Responses to
Should
Christians Take over
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/christ.and.culture.HTM
JustKara said...
Have a great
spring break! As for me... poor me, I must continue working--in fact reading
that long post made me need a nap! (Seriously--thanks for all the work you
did,)
I think the religious right is winning--Christians are taking over
I think that in ten years or less we will have a "permissive Christian
nation" that is explicitly Christian and based on Christian morals yet
graceful enough to be permissive to other religions and unbelievers.
Half the books you reviewed thought the reform idea was dead. They were wrong.
In the time since, Christians have moved even further away from personal
conversion and toward political reform--and are winning. Unless something turns
it around I expect abortion to be totally outlawed in ten year and so-called
"gay marriage" laws to be totally reversed and I don't think a person
can even be elected President who does not at least claim to be a Christian any
more... a "faith-based politician is a losing politician... you’ve got to
be Christ-based like George Bush was.
If I were a secularist I'd be terrified. But I am a fairly conservative
Christian... and even as that I have some serious reservations with this
reorientation of church energies toward government and politics. I'm just not
sure.
Friday, March
03, 2006 3:00:05 PM
Fantasy is
wonderful, isn't it justkara!
I believe that there are enough reasonable christians and non-christians
in the halls of government to realize that a "christian"
takeover is as dangerous as any other takeover. You and I will not see it in 10
years or within our lifetime.
Friday, March
03, 2006 3:05:20 PM
Nathan Crawford said...
I think that
the reason GW is a "Christian" is because it is good politically -
taps into a political base. Same with a lot of Congress (boy, do I operate with
a hermeneutics of suspicion?) I think the same is true of a lot of Islamic
countries as well (Marx was right - religion is a great way to control the
masses.)
As for me and mine, I'll follow Yoder and Hauerwas
and I think Wesley. I'd argue that as much as we'd like to think Wesley is a
"transforming culture" guy, he thought the church should be the
church, and thus, Christians should act like Christians. In doing this, I think
he truly believed culture might change.
Personally though, I think that Hauerwas and Yoder
are becoming, and will become much more popular in the coming years. I also
think that evangelicals may pick up on Liberation Theology (in some of its
forms). Or, at least, I have picked up on these people and I think I am right
and expect everyone to think like me (no, I really don't. I think the debate is
necessary - just being onry.)
Friday, March
03, 2006 7:17:39 PM
Thinking in Ohio said...
First of all,
thank you for all the work you did in writing this article. It was worth the
read.
The only two book reviews I didn't particularly like were "Culture
Wars" and "Americas Real War". I personally, despise the idea of
a "culture war". It seems to me that the Gospel does not present an
"us vs. them" paradigm... we aren't called to battle "against
the world" we're called to sacrificially reach the world for Christ.
Evangelicals today remind me of Jewish zealots who expected a Messiah who would
"restore
On the other hand, of course, we're called to work redemptively
within our society... but I'm in agreement with many of these authors you've
cited... it begins in the church, and our communities among our neighbors, our
family and our friends.
But that's all my opinion isn't it? You asked what the reigning view is among
evangelicals today... I don't know, honestly. Generationally
speaking, I can tell you that the seniors I pastor (who are mostly democrats)
DESPISE the wedding between Evangelicals and Republicans, but ironically still
hold to "traditional Judeo-Christian values" and would like to see
them preserved. It seems to me that the boomers are the leading evangelicals
who are so committed to the political advancement of the Kingdom. Emergents are
trekking out on their own. I want a middle way... I
want to influence the culture through community... and as an American-citizen
I'll fulfill my role there as well (I've stood outside abortion clinics
protesting the murders there--and I vote for change). But I also believe that
we as Christians are going to have to make room for other religions and other
faiths in our midst. The whole “Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas” fiasco was
embarrassing! Fighting a "culture war" to preserve political
dominance or cultural superiority is DETRIMENTAL to evangelism. The lost see us
as "intolerant" and that may be the only "sin" in their
vocabulary.
Saturday,
March 04, 2006 12:31:47 AM
"religious right it winning"
"if I were a secularist I'd be terrified"
Shows that your priorities are totally wrong! The reason to have cell groups is
to grow deeper in things of God personally and once that happens, God will be
glorified. Then, people will begin to understand that others are important,
have rights and should be respected and that there is a "right/wrong"
standard and deviation from that standard is seriously dangerous for everyone.
If the religious right got their priorities right maybe God would really move
and things would change. The religious right is always convinced it is winning
and others should be "afraid" of them. Jesus never wanted anyone to
be afraid of him and his movement!
The religious right uses their "issues for Jesus" as nothing more
than a way to enlist the masses who so not know their text and in the end, they
alienate others and use the excuse that they would have turned away from God
anyway because of their hatred of God.
Oh, God, how can the religious "right" be so religious
"wrong"?
Monday, March
06, 2006 3:54:55 PM
A terrific and very thought provoking post. I have lots
of questions; here are a few, for what they are worth.
It seems to me that you are assuming, along with some of the authors you
review, that any “takeover” of government by Christians will be conservative. I
think politics is often reactionary (at least a few insist that the left
started the “war”, by seeking voters among the anti-war-gay-abortion-rights
crowd) -do you see any possibility of a strong movement from the liberal:
social-justice side of the aisle to create a “Christian” nation?
Do you not find Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto significant to this
discussion, even though there is disagreement as to what Schaeffer would think
of the Christian/conservative political movement of the day? (Schaeffer
understood full well that many of our founding fathers were Deists, btw, as I’m
sure you know).
What is the difference between legislating social justice, and personal
morality?
Do you place any significance on the fact that the exponents of Niebuhr’s
position 5 are greatly revered in
What are the implications of these books, if any, for the holiness movement?
Horton, not surprisingly, finds any smack of Pietism as counter productive, yet
several of these books call for the church to model godly living, while
avoiding “holiness terminology.” The church will not be the church unless there
is real revival. Do you think this may ever happen? Even in Wesleyan churches?
I think that most Christians in
Tuesday,
March 07, 2006 4:43:03 PM
derek bethay said...
I don't know
about Christians as a whole, but I know that I personally am sick of the war on
culture. I know that Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell
do not speak for me. I wish the network news shows would quit going to them for
quotes & I wish Robertson would "Just Shut Up" all together.
I'll close with an excerpt from Donald Miller's book Searching
For God Knows What...
"If we are preaching a morality without Christ, and using war rhetoric to
communicate a battle mentality, we are fighting on Satan's side. This battle we
are in is a battle against the principalities of darkness, not against people
who are different from us. In war you shoot the enemy, not the hostage."
IMHO the Moral Majority has been advocating shooting the hostages!
Tuesday,
March 07, 2006 10:43:31 PM
I'm left
thinking...do we Wesleyans have "One Denomination Under
God," right now. Many of your observations about what a Christian nation
would outlaw can't be outlawed in most denominations right now.
Jonathan White
Wednesday,
March 08, 2006 4:07:17 PM
Bumble said...
Dr. Drury, 18
months ago I wrestled with the general question about interaction between faith
and culture (over the specific question should I bother to blog
or not). From there, I came up with a strange heretical idea of "the
cyclical pattern of faith intersecting culture" posted here:
http://i12know.that1.name/2004/09/cyclical-pattern-of-faith-intersecting.html
From that pattern, I think that there is always a movement to returning to God
in some area and at the same time moving away from God in other area. What do
you think?
Thursday,
March 09, 2006 12:54:34 AM
I am in the
process of reading Brabason's A Biography of Albert Sweitzer. He believed in Jesus, but not Jesus Christ. This
seems to have developed from his understanding that Mark was the only true
gospel. I have a much better understanding of liberal theology since reading
this book. It is amazing how a man can do so much good in the name of Jesus and
yet reject that Jesus is God and Messiah. I guess this stuff goes back to the
late 19th Century. Now that I'm in the 21st century I'm just beginning to see
how the other side lives. Bill
Thursday,
March 09, 2006 2:03:42 PM
Keith Drury wraps up saying…
Thanks for the insights. Sounds like many of my readers are weary of
world-changing in the political sense—at least in the style of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and Company. Is this a generational shift? Are these responses representative of the
church today? I think they are
representative of many of the students I teach.
Will here be a clash in the future on this issue?
John Mark—your questions are great—and
need answered—by you or me. As for me I
have not been inclined toward Christians taking over the political system and
establishing “Christendom” in the
Yet I think
At times I want to take over government
and change the world forcibly toward Kingdom values (which is the boas of my
college’s “world-changing” mission). At
other times I want to withdraw and “just be the church” believing that to be
the best witness.
At still other times I admire the
Lutheran “Two kingdoms” approach. I do
know this however: when the church sets
out to change the world, the world usually returns the favor. Christians establishing “God’s kingdom”
through government often are changed more by governing than they change the
system. And I wonder about the
“opportunity cost” of the whole world-changing business—where does this
world-changing energy come from? I fear
it often comes from the church. Sometimes
I wish we’d put all that energy into making the
church become what it ought to be—then perhaps the world would beat a path
to our door.
I guess I’ve thought enough about this
matter to be unsettled not more sure. No matter—what I think will not determine
the future. It is what the church
collectively decides to do. I privately
hope it first decides to be the church
first of all. But then again, I teach
ministers not politicians.