“…in recent decades many Christians have responded to the moral and social decline in American society by embracing political activism. Believers are running for office in growing numbers; churches are organizing voter registration; public policy groups are proliverating; scores of Christian publications and radio programs offer commentary on public affairs. This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, yet the impact remains far less than most had hoped. Why? Because evangelicals often put all their eggs in one basket: They leaped into political activism as the quickest, surest way to make a difference in the public arena–failing to realize that politics tends to reflect culture, not the other way around.” Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth. 18 (Emphasis mine.)
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 18th, 2008 at 11:16 pm and is filed under Church and Society, Politics, quote.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Feeds
Historical Picks
Christian Living Picks
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
31 Comments(+Add)
Who are these “mandy” Christians?
” This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life”
I challenge that. I would say that the compromise that poilitical activism brings in the church far outweighs any so called “good results” in the political arena. The entire well meaning enterorise is a deception.
Bleugene,
mandy is related to enterorise. they are second cousins twice removed and three times over.
berry
ps–for anyone interested Jacques Ellul’s book The Subversion of Christianity speaks well to this situation. I think he suggests that it started around the time of Constantine.
Manilow’s Theological Meditations
Volume I
Why Government Can’t Save You.
Apparently I can’t follow my own advice (see my last post). But now that it’s fixed, you all look like morons.
Rick, first of all, I was giving you context, the fact that you picked up on that and ignored the emphasized section that generally supports your ideas shows that you have been fighting that battle too hard for too long.
Second, that statement by Pearcey is more about public affairs than it is politics.
You can still disagree with it and I understand and agree that it has at times political activism has brought compromise into the church, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I encourage you to pick up that book and give it a good read. It’s not about politics, it’s about the Christian worldview. I think what you are seeing (compromise in the church) is not the result of political activism by Christians, but the result of a dualistic worldview by those Christians who don’t understand what a biblical worldview is.
Keith, I haven’t read that, have you read Total Truth? I think Total Truth addresses the worldview taken by MacArthur in that book and would disagree with it. I’m not necessarily advocating everything written in Total Truth, but I do think it’s important that we are aware of the conversation that shapes how we live in this world.
The only way to change culture is to change hearts. Until we do that, all the good legislation will not amount to a hill of beans.
That being said, we still need to be involved in the political process as light and salt in this world.
thereby enacting invasive legislation into the private lives of people that alienates them further from the very community that has the message that leads to the heart change they need….
OR enacting legislation that helps support and perpetuate systemic immorality/injustice thereby validating the very structures that cause people to despair and not believe that the community of faith is really bringing light to their circumstance….
hmmmm….
sometimes the “right” thing to do is the wrong thing to do.
Christian P: Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey? If so, no I haven’t. Am I understanding your statement that her book would disagree with MacArthur’s? If so, in what way?
If I recall correctly, Mac’s book essentially states that more (or any) government is not the answer to our woes. To quote PB: “The only way to change culture is to change hearts…”
Is that essentially what you are saying?
An additional thought: Maybe the more correct term might be “impact” rather than “change.” I personally don’t believe we will “change” society/the world to the point of becoming a “Christian nation.” I think things are going to continue to get worse, fewer and fewer will be saved, etc. That whole “narrow gate” thing.
OR enact legislation that keeps people dependent upon the very system that keeps convincing them they’re helpless victims…
OR enact legislation that advances the notion that government is the answer to all of our problems…
sometimes the “left” thing to do is the wrong thing to do as well.
If we’re going to criticize politicians, let’s be evenhanded about it.
Christian – I come to realize that reading anything that doesn’t agree with my beliefs is an act of compromise in and of itself.
Keith, yes that’s the book I was referring to. And I would agree with your revision of PB’s statement in that the way we impact culture is to change hearts (well, cooperate with God in transforming lives).
About MacArthur, like I said, I haven’t read his book. I think Pearcey would agree with the aim/goal that MacArthur purports, and probably some of his points, but that she would disagree with his worldview that brought him to that understanding and that he goes too far. It’s a lot of speculation but I don’t have time with all my other books for classes to read MacArthur’s. I just purveyed it on Amazon to find out what he was trying to say.
Phil,
I don’t disagree, but since when did really “the left” thing to do really have any real traction with the vast majority of evangelicals who jump on the republican train as a matter of course?
Unless, of course, you even buy into the “left-right” narrative (which I don’t) and believe that there are issues that are, in and of themselves, “leftist”.
(i.e. creation-care, etc. like Dobson and others have claimed are issues that in themselves are “liberal, etc.)
I think it really isn’t pertinent to trumpet the obvious flip-side because it just doesn’t apply in most cases of where self-described evangelicals tend to sit politically…
just my nickel
Also…what I meant by the “right” thing was the “correct” correct in principle (i.e. oppose abortion, etc.) not as an ideological moniker.
yikes…that might be even more problematic for some then…haha!
in other words:
sometimes legislating something that is ethically correct is not the correct way to handle an issue that is fundamentally about the human heart.
I wasn’t trying to criticize politicians, I was criticizing the irony that necessarily manifests when people try to work out PB’s position.
Even if you agree with political particpation by believers, you must admit it has inadvertently led to a confused loyalty to one party, as well as an over emphasis on legislation, appointed justices, and elcted representatives.
In short, this political emphasis has disproportionately diverted attention from the only agent of eternal change – the gospel.
Well, I apologize, because when I saw “right” in quotes, I just assumed you were speaking of the right/left as in the political spectrum.
I am perhaps too quick to jump on it, because I have gotten a little frustrated as of late because I think a lot of Christians have rightly critiqued Evangelicals ties to the right, but it seems a lot these same Christians are just as quickly jumping in bed with the left. Do they think that will end any different?
I agree, Phil.
I don’t think the answer to unreflective party support is to swing the other direction.
I’ve always said that it’s a monumental failure of the Church that any political party feels comfortable when they see us coming down the hall.
We’ve lost a genuine prophetic edge…and mistaken biting language for moral conviction.
Both parties should tremble…even if their leaders claim the “name of Christ”.
IMVHO, the Church should be hopeful AND contrarian–as a matter of course.
I have to say that stuff like this ticks me off just as much as James Dobson’s political endorsements across the aisle.
It cracked me up when popular Christian leaders would get up and say, “I’m voting for this Repbulican and I hope you do too. Now, I’m only asking as a private citizen, don’t think of me as __________, famous Christian leader. Then last week, I read a certain popular christian leader of today, who was saying that he’s voting for Obama and he hopes I do too, but I should only think of his plea as one from a private citizen. I don’t care who he votes for but it gets my goat when he tries to divorce himself from his popularity that is gained by his position. Irksome, it is.
It’s all just “ick” to me.
lay down with dogs…you’ll get fleas.
Joe Martino: Well said.
I do wonder though that if the pendulum has to swing so people can see how bat-doo-doo crazy both extremes are?
Also, the cantankerous, self-inflated pious-ness of certain Christian Right leaders just makes me wanna see their sense of power and control get “broken”.
Anything that skewers James Dobson or makes him squirm is fine by me…but that’s because there’s a large deposit of offense from him.
Just being honest…
Love to all…
and yes…
I mean all
Chris – the Dems are only learning from the religious right which has monopolized the faith issue for decades. I want someone to find a picture of Christ on the cross in red, white, and blue.
Placing faith in the political process is like putting lipstick on a …well, never mind!
…MOOSE!
Untrue this is. Lay down with my dog regularly do I. No fleas do either have. Offensive are you to suggest fleas my dog has.
Good call, Phil.
the pastor who is a man,
truly, truly, I say unto thee: beware of thy lying with a dog. It is an abomination. Thy blood will be on thine own head.