response. He lamented that as Americans we might take to the streets over racial issues, but American Christians tend be passive in their response to insults to Christ such as the depiction of Christ in a bottle of urine by Andres Serrano, which was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. D’Souza observes:

But what is striking about conservative Christians is how passive and invertebrate so many of them are when their deepest beliefs are violated. The distinguishing quality of the Christian seems to be niceness, and I don’t mean this as a compliment. When a man calls your wife a whore it is not a virtue to respond with niceness. When your religion is mocked and blasphemed, it is sign of cowardice to pretend not to notice….

When the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out several years ago, it was shown to critical acclaim throughout the West despite its blasphemous portrayal of Christ’s sexual fantasies at Calvary. The only countries that banned the movie were the Muslim countries. The reason is that Muslims consider Christ, like Moses, to be a prophet. Not only do Muslims protect the reputation of Muhammad, but apparently they also care about how Christ is portrayed as well. Whose reputation silent Christians are protecting is anybody’s guess.

Unfortunately, D’Souza does not tell us what we should do about such insults. It seems like the biblical response might be somewhere between doing nothing by way of protest as suggested by Piper, and the Muslim response cited (though not suggested) by D’Souza.

And we have done some things. For example, the American Family Association fights hard to keep anti-Christian programming off the air. Its work resulting in the cancellation of NBC’s anti-Christian series, The Book of Daniel provides an example. The power to achieve such results comes from activist believers.

Current Muslim outrage over insult to Muhammad and the resulting divergent Christian musings over how we should respond to similar insults of Christ would indicate that there is need for more dialogue on what the appropriate reaction to blasphemy of Christ should be. I welcome your comments on this issue.