The Evangelical Dilemma

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I watched this podcast with Collin Hansen, editor at the Christian Coalition. (It's about 60 minutes but worth listening to.) He discusses the history of the white evangelical movement and the choice of many to support President Trump despite some huge moral contradictions to the faith.
Has evangelicalism lost it's voice in American society because of hypocrisy or can it return back to a moral integrity?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,566
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The evangelicals are mocked by society that they feel the need to conform to the world which is sad. Can we get back to our moral integrity? I am not sure. Good topic!
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I watched this podcast with Collin Hansen, editor at the Christian Coalition. (It's about 60 minutes but worth listening to.) He discusses the history of the white evangelical movement and the choice of many to support President Trump despite some huge moral contradictions to the faith.
Has evangelicalism lost it's voice in American society because of hypocrisy or can it return back to a moral integrity?

I can't help wondering how many supported Trump despite huge moral contradictions, struggled even more with the thought of supporting Clinton. It's easy to ask how people could have supported (candidate) given the strikes against them when seen through religious eyes but it's not as if either candidate could be described as a saint.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Compared to Hilary, I can understand why many Christians voted for Trump in the general election..... the pro-life vs. pro-death positions alone might have been motivation to do that.

What surprised me was how so many Evangelicals preferred Trump to Rubio and several of the others - even more solid on the moral issues and void of all the immorality that was so evident in Trumps' life. THAT'S what surprised me, THAT'S what caused me to wonder what has happened "the religious right." A lot of my family (Catholics mostly) voted for Trump in the primaries rather than the strong Catholics Rubio and Cruz, both of whom were MUCH stronger on the moral issues and pretty solid in their own moral lives.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I can't help wondering how many supported Trump despite huge moral contradictions, struggled even more with the thought of supporting Clinton. It's easy to ask how people could have supported (candidate) given the strikes against them when seen through religious eyes but it's not as if either candidate could be described as a saint.
Right. To vote for either candidate meant you had to ignore your moral conscience.
Hansen brings up Billy Graham and points out that Billy said his greatest error was becoming too close with politicians, especially Richard Nixon. It hurt the integrity of the ministry.
When Franklin Graham and Falwell linked arms with Trump, it sent a message that Evangelical leaders would ignore sin in order to have political power. Every liberal progressive saw the hypocrisy of ignoring injustice for political gain. Evangelicals were viewed as hypocrites.
Will evangelicalism ever recover, or will evangelicals fade away into irrelevance in America because their own sins have not met with repentance? Hansen believes evangelicals are at a tipping point.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Compared to Hilary, I can understand why many Christians voted for Trump in the general election..... the pro-life vs. pro-death positions alone might have been motivation to do that.

What surprised me was how so many Evangelicals preferred Trump to Rubio and several of the others
That is explained by the fact that Evangelicals, like the rest of us, are concerned about the personal moral standards of the candidate AND, also, what that person would do, policywise, if elected.

In Rubio's case (since you used him as an example) his undeniable support for amnesty made him unacceptable.

If we go down through the list of the other Republican candidates, the same kind of drawback will be seen to have existed, quite apart from whether they had some other appealing qualities.

,
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
That is explained by the fact that Evangelicals, like the rest of us, are concerned about the personal moral standards of the candidate AND, also, what that person would do, policywise, if elected.

In Rubio's case (since you used him as an example) his undeniable support for amnesty made him unacceptable.

If we go down through the list of the other Republican candidates, the same kind of drawback will be seen to have existed, quite apart from whether they had some other appealing qualities.

,
The point of the podcast is to observe that Evangelical leaders chose to endorse a mysogynist who declared that he did not need to repent.
Should religious leaders be involved in endorsing candidates rather than promoting the moral cause of the gospel?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The point of the podcast is to observe that Evangelical leaders chose to endorse a mysogynist who declared that he did not need to repent.
No, it appears that the leaders you are speaking of were not fooled by the usual left-wing rhetoric. Well, good for them. :)
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The point of the podcast is to observe that Evangelical leaders chose to endorse a mysogynist who declared that he did not need to repent.
Should religious leaders be involved in endorsing candidates rather than promoting the moral cause of the gospel?

I think religious leaders should speak out on issues and consider the relative merits of the different party platforms with regard to the issues. I personally don't think it's right for religious leaders to endorse political candidates unless there is a very compelling reason to do so.

To take a simple example - look at the idea of how we should care for the poor. I don't think very many Christians would deny that we should care for the poor (and to avoid any doubt here I'm talking people who are poor because they are unable to work or even unable to find work, not people who are poor because they are bone idle). Those on the political right might argue that such people are best helped by encouraging local charity, reducing government regulations to make it easier for them to work for themselves, making it easier to hire and fire so they have a better chance of getting hired in the first place, and so on. Those on the political left might argue that they are best helped through more government programs, an enlarged welfare state, employment protection so they are less likely to lose their job once hired, and so on. Which is the best approach is the kind of thing that triggers endless discussion so I would like to think a religious leader would consider the different approaches and encourage people to vote with their conscience.

The only time I have ever walked out of a church during the sermon was when the speaker was obviously going to do little more than make lots of political digs. The ironic thing is that I broadly agreed with her political position, I just didn't want it thrust at me from the pulpit.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
No, it appears that the leaders you are speaking of were not fooled by the usual left-wing rhetoric. Well, good for them. :)
One of the questions brought up was whether evangelicals should be concerned with left wing or right wing politics, but rather with biblical justice, mercy and grace.
Does the US anti-immigrant policy and sentiment fly in the face of the gospel?
Do people notice this hypocrisy in evangelism and thus tune out the gospel of Jesus because evangelicals don't care about the poor, the tired, the huddled masses?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
One of the questions brought up was whether evangelicals should be concerned with left wing or right wing politics, but rather with biblical justice, mercy and grace.
Does the US anti-immigrant policy and sentiment fly in the face of the gospel?
Do people notice this hypocrisy in evangelism and thus tune out the gospel of Jesus because evangelicals don't care about the poor, the tired, the huddled masses?

One issue with the concept of Biblical justice is that ultimately it ends up as a matter of how best to administer it. Do we take responsibility ourselves (local charity, promoting self-reliance) which inevitably turns into a presentation of more traditionally right-wing viewpoints, or do we look to some level of government to oversee the process (central charity, funded through taxation) which inevitably turns into a presentation of mroe traditionally left-wing viewpoints.

Of course an associated issue is that much of what is said by both sides is an exercise in dodging the issue. Many on the right look to the concept of private charity and encouraging self-reliance. Needless to say that means Someone Else gets to deal with the requirements for local charity because obviously it's not my responsibility, Someone Else gets to metaphorically teach the man to fish and support him while he learns because, you know, it's not my responsibility to do it. And then many on the left look to the concept of government programs and figure that Someone Else can pay the taxes required to support them because, you know, it's not their responsibility - "the rich" should pay more to help. And along the way it's so easy for both sides to lose sight of the point.

I think the parable of the Good Samaritan contains much more than we initially give it credit for. The Good Samaritan (a member of a despised race so, depending on the audience, nowadays this person might be a Mexican, an Arab, maybe even - gasp - a homosexual). He saw a man in need of help, so he set about helping. He didn't shrug and figure someone else was better qualified than him, he didn't start a campaign for higher taxes to help people like that, he just got on with what was needed. Then when he had to go on his way he took the man to an inn (not to his own house, but to a place designed for people passing through) and told the inn keeper to look after him and he would pay the bill. He didn't tell the innkeeper to give the man an open bar tab, didn't arrange to meet the man's every desire, but did arrange for the man's needs to be met.

I think far too often those on the right err towards just leaving the weaker members of society behind while those on the left err towards excessive generosity funded on the backs of others.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
One of the questions brought up was whether evangelicals should be concerned with left wing or right wing politics, but rather with biblical justice, mercy and grace.
Does the US anti-immigrant policy and sentiment fly in the face of the gospel?
Certainly not...and even using the term "anti-immigrant" is to perpetuate a Leftist lie. Try to move beyond it. :)
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Certainly not...and even using the term "anti-immigrant" is to perpetuate a Leftist lie. Try to move beyond it. :)
Does the present US immigration policy stand in line with Christian love and mercy for the oppressed who suffer injustice?
At present, both Christian and non-Christian refugees are being detained. People who have lived in the US for years as model neighbors are being deported. Just lately a professor at Augsburg University in Mpls, from Kenya, had his passport confiscated and was told to prepare to be removed from the country. The University will be fighting for him, but there is no guarantee in our present immigration policy. Wouldn't a well educated immigrant be someone the US would like to keep?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...fessor-may-face-deportation-to-kenya.amp.html
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does the present US immigration policy stand in line with Christian love and mercy for the oppressed who suffer injustice?
Yes, indeed. The USA leads all other nations in the number of immigrants being allowed into the county. Not only that, but we feed them--free, we school them--free, we take care of their medical needs--free, we allow them to use all the facilities paid for by our taxpayers--free, and this all comes at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to each American citizen. Find me one other country that even comes close to this, and I will take another look at the claim that we are behaving in an unchristian or unmerciful manner towards immigrants.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Yes, indeed. The USA leads all other nations in the number of immigrants being allowed into the county. Not only that, but we feed them--free, we school them--free, we take care of their medical needs--free, we allow them to use all the facilities paid for by our taxpayers--free, and this all comes at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to each American citizen. Find me one other country that even comes close to this, and I will take another look at the claim that we are behaving in an unchristian or unmerciful manner towards immigrants.
You are comparing humans with humans. Does God desire us to turn away refugees in fear? For a hundred years US missionaries have been seeking to share the gospel with Muslims and struggled against governments that oppressed them. Now God places them at our door step and we want to send them back. Is that what God desires from Christians?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does the present US immigration policy stand in line with Christian love and mercy for the oppressed who suffer injustice?
At present, both Christian and non-Christian refugees are being detained. People who have lived in the US for years as model neighbors are being deported. Just lately a professor at Augsburg University in Mpls, from Kenya, had his passport confiscated and was told to prepare to be removed from the country. The University will be fighting for him, but there is no guarantee in our present immigration policy. Wouldn't a well educated immigrant be someone the US would like to keep?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...fessor-may-face-deportation-to-kenya.amp.html

I don't honestly see a contradiction in the concepts of showing Christian love to the truly needy paired with the concept of protecting the people you're supposed to be serving. I think if I fled my country with little more than the clothes I was wearing at the time I'd be quite happy to be checked out to make sure I was telling the truth, particularly in this day and age where there's no way of knowing who is a genuine refugee and who is posing as a refugee to gain entry to a country they wish to harm.

The professor facing deportation appears, from what I can tell from the article, to have stayed in the country illegally when his original visa expired. That poses a twofold question - firstly when violations of immigration law should be enforced and under what circumstances they should be ignored, and an associated question of how he was working as an associate professor if he didn't have a legal right to be there in the first place.

A problem with the issue of legal and illegal immigration is that there is only so much that can be done at government level and essentially illegal immigrants are doing little more than deciding, based on nothing more than their own desires, to flout the law because they think they can get away with it. While there is certainly some merit in a flexible enforcement of the law, at the same time it needs to be enforced in a reasonably consistent and predictable manner so as not to create a de facto loophole that can be exploited by anyone who happens to know about it.

One might think a well educated immigrant who contributes to his local community would be an obvious candidate for permanent residency. One might also think that the university would have looked to sponsor him for a professional visa long before now, given how highly they appear to value his knowledge.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I don't honestly see a contradiction in the concepts of showing Christian love to the truly needy paired with the concept of protecting the people you're supposed to be serving. I think if I fled my country with little more than the clothes I was wearing at the time I'd be quite happy to be checked out to make sure I was telling the truth, particularly in this day and age where there's no way of knowing who is a genuine refugee and who is posing as a refugee to gain entry to a country they wish to harm.

The professor facing deportation appears, from what I can tell from the article, to have stayed in the country illegally when his original visa expired. That poses a twofold question - firstly when violations of immigration law should be enforced and under what circumstances they should be ignored, and an associated question of how he was working as an associate professor if he didn't have a legal right to be there in the first place.

A problem with the issue of legal and illegal immigration is that there is only so much that can be done at government level and essentially illegal immigrants are doing little more than deciding, based on nothing more than their own desires, to flout the law because they think they can get away with it. While there is certainly some merit in a flexible enforcement of the law, at the same time it needs to be enforced in a reasonably consistent and predictable manner so as not to create a de facto loophole that can be exploited by anyone who happens to know about it.

One might think a well educated immigrant who contributes to his local community would be an obvious candidate for permanent residency. One might also think that the university would have looked to sponsor him for a professional visa long before now, given how highly they appear to value his knowledge.
Should we as Christians remain silent and turn our backs on the needy?
There are a number of persecuted minorities in refugee camps that are facing persecution in the camps.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Should we as Christians remain silent and turn our backs on the needy?
There are a number of persecuted minorities in refugee camps that are facing persecution in the camps.

I wasn't aware I'd ever suggested turning our backs on the needy. No solution is going to be perfect - if we simply throw open the borders then we commit inexcusable negligence against those exposed to all sorts of new dangers and if we keep people in some kind of holding facility while they are processed there's a risk they will have issues while in the holding camp.

A key question is whether conditions in the holding camp are better or worse than the conditions being fled.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
cdamps huh? be careful what you wish for
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
cdamps huh? be careful what you wish for

What is there to be careful of? The options are pretty simple where would-be migrants are concerned:

1. Throw open the borders and let anyone in unrestricted.
2. Hold would-be migrants in some kind of facility while they are processed
3. Reject all would-be migrants unless they have adequate documentation

Ultimately we have to pick one of these options. We either let anyone in, or we refuse to let anyone in, or we process people and don't let them in pending processing. The facility could be anything from a refugee camp as we currently understand it, to requiring them to stay in their country of origin while they are processed, to some other facility where they stay pending processing.

Option (1) represents a risk to the nationals of the receiving nation. Option (3) is inhumane towards those in genuine need of asylum. Option (2) remains as the best option, and from there the next question is what form of facility should be used to house would-be migrants.
 
Top Bottom