Evangelicals decided in about 1976 that Jesus’ earthly ministry was essentially political and that he had intended to take over the Roman government precinct by precinct, using “get out the vote” drives and putting voter guides in synagogues each November. He was thwarted by a run-in with Roman authorities that turned out badly, but 2,000 years later evangelicals wish to fulfill Christ’s goal of gaining control of the modern secular superpower…
Jimmy Carter was the first “born again” president, but disappointed evangelicals by confessing his sins to a “skin” magazine (rather than to Rosalyn or to his accountability group) and quaffing Billy Beer. So the evangelical community threw it’s support behind an army of divorced Republicans – Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, John Engler, Bob Dole, Pete Wilson, John Kasich, Susan Molinari, and Newt Gingrich – who at least understood that the Bible allows for divorce if your staff assistant is cuter (see Matthew 5:31). As a group, these politicians came to represent America’s Moral Majority…
…Here is how evangelicals interpret Bible passages to arrive at their [political] positions:
“Remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10) really means “Remember how lazy the poor are and thank God you’re not on welfare like them.”
“My kingdom is not of this world.” (Jesus in John 18:36) really means “But for now, make sure you keep control of the White House and Congress.”
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Jesus in Matthew 22:21) really means “Only pay taxes on money you can’t hide from the IRS.”
“Thou shalt not kill” (God in Exodus 20:13) really means “Kill only those who deserve it – like death row inmates, abortion doctors, sworn enemies of the United States, and the French, when possible.”
“The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it” (Genesis 2:!5) really means “Don’t worry about the environment because when Jesus comes back he’ll destroy the earth anyway.”
From A Guide To Evangelicals and Their Habitat.
True or not? Well if you’re laughing it probably is to some extent. If you’re not…it probably still is.
Anonymous says:
I appreciated it and thought it was funny, too, Shaun—just in case that didn’t come across in my first comment.
Anonymous says:
<span class=”deleted-comment”>This post has been removed by the author.</span>
Anonymous says:
I’ll do my best to break that silence.
While some of these statements are accurate to some people, I think you (or at least Joel Kilpatrick) sell many, erm, “conservative Christians” (I guess that means me) short by confusing their political stances with their theological ones. An example of what I mean:
“Thou shalt not kill” (God in Exodus 20:13) really means “Kill only those who deserve it – like death row inmates, abortion doctors, sworn enemies of the United States, and the French, when possible.”
God’s command in Exodus has to be taken in context: it’s part of a Law that includes numerous death penalties, therefore it must be speaking to murder (personal vengeance/harm) rather than all taking of human life. How can a government (which is instituted by God), “not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4) if it does not have the power to kill? Politically, then, the command “You shall not murder” has no bearing on government; it is a command to the individual, who must not commit murder (through malice or through negligence). The power (and right) to kill is corporate, governmental, and political—the act of murder is personal and theological.
As for another:
“Remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10) really means “Remember how lazy the poor are and thank God you’re not on welfare like them.”
Ah! But right-thinking Christians realize that it’s a shame the government needs welfare because it’s an indication that the church is not doing its job for the poor. Once again, the line between the political (institution of welfare) and theological (the Body’s responsibility to the poor) is being blurred.
And my personal favorite:
“The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it” (Genesis 2:5) really means “Don’t worry about the environment because when Jesus comes back he’ll destroy the earth anyway.”
Hmm…doesn’t take long to realize that we ain’t in the Garden anymore, Dorothy. But take a look at a command that actually is relevant to our fallen world: Genesis 1:28-30. Even though man’s responsibility is no longer to tend and care for a perfect Garden, he does have the responsibility to subdue the earth—not letting the environment rule over him. That’s my bottom line when I try to evaluate a stance on the environment: is man subduing the environment, or letting the environment control him?
Perhaps I’m defending myself from an attack that was only aimed at Newt Gingrich, but somehow I feel that Kilpatrick’s talking about me, too. Couldn’t let that one go.
Nickie says:
This really made me laugh, but it’s sad that this can be all too true.
Anonymous says:
Anonymous,
Nobody’s judging anyone. I encourage everyone reading to realize that we can disagree and argue until the sun goes down without judging anyone. Please stop playing the “stop judging” card when the discussion gets dangerous. Let’s all take a step out of our comfort zones and not be afraid to question anything.
Anonymous says:
Yes, I was going to come up with Sojourners as the answer to maxwedge’s question as to the existence of a religious left.