Evangelicalism's "social vision is fragmentary, often lacks substance and strategy, and focuses mainly on a one-issue or single-candidate approach." -- Carl Henry, 1980
In 1980, evangelicals were surging into politics. Henry: "Yet some observers fear--and with good reason--that this involvement may eventually become as politically misguided as was the activism of liberal Christianity earlier this century."
Henry: "If evangelicals settle only for single-issue or fragmentary [political] involvement, evangelicals will treat public concerns as but a marginal appendage to evangelism, and remain highly vulnerable to more comprehensive political strategies of nonevangelical groups."
"Legislation should benefit family structures, not penalize them. It should preserve the civil rights of all, including homosexuals, but not approve and advance immoral lifestyles."
Note that this is 1980. The 'including homosexuals' is a fascinating insertion.
"Massive and annually escalating military expenditures should not be heralded as unmitigated good news..."
"Implicit in the biblical view is a mandate to preserve the earth's limited resources." - -Henry
All this is from, "Evangelicals Jump on the Political Bandwagon," which has been included in this very nice volume of Henry's essays from @LexhamPress. amazon.com/Architect-Evan…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is an admirable piece by @JohnPiper. But I'll confess I'm perplexed by the argument that pride is killing people equivalently to abortion, and that we should include that as part of our *political* reasoning. desiringgod.org/articles/polic…
One question is simply empirical: *does* a "culture-saturating, pro-self pride" actually kill people in the sense relevant that we could even compare it to abortion?
It certainly kills the soul, and we should fear that worse than the death of the body (Mt. 10:28).
While pride's effects on the polity may be considerable, they also seem indirect. Whether and how the government constrains the evils that arise from pride would therefore seem like an extraordinarily difficult matter of prudential judgment.
I suspect many evangelicals have discounted the importance of the 'marginally committed' to our communities.
Those who are 'marginally committed' to a church might only show up once a month. They might even only show up on Christmas and Easter.
Yet when there are enough of them, they give a community a sense of energy and vitality that it otherwise would lack.
Because evangelicalism has its roots as a renewal movement within existing institutions--think Wesley as an Anglican--there are deep pressures to make everyone "fully committed."
That doesn't just mean church attendance: it means daily devotionals, Christian music, etc.
The scandal the Religious Right has brought upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ by protecting such degeneracy breaks my heart. reuters.com/investigates/s…
This is false. The reason the media is fascinated is because they hate people who demand traditional moral values *for others* while flagrantly violating them *ourselves.*
Evangelicals who spend their time opposing the 'false teachings' that are infiltrating the church so often miss the real task, namely, creatively rearticulating the faith so that the needs those 'false teachings' are responding to fall to the ground.
Discerning how the faith we have received addresses the needs of the hour can only be done by carefully hearing our critics, rather than reactionarily dismissing them.
This applies widely, I think, but seems especially pertinent to matters of ethics these days--namely, race and sex.
@DavidAFrench I suspect the best way to think about @HawleyMO's bill is to treat it as supply-side regulation: it's not *opposed* to 'personal responsibility,' or individual freedom, but is aimed at altering the marketplace conditions in which those are expressed.
@DavidAFrench@HawleyMO Whether this sort of approach is justified hangs, I suspect, on whether you adopt the prior commitment that big tech and social media companies are *predatory* in the way pharmaceutical companies were in spreading opiods.
This is a good thread by @DouthatNYT, though I think conflating 'integralism' with an interest in preserving a soft establishment of religion is conceptually confusing given the way the former is explicitly grounded in RC doctrine.
I think it also lends credence to my suspicion that beneath the French/Ahmari debate lies specific differences in how evangelicals and Catholics are interpreting the failure of the 1980-2008 attempt to forge a socon consensus.
Evangelical politics between 1980-2008 were, on one level, indisputably 'integralist.' Yet they were also deeply unhealthy, and indisputably corrosive to the evangelical churches' witness.