Nov 09 2008
Religious Right, R.I.P.

[JWR] by Cal Thomas
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for trying something else.
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government.
Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?
If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating G-d’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?
Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.
G-d teaches in His Word that His power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?
Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify G-d, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.
Article is here.
[From me]
Cal put into words my thoughts much better than I could articulate them. Cal was with the Moral Majority in the beginning. Isn’t it sad how those in charge of the Religious Right know the Bible well but don’t follow the example of our Savior. I will always vote my convictions but I’m committed to living out my faith in daily life. We shouldn’t be focused on winning in November every election year, we should be winning by living out our faith everyday.
What do you think?
[HT] Bryan Riley
9 responses so far

Gotta love Cal, he often sees right through the bs. He sure sees it here. We were never called to legislate change, but to be change ourselves. But hey, ain’t it easier (not to mention more comfy) to change others than look in the mirror?
Tyler Dawn’s last blog post..Dear Anonymous
I thought Christians do not believe in reincarnation!
Why did he start spelling God as G-d? I am so confused…
I sort of like what Cal is saying, because making something illegal is not exactly what the Bible tells us to do, the Bible just says don’t do it. But I don’t understand how Cal sets it up as an either/or situation… Can’t people pass laws AND live out the stuff they preach/make illegal?
Also, I read an interesting article about how Conservatives are citing election defeats as a rebuke of moderates, not as the death of hard-core Conservatives:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/conservatives-cite-defeats-as-reason-to-move-right/
“After a stinging rebuke of their party on Election Day, a group of soul-searching conservatives who met to map out the future of their movement on Thursday suggested that their best course was to turn their back on more moderate elements of the Republican Party.”
I guess I am sort of conflating Extreme Conservatives with the religious right, but maybe some of the same points carry over.
I like what Tyler says - we are called to be change. And it starts in the heart and moves from heart to heart one life at a time.
Some may trust in chariots …. but let us trust in the Lord our God!
Bryan Riley’s last blog post..Change.gov – A Great Place for Prayer
What Cal Thomas is saying here, should be mandatory reading in EVERY self-professed “evangelical” church in America.
There is no faith to be had in politics.
Chris Knight’s last blog post..Theatre Guild of Rockingham County will be performing OLIVER TWIST next month
Don’t put your faith in politicians just because they spout a religious view. All politicians are out for Numero Uno. Be thankful you don’t have Sarah Palin as VP, a person so barbarously ignorant that she thinks Africa is a country.
Cal Thomas hits the nail on the head.
Again.
Phil Hoover’s last blog post..Congratulation, President-Elect Obama!
My Russian husband also writes “G-d.” I believe it has something to do with the cultural mindset from the East (where the church originated) that man is not even worthy to write the name.
I think almost any time you try to force people to do something, they rebel and go the opposite way. Example: I shouldn’t have to TELL anyone I’m a christian - they should be able to recognize it from the way I live my life every day.
Mrs. O,
I agree and disagree. I think people should see Jesus in our lives. But there has to come a point where we tell people about Jesus. People just don’t walk up and ask you to lead them to Christ very often.
I guess it all gets back to the basics. Tell others about our wonderful Savior and then let Him do the work in their hearts. Politics will never be able to do what God (yes, I included the “o”) can do.