The Evangelical "Political Gospel"
Venerable evangelical historian Richard Pierard -- I met him too many years ago at a professional conference -- has penned an insightful column for Ethics Daily about the current evangelical embrace of what he calls a "political gospel." He places this in some degree in contrast to the Social Gospel of yesteryear. The difference? The Social Gospel, whatever you might think of its theological foundations (liberal), it had at its heart concern for the betterment of humanity.
This new "Political Gospel," well it's individualist, Americanist, militarist, and market oriented. It is as defined by conservative political ends as the Social Gospel was by liberal ones. The question then is -- how does this reflect the gospel of Jesus?
That is a question that I've been thinking about lately as I've listened to the candidates speak to the economic difficulties. I wonder how they would respond to Jesus' statements about turning the other cheek or giving up all that one has to the poor? What is the central theology that moves these candidates, all of whom claim Christian faith?
Pierard's essay, is brief, to the point, and worth considering! Read here.
This new "Political Gospel," well it's individualist, Americanist, militarist, and market oriented. It is as defined by conservative political ends as the Social Gospel was by liberal ones. The question then is -- how does this reflect the gospel of Jesus?
That is a question that I've been thinking about lately as I've listened to the candidates speak to the economic difficulties. I wonder how they would respond to Jesus' statements about turning the other cheek or giving up all that one has to the poor? What is the central theology that moves these candidates, all of whom claim Christian faith?
Pierard's essay, is brief, to the point, and worth considering! Read here.
Comments
I think you'd have to say that Jimmy Carter is the most Christian of presidents, but he's not been judged among the most effective. Jefferson was a by his definition a Christian, but he was also a rationalist (as was Washington). Abe Lincoln may have been the greatest American President, but he was more spiritual than religious.
Wilson was devout, but . . . Bush is by confession a believer, but then so is Bill Clinton.
So, when vetting a candidate one's Christianity is probably not the best of criteria.
The question is simply.. would we recognize a Gospel presidency in a country that seeks to freedom from religion?
How would we recognize a gospel inspired presidency? I would suggest that such a person would show compassion, grace; would make non-violence pre-eminent, etc.
In the 2000 debates (I think it was 2000), George W. Bush said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher. The question is: in what way has Jesus influenced your perspective -- how you do your job.
As for whether the nation seeks freedom from religion, I would have to disagree. Nothing says that religion needs to be absent from public life, the question has to do with how.
For instance -- is a National Day of Prayer an appropriate observance? I'm not sure, but I will say that too often it is used for political purposes and to exclude -- as was true in this community, where non-Christians were barred from participating in an event. So, the question is more complex.