by Al Benson Jr.
Eileen Flynn did an article for Cox News Service on October 20, 2008 in which she said: “According to the Faith in Public Life survey, younger evangelicals are more likely than their elders to support bigger government with more services and show more support for diplomacy versus military strength abroad.” Now I have no problem with genuine diplomacy, although I don’t think we get much of that anymore, and I think it’s long past time that America should quit trying to be the world’s policeman. All that has done is to cost us American lives and much financial loss as well as the loss of good will around the world. Of course the multi-nationals are reaping big profits while everyone else suffers. As they say, follow the money. What bothers me is the seeming evangelical willingness to go along with more and bigger government. Where is that supported in Scripture? Didn’t any of these people even read 1 Samuel 8:10-20? The government has stepped in and taken over in many areas the churches used to be active in until many churches started practicing retreatism and were willing to accept Christianity as a “sub-culture.” I wonder where they ever got that idea–but then that’s a story for another series of articles which I guarantee would really tick lots of folks off.
There seems to be little discernment today among young evangelicals as to what the proper functions of government are (or aren’t). Of course if the majority of them attended public schools then that should come as no surprise. Many evangelicals are big supporters of public education and don’t want to hear about any other kind. One young evangelical noted that “Jesus is constantly talking about taking care of the poor, taking care of the least of these.” And she honestly thinks that Obama’s platform better reflects the Gospel! This young lady needs to learn the lesson that party platforms, no matter which party, are strictly for public consumption and seldom reflect what a politician does once he is in office. Party platforms are for the gullible who actually think the president or whover will actually do what he said he would. I agree that Jesus is concerned for the poor, but where in Scripture does He advocate big government “taking care” of them? And how does the program of a Marxist candidate reflect the Gospel? Somehow that one is just a bit much for me to swallow.
In an article from http://www.cnn.com for July 2, 2008 it was noted that “Brian McLaren, a former pastor who spent 24 years in the pulpit and is now an informal advisor to the Obama campaign, believes that a significant portion of evangelical voters are ready to break from their traditional home in the Republican Party and take a new leap of faith with Obama.” McLaren stated: “I think there’s a very, very sizable percentage–I think between a third and half–of evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals who are very open to someone with a new vision.” Only problem is that Obama’s “new vision” is really the old, failed vision of Marxism and the poor evangelicals can’t figure that out. And part of that “new vision” is the desire to end “global warming” and the war in Iraq. I can agree with them about the war in Iraq, where we never should have been in the first place, but in light of the “climate gate” revelations only a few years ago I think they really ought to be willing to take another look at the global warming scam–if the media will ever actually report on it. On the other hand, maybe you had better check out the Internet. The “news” media won’t give you anything even approaching an honest viewpoint.
Another young evangelical noted that the Republicans had failed to deliver on the abortion issue. He was right, they did, but voting for a candidate who was openly pro-abortion and openly in favor of sodomite marriages somehow doesn’t strike me as a solution to that problem.
And often, the leadership in many denominations lets their people down. When they could give their congregations some truth, they take a pass and continue on with the usual leftist propaganda. A case in point in Richard D. Land of the Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. According to an article on July 19, 2010 on http://gulagbound.com by Arlen Williams “He (Land) is supporting the ‘transnational progressives’ cynical and destructive policy for imposing a virtual open borders policy and granting of amnesty to America’s multiple millions of illegal aliens. And he is joined by Matthew Staver, of Liberty Counsel and the frequently leftist-leaning Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, the world’s leading proponent of ‘seeker sensitive’ evangelical church services, this according to the New York Times article of July 18, 2010, ‘Obama Gains Evangelical Allies on Immigration.'”
Of course Richard Land has been listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. That he even belongs to this One World government organization should tell you something.
For decades the term “social gospel” was the Christian equivalent of a four-letter word. The social gospel was something that liberal “Christians” introduced as far back as the 1880s. (Yes, there were liberals back then and before). Gary North had an interesting way of describing it when he said: “When you hear the words social gospel immediately think ‘Pastors justification of armed government agents acting on behalf of certain special-interest voting blocs to take wealth away from other groups of citizens in order to benefit these special interests.’ This is exactly what the Social Gospel has always been. The central moral, judicial, and political issue of the Social Gospel is compulsion.” Mr. North, on http://www.garynorth.com (I don’t have a date for this article) noted that the Social Gospel started to become more prominent in the early 1900s, after it was adopted by the old Rockefeller-funded Federal Council of Churches, which in the 1950s morphed into the National Council of Churches. North states, and quite correctly, “The Social Gospel asks this question: What would Jesus steal? It’s answer: As much as he can convince politicians to vote for.”
Having said that, we now come to Jim Wallis, “the American Evangelical Community’s Most Famous Promoter.” Gary North observed that “Jim Wallis supports the economic conclusions of the Social Gospel. This is the #1 fact of his ministry and activism. This is understandable. In his youth he was a Marxist, or so the entry on KeyWiki says, for which it offers evidence.” North states, and correctly in my view, that “The Social Gospel is a theological defense of the welfare state.”
You expected to find liberals and liberal churches supporting the Social Gospel. So why are evangelicals now supporting it? This is the kind of thing the new evangelical movement supposedly left the liberal churches to get away from. North observed of Social Gospel proponents in evangelicalism that: “Ron Sider arrived in 1977 with Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. He faded rapidly in the mid-1980s, to be replaced by sociologist Tony Campolo. Campolo’s close connection with President Clinton as one of his spiritual counselors backfired during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998. Campolo then rapidly disappeared from the evangelical scene. Today, Jim Wallis is the best-known representative…Jim Wallis holds to Ron Sider’s original vision…” Anyone remember Mr. Sider? We started out with him in part one of this series. All these above-mentioned evangelical leaders have spent more than ordinary time promoting a leftist version of what Christianity should be.
The fact that the evangelical community has within its fold men who promote what only liberals promoted decades ago shows that the evangelical community has been severely penetrated by what may well be a creeping apostasy. Evangelicals need to start checking out some of those that burst suddenly upon their scene to attract a following and take the time and effort to find out where these people are really coming from.