Cobb

I disagree Cobb.

1. America is in a state of moral collapse, at least on a personal, level, it is always been socially morally destitute but with the increase in relativistic post-modern humanistic thought, and an anything goes mentality, you would have to agree that we are in a totally different, and much more negative individual moral climate today than ever before.

2. I don't think most 'Christian Right' individuals give anymore time to their particular political stances than another other group that has a position based upon a world view or strongly held believe, IE homosexuals, blacks, unions. I do however think that their allegiance to the Republican party is misguided for a variety of reasons but I understand it.

3. The apostle Paul said, "I have become all things to all people so that by some means I may save a few". Cultural and political climate has always played a role in the response of people to God, you can see it in Proverbs where Solomon discusses the people under a tyranny, and the people under righteousness. The children of Israel when there was a righteous king versus an idol worshipper. In a democracy, or democratic republic as we are, we are the ones that determine 'the nature of the king' through our elected officials and the legislative process, so why wouldn't the Christian fight in that regard? Why wouldn't they extol the virtues of faith, Christ and Christianity through the greatest medium of television and the lessor medium of movies? Since they don't have ESP, and aren't Cardiologist, don't you think they have to find a way into 'the hearts and minds'?

I think you give these individuals to little credit and are very guilty in over-steriotyping them as a voting block. Being from the midwest and going through an evangelical university I have had the opportunity to debate and relate to many of these folks, and I will pick them over any other major voting block today, in terms of overall integrity and desire to maintain a simply sense of right and wrong.

Perhaps I am giving too much credit to the blogosphere and the shrill styles of debate we endure. I would like to believe that Jeremy Pierce is representative of the moral center of America and that their spiritual and philosophical leaders were more influential in our society than those who take up most of our attention. But I think the country has a lot more inertia than what goes on in the media suggests.

By the way, this change at Cobb is me deciding that 'Lucifer Jones' is not going to be a separate and distinct blog and personality. I'm simply going to slide over and be more the social and spiritual investigator than the political in the months and years ahead. So this is a perfect topic.

Let me say that I understand and recognize and generally agree with Dobson. If I have doubts about a film I want my kids to see, I use his website. But I think a lot of our religious leaders tend to be like Dobson in a Dr. Phil kind of way. Which is to say homey and provincial - somebody you would expect to hear on the 6 Oclock news. I have yet to see in my lifetime any religious figure from America who has the presense and power to speak beyond the pulpit.

If Osama Bin Laden's vision of Islam has grown a global following, which American Christian has done likewise? There is no American equivalent of Desmond Tutu. There appears to me to be no American cleric who isn't a nationalist, whose highest ambition in affecting the lives of people isn't changing the American Constitution or American foreign policy. If George W. Bush is the evil man besmirching America that so many of his opponents think he is, then everybody in the world should be able to say well at least there is So and So: America isn't completely bonkers.

So and So doesn't exist.

The Christian Right is, however, the most vocal and dominant force for change in American religious life, and while a lot of things they say makes sense for Peoria, very little of it applies globally. You simply cannot compare Dobson to Neibuhr. You cannot compare Pat Robertson to MLK. We are suffering an inferior brand of Christianity today, and that needs to be repaired.

Billy Graham, before he got old and sick? He used to do all those very popular crusades, or revivals, whatever they were, all over the world, and pretty much defined evangelical Christianity. And he didn't push a political agenda, or at least I don't remember him doing that.

(Dell: Good points. The Religous Right has as much right to try to bring about its version of America through the ballot box and all other legal means as anyone else.)

The secular left is as guilty as the religious right in the agenda pushing and scare tactics arena. While the right cries about moral demise, the left whines about the theocracy that is coming.

And the Democrats do try and appeal to Christians. Like {many} Catholics at Easter they show up at church around election time, looking all nervous, wondering if anyone notices it's their first visit in 2, 4 or 6 years (depends on election cycles of the office).

The Religious Right has as much right to try to bring about its version of America through the ballot box and all other legal means as anyone else.

True, but it is not the mission of Christians to do so. Unless it is a means to spreading the Gospel. A good example is Mother Teresa. When asked why she did what she did her answer was to serve the Catholic Church. It wasn't because she felt any compassion for the poor souls she helped, which she must have felt to do the work she did for so long, but all of that compassion and work that won her a Nobel prize to was for the benefit of the Catholic Church.

By contrast, I see in American Christianity too much done for the benefit of "Church people" (ie making things more comfortable for them and situations more compatible with their world view) instead of the benefit of The Church (ie facilitating its growth and supporting is mission of spreading the Gospel) The result of the later are whole segments of industry coming to full fill these "needs" For 'Christians by Christians' How does that spread the Gospel ?

BH, I disagree about that being the mission of Christians. There is a little more to that mission than spreading the gospel.

I go to work every day (off this week, in case you're wondering why I'm still here pecking) in order to provide for my family. It's the legitimate mission of a Christian to do so, I think. And it's our civic duty to vote and pick the best candidates we can to make good decisions for our country; isn't that part of "rendering unto Caesar"?

Laura,
That is what you need to live. You'd be doing that if you weren't a Christian. But as Christian it is your call to spread the Gospel. Anything you do in the name of Christ ought to be about that.

"Rendering to Caesar" just means pay your taxes. Not that you shouldn't carefully and prayerfully select your leaders. Or that you shouldn't run for office.

But you see a lot of political parties, lobbying groups, production companies, retailers, etc. masquerading as The Church. While their actions may benefit "Church People" much of the time it is not furthering the gospel beyond church people. I will even say that most of them only have self interests at heart anyway, and I remember Christ throwing such people out Temple for actions like that.

I agree about the political parties masquerading as the Church. My denomination, Christian (Disciples of Christ), has some "leaders" that come up with some pretty strange stuff: denouncing Israel for putting up that security fence, for instance. I put quotes around "leaders" because I don't know who exactly they lead. You have to poke around online to get information on exactly what they're up to. I know they haven't asked the rank-and-file members of my fairly large church what they think, and I sure as heck know the church members aren't aware of all the things the leaders are saying the church is for or against. So I don't know how realistic it is to say that they lead anything. And I joined this church thinking that we were neutral on political stuff - well, the local church mostly is, and that will have to do.

But. If people are upfront about what they are doing, and why, and they make common cause with other people, I really don't see a problem with that. God knows that unreligious people get together and make things happen all the time. If religious people want to push back a little, great. We need dialog and dynamics, as much as we get irritated on an individual level when people fight and disagree, otherwise we'll go over a cliff.

For one saying that democrats are too dumb to make appeals to Christians is dumb. The fact that people were more concern with gay marriages than our troops going overseas to kill more people is outlandish.

For one saying that democrats are too dumb to make appeals to Christians is dumb. The fact that people were more concern with gay marriages than our troops going overseas to kill more people is outlandish.

For one saying that democrats are too dumb to make appeals to Christians is dumb. The fact that people were more concern with gay marriages than our troops going overseas to kill more people is outlandish.