See the following article-
Terrific article written by an Evangelical that "nails it" completely. This parallels things that I have said -repeatedly- over the years, maybe especially in the past two or three years. The basic theme has been: Unless you know what you are talking about politically, unless you know politics, take it seriously and actually study it in its own terms, you cannot possibly expect political success in the real world. Yet, while you would think that this truth is obvious to everyone, it simply is not obvious at all to most Evangelicals. Worse than that, which the article says nothing about, Evangelical theology -it may not be called "theology" but that is what it is- is basically pietist in nature and pietism not only is apolitical, it is anti-political. Some of my in-process work, not yet ready for distribution, takes up this matter in detail. But the gist of things is that the more pietist the religious group, the more it is out of touch with politics as such and out of touch with political realities at large. Which is to say that on the "Left" within the Religious Right, are community church Evangelicals who aren't so much anti-political as they are clueless about politics and never study it, or only do so occasionally, who, in any case, are usually not well informed. Many so-called "fundamentalists" are also uninformed and clueless but among organized Baptists this is far less an issue and, indeed, there have always been well informed Baptists who know full well how to engage in the political arena. Lindsay Graham is a prime example. On the Right among people of the Religious Right, are the Pentecostals with their traditions of strong anti-intellectualism and anti-political values. Now and then a few Pentecostals become involved in politics but when they do the overwhelming tendency among them is to make fools of themselves, people who have never cracked one serious book about politics, who then take public positions as if "of course" everyone else thinks like them so why wouldn't everyone else agree with their various cultural positions? The problem as I see it, is pietism itself, extreme devotionalism, or as the article infers, pietist "politics" comes down to the expectation and demand that everyone else must also become a pietist like them and the only future worth even thinking about is the coming of the Kingdom of God. In real life, of course, things are never so simple as this model of Evangelical (sad excuse for) politics as it now exists in America, but the model captures something of the problem. To take this further, at the heart of hard-Right Evangelicalism is the view that unless one becomes a pietist like them, he or she isn't really a Christian. This may not be necessary for Jews, and an exception of sorts may be made for Catholics, but this view is certainly common and can be found in probably all Evangelical churches. My view, needless to say, is antithetical to that view. Indeed, for all my admiration for the many good things that numerous Evangelicals do in the world, about this matter my outlook is just about 180 degrees the exact opposite. Which also says that Evangelical pietism is close to 180 degrees the opposite of Radical Centrism. Basic to RC, at least as I see it, is the imperative to be well-informed about any political issue you take a public stand on. Pietists have a very different view and regard study of politics as something like a mortal sin. Basic to RC is also the view that on issues of the day, if you cannot find a superior position by means of original thought that takes into consideration all relevant factors, then there needs to be a balance of L and R views because, structurally, neither the Right nor the Left could exist unless they contained some actual truths, that is, political truths as well as truths as understood by philosophy. But unless you are well informed politically it is not possible to take really educated positions. But pietists are opposed to becoming well informed. The pietist view can be summarized as: Everything reduces to Jesus and everything depends on prayer and everything depends on self-denial for the sake of Jesus. About which, in terms of the real world, this is to discuss a self-defeating project. It is safe to say that most people (put it in the 80% range, for people of all political persuasions) have no use at all for that kind of outlook and, for the record, neither do I. And where in all of Christian history has there been even one (1) successful pietist political regime? Name one. You can't. Because it is 100% impractical and pretty close to 100% anti-human nature. For sure, the witness of a Christian like Schweitzer says that living for Christ is necessary to be a Christian, but his witness also tells us that this is anything but exclusive of being well-informed, or exclusive of finding truths in other faiths, or exclusive of viewing Jesus as human, not only as incarnation, and, hence, many, many things of this world deserve our time and attention and wisdom. To add Luther to this discussion, this also means that being "earthy" is a virtue because, after all, we are people of this Earth, human-all-too-human, and to pretend that we can somehow rise to the ethereal level of angels is preposterous. Therefore, embrace being human, forget about being a 100% spiritual person and get your hands dirty. It will do you a world of good. Emphases are added to the article. If you prefer to read it without the highlighting simply click "select all" and go to the e-mail color selector and choose "white" for all background. Billy R. ---------------------------------------------- >From the site: Juicy Ecumenism Daniel Strand April 10, 2019 Lacking Depth: Evangelicals, Politics, and Immigration The current immigration<https://juicyecumenism.com/category/immigration/> debate that had been playing out in America and in the Evangelical community has exposed the lack of a rigorous approach to this contentious issue. When many Evangelicals take a stand on an issue and explain their basis, it is usually a bible verse or a claim from scripture. That may be right and good, but it’s often divorced from an understanding of actual politics as they are practiced and the ways that politics have developed in the West, which has formed the basis for European and American politics as we know and practice it today. If I could state it succinctly: I get the impression they want to say a lot about politics without having to know much about politics, either intellectually or historically. To add a further complicating factor: it’s not clear how the theology that they present should be related to politics, both in term of theory and practice. For a group that usually offers profoundly biblical and well-thought positions on a host of pastoral, doctrinal, or cultural questions, their engagement with politics is woefully underdeveloped. Michael Gerson outlined this problem in his critical piece<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-last-temptation/554066/> in The Atlantic back in April. He chastises Evangelicals for lacking “a model or ideal of political engagement—an organizing theory of social action.” In comparison to Catholics, who have a rather broad and deep tradition of political thought, Evangelicals make appeals to the “the Bible” which means they basically have no framework to keep them tethered when the political winds blow. Now, having a comprehensive set of concepts to help think through some of these very important political and social questions is not a panacea. Just ask the Catholic Church. They have a rather long and impressive body of social doctrine that many in the church just ignore. But it does help to have a tradition. The Biblicist impulse of Evangelicals that everything must have a direct bible verse to justify a statement prevents us from developing a broader body of social and political doctrine that will help frame issues regarding a whole host of social issues that are growing more contentious by the day. What is needed is a framework for thinking through these questions. Catholics, for instance, have a host of concepts about the role of the state in relation to the church and the family. Catholic political and social thought is an amalgam of scripture and various political ideas which they have assimilated and reformulated over time. The common good (bonum commune), an idea first developed by Aristotle and later reworked by Thomas Aquinas and subsequent theologians, is the all-embracing duty and responsibility of the government to preserve and protect through law and coercion, if necessary. Natural law, which finds its roots in the bible (Romans 2:14-15<https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A14-15&version=NIV>) and Stoic thought, provides the basis for positive statutory law. My point is that Catholics have sought to develop a systematic body of political and social doctrine to address and think Christianly about these questions. Evangelicals could learn a great deal from Catholics on this point. Without some orientation and structure to our deliberations Evangelicals lack coherence and discipline in our thinking and application. We also fail to learn from and understand how politics has actually taken shape in our history and how to apply our theology to those historic institutions and structures handed down to us. That process in long, arduous, and complicated. Debates will ensue and controversy and division will erupt, but that is part of the process and cannot be short circuited. Often Evangelicals emphasize what the Bible says about sojourners and aliens as basis for the church’s response for the current immigration issue. And surely, this is true. But it is not enough. When God is speaking in the scripture he is talking to Israel, which is not a modern nation-state, and so, one would obviously want to know how they go from laws of ancient Israel to laws in modern day America. America is neither Israel nor the church, so how do we relate Christian convictions into laws without expecting America to become the Kingdom of God? Evangelicals often cite the example of Jesus living in Egypt, which may or may not be relevant. The Gospels hardly emphasize that Jesus’ status as an “undocumented immigrant.” And the Gospels don’t claim to be a statement about state policies on immigration and border security, unless we think Jesus going down into the muddy waters of the Jordan for baptism as an affirmation of water pollution. Taking a moral stance on an issue is one thing, having a constructive way to think about addressing these issues is another. And while pastors and theologians do not have the complexity of knowledge that policy experts have, they must engage at some level with empirical data and develop a political framework for thinking through these questions, otherwise they are in danger of falling in the trap of so many progressive Christians who combine maximal moral outrage with equally maximal political idealism that paints marvelous and beautiful worlds that are utterly impractical. For evangelicals to begin the process of developing their own political tradition akin to Catholics would be a giant undertaking but one that is very necessary. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
