It has been a little bit since I’ve posted on The Politics of Yeast, an alternative vision to the status quo efforts by American Christians to bring about cultural transformation in America and influence on Capitol Hill. I’ve paused partly for fear of rejection and partly as a mental health check. I can confidently say I’ve overcome both, through the grace and bravery of Abba. Now on to my second part of the status quo.
Today’s second piece of anectodal evidence comes from a Washington Post article this past July 4th entitled, “Evangelical Groups Plan Aggressive Drive for Nomination”. I will try to be as calm and objective in writing and reacting to the Post article, but must admit my blood boiled after reading this article, again. It was especially tough reading this in front of my thoroughly right-wing Dad over the 4th of July break. I don’t think he was quite tracking my grunts, hoots, and ughs!
I want to try a different writing approach using this article. Instead of an essay outlining my reaction, I’d like to paste key parts of the article into the blog post and write my stream-of-conscious thoughts and reaction. Now this could get messy and I just might make some enemies in the process, but let’s give it a go and see what happens! The following is completely (or fairly completely) unedited. Hopefully you’ll be able to follow it alright:
Evangelical Groups Plan Aggressive Drive For Nomination
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 4, 2005; A06
Employing essentially the same game plan they used to win referendums against same-sex marriage in 11 states last November, evangelical Christian groups said they plan to run a multimillion-dollar church-centered campaign to rouse support for a thoroughly conservative successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Conservative religious leaders said the campaign will target 20,000 pastors and congregations using Christian talk radio, satellite television broadcasts, direct-mail advertising and aggressive grass-roots organizing.
I’ve heard inside numbers of $50 million dollars associated with the “multimillion-dollar” campaign. Why is the Church spending $50 million to get a conservative strict-constructionist, original intentor into office? Since when did God care about these characteristics in leaders of nations? Why are local congregations and pastors allowing the Republican party to use the Body of Christ to further the political aims of a political entity? Images of Jesus clearing the temple courts of other as-reputable peddlers comes to mind. Could a similar case be made for this present day thievery in God’s house?
“This is the moment that social conservatives have been awaiting for more than a decade — a real chance to change the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court” and reverse the direction of its rulings on abortion, school prayer, sodomy and religious displays on public property, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
This is the moment social conservatives have been waiting for? According to the way such Christian groups frame and megaphone the issue, this is the moment Jesus himself has been waiting for! And how will changing the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court bring about the Kingdom reality of Jesus here on earth as it is in heaven? Or how will this balance-shift reverse the direction on its handful of cultural rulings? In the words of the great John Stossle, “give me a break!” Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a legislative re-evaluation of these issues, but if American Christians think society will find healing and restoration from these issues (among others) simply through a realignment of the philosophy of the Supreme Court, the fog is far thicker than I had imagined!
Many leaders on the Christian right were bitterly disappointed by the rulings of O’Connor, who had been a Republican legislator in Arizona before her appointment to the court by President Ronald Reagan. “More often than not, she voted with the liberals on the important social issues we care about,” said Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, which calls itself the nation’s largest Christian women’s group.
This is a wonderful example of why the Church should not put stock in these fleeting entities. FACT: 7 of the 9 justices were Republican Presidential appointees. So I ask: Does it really matter if Republican Christians get their Republican President to place a justice on the Supreme Court?
Yet LaRue and other evangelical leaders said there was no elation over O’Connor’s departure in their teleconference calls or in the map-lined third-floor “war room” of the Family Research Council’s G Street headquarters.
“We’ll save the joy and elation until after we win,” Land said. “We all know this is going to be painful, it’s going to be big, it’s going to be divisive, it’s going to be ugly.”
Since when were “divisive” and “ugly” words associated with the Way of Jesus? Sure, anytime the GOSPEL is preached and explained there will be disagreement and probably division. Clearly, Jesus disturbed the status quo of his culture and ruffled the feathers of the ruling elite religious leaders with His teachings and claims of being the Son of God and promised Messiah. It was probably “painful”, “divisive”, and “ugly”. I don’t understand why American Christian leaders feel political issues rise to this sort of reaction from the “enemy” (read: liberals).
In fact, check out the response from the SBC’s own policy arm’s website in an article entitled, “What’s At Stake With Justice O’Connor’s Replacement?”. It is quite telling. By the way, the only reason I link to the SBC specifically is because Dr. Land is directly quoted in the article and represents the face of Jesus and the Church. I am not trying to attack, just analyze.
Federal tax laws prohibit tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. But they do not bar churches from addressing political issues, such as the definition of marriage or who belongs on the Supreme Court, Land said.
Assuming that Bush nominates someone to their liking, Perkins said the Family Research Council and allied groups, such as James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, “will mobilize 20,000 churches” to press the Senate for confirmation. He said they will work largely through pastors, noting that the Family Research Council has held annual conferences in recent years for hundreds of pastors from more than 40 states.
I think I said this in another post and I think it is worth repeating here: I seriously fear a faction of the Church, the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ, has whored itself to the Republican Party. Think I am overreacting and being ubber unkind? Read the first and last lines of the previously referenced article and you decide: 1) “Why do religious and social conservatives view the coming struggle to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with a strict-constructionist, original intent jurist as one of the most critically important fights of the past half-century?” 2) “People often call particular moments “the most critical moment of our time”, but by definition, one of those moments truly is. Tens of millions of religious conservatives believe this is the moment and that the future of our liberty and our culture are at stake.”
“The future of our liberty and culture are at stake.” The hyperbole alone makes me nauseous, aside from the fact this faction of the Church thinks the greatest fight of the past half-century revolves around putting a man (or woman) into a position of judicial authority! Why is it “the most critical moment of our time”? Simply because one judicial leader needs to be replaced with another? This is nonsense!
According to participants, the Arlington Group’s initial strategy sessions have focused on the timeline for the confirmation battle — including the possibility that the Senate will forgo its August break — and how best to frame the debate. So far, the main talking points among religious conservatives are: “in the mold of Thomas and Scalia,” “no more Borking” and ” Roe v. Wade .”
By a justice “in the mold of Thomas and Scalia,” Land said, social conservatives mean they want someone who is both a “strict constructionist” and adheres to the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution.
How about in the mold of Jesus, or a man after God’s heart? Why does the Church think transformation will occur throughout America if we get just the right person in the Court, a person patterned after other men and “strict constructionists” and follow “original intent”?!? Is this biblical? Should the Church seek to bring about earthly transformation through means other than through the means of the Kingdom of Heaven?
Folks, I am sorry if I sounded angry or rude in some of my reaction. I am simply trying to raise the questions that must be asked in confronting the status quo. I am deeply, deeply concerned with how some leaders and factions within the Church are seeking to bring about a cultural transformation. I do not doubt they believe true redemption and resoration occurs through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I do not doubt their heart and theology. What I do seriously questions is the status quo reliance on and engagement with government.
I’ll probably have to clarify these comments, once again, in another post. But hopefully this will give you more fodder to chew on. In fact, I will probably write a follow-up post to explain some of the problems I see and how this relates to my world on Capitol Hill. Then, I will end with a final example.
jeremy
Quoted portions © 2005 The Washington Post Company
