Ted Haggard and the Political Christian
For nearly two years now I've had one central mission: undo the damage partially sponsored by my over anxious theonomic forebears. In an effort to reshape America by politics conservative Christians lifted from the pages of Christian Reconstructionists a permission slip to create a Christian America. Now 26 years later conservative Christians are drinking the dregs of their unbiblical venture.
How ironic it is that a mega-church charismatic pastor would be elected as president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA) and granted insider access to the Bush-Rove White House. I remember a time when Charismatics were simply dismissed as foolish, babbling, holy-rollers. With the advent of the mega-church, and its power as a voting bloc, any and all Christians were now potential rulers. If anything, the dumber they are, the better.
Ted Haggard is symbolic because he epitomizes all that's wrong with the post-1980 Christian. They are hypocritical, self-indulgent, middle-class, suburban, materialistic, reactionary, and easy to manipulate. The indestructible age of the mega-church doesn't appear long-lasting as political fallout, sexual scandal, and the emergent and house church movements undermine its foundation. I expect the exodus to continue.
Not too far behind is the head of Focus on the Family, James Dobson. Whenever someone brings up his name or ministry I like to say, "Focus on the Family? Man, I wish he would!"
Dobson is in trouble. His friends in the White House were actually calling him a "nut" behind his back, his constituency were "no shows" in the last election, and his good buddy Ted turned out to be one of the most active homosexual/adulterers we've seen in a while (I mean, honestly, who could compare to Ol' Ted?). I don't expect Dobson to bow out, but without a sufficient "bogeyman" Dobson will find it difficult to rally the troops. He could use a Hillary Clinton presidency about now.
Political Christianity has done more damage than what the public sees. The real fallout is within the Christian community. The hero worship of the modern church is leaving a great many evangelical disillusioned by the Haggard scandal and the defeat of the GOP. And that's the problem. The political emphasis was problematic from the start, and many reconstructionists share the blame.
R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North were divided over the foundational spheres of authority. North gave priority to the institutional church while Rushdoony "focused on the family." North advocated dominion in the political sphere while Rushdoony placed emphasis upon Christian self-government, although he would never discourage Christian participation in the political process.
The rise of the Religious Right in the early 80s was due, in my opinion, to the intoxicating lure of politics and it's two-fold temptation of money and power -- even if the money and the power is to be used "for God". The political organizing of these early Christian groups was unparalleled. Now, they are all dressed up and have no place to go. They still possess the money and the power. They also have the established infrastructure, but lack any direction other than a few judge placements and some legislation. Is that all this was about?
I once told Chip Berlet of the Political Research Associates, a dominionist researcher, that if the Christian Right gleaned their motivation to invade politics from the writings of Rushdoony, then he should use those same writings to curb their enthusiasm. With Rushdoony dominion meant Christian self-government in the areas of social concern.
This means we feed, clothe, and educate our own outside of the jurisdiction of the state. The purpose, despite the misconstruing of our critics, is never militant or violent. When we say "government" we mean Christian self-government. When others say "government" they mean civil government. Therefore, when we say "dominion" we do not mean a political takeover. We mean a taking dominion back from the rule of the state. This is a Christian theocracy. Rushdoony said it best, although none of his critics ever quote him:
Less statism is only achieved by a return to Christian self-government. So, how about you shut down the lobbying groups and give that "tithe" money back to the people so they can get out of debt, give their children a Christian education, care for the poor in their communities, and improve the health and well-being of those near to them?
America is not a Christian nation because of a document or century-old ruling by a Federal judge. In fact, America is not the point. Maps change over time. Our country is barely 230 years old and we think we're the sum total of all that is right. We're not. America is not our identity. Our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), and our task is to do His will on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). If these statements conjure up visions of lobbying in Washington D.C., then you're missing the point.
Civil service is a good thing; but there is greater need within the Christian family and Christian churches. The effects of modern living are taking their toll on the contemporary family. Christian men are addicted to pornography, women are tied down in the workplace, and Christian children are still filling the halls of public schools. What have you achieved with an ostensibly Christian president if your divorce rates remain steady and your most prominent pastors turn out gay?
Modern republicans have done a great deal of damage to this country, and we are on a path to totalitarianism from which we will not escape. I hold no hope that the Democrats will overturn the Patriot Act or the torture bill. The present saber-rattling in the media regarding a nuclear Iran is clear indication that the dogs of war are far from finished. There are tumultuous days a head and only an alert Christian citizenry can be prepared to minister to their countrymen in times of national crisis.
We are first a nation of priests called to shew forth the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). Therefore, I challenge all of us to fulfill our role as kingly-priests to our families and churches so that we may be better prepared to serve our world. If you want to lead, then the Scripture says you must become the servant of all (Matt. 25:27). Remember, it is "the princes of the Gentiles that exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you" (v.25-26).
It is non-Christians, Jesus is saying, that seek political power. His people must seek first to become ministers.
1. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology in Two Volumes (Ross House Books: Vallecito, CA 1994), p. 1141f.
How ironic it is that a mega-church charismatic pastor would be elected as president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA) and granted insider access to the Bush-Rove White House. I remember a time when Charismatics were simply dismissed as foolish, babbling, holy-rollers. With the advent of the mega-church, and its power as a voting bloc, any and all Christians were now potential rulers. If anything, the dumber they are, the better.
Ted Haggard is symbolic because he epitomizes all that's wrong with the post-1980 Christian. They are hypocritical, self-indulgent, middle-class, suburban, materialistic, reactionary, and easy to manipulate. The indestructible age of the mega-church doesn't appear long-lasting as political fallout, sexual scandal, and the emergent and house church movements undermine its foundation. I expect the exodus to continue.
Not too far behind is the head of Focus on the Family, James Dobson. Whenever someone brings up his name or ministry I like to say, "Focus on the Family? Man, I wish he would!"
Dobson is in trouble. His friends in the White House were actually calling him a "nut" behind his back, his constituency were "no shows" in the last election, and his good buddy Ted turned out to be one of the most active homosexual/adulterers we've seen in a while (I mean, honestly, who could compare to Ol' Ted?). I don't expect Dobson to bow out, but without a sufficient "bogeyman" Dobson will find it difficult to rally the troops. He could use a Hillary Clinton presidency about now.
Political Christianity has done more damage than what the public sees. The real fallout is within the Christian community. The hero worship of the modern church is leaving a great many evangelical disillusioned by the Haggard scandal and the defeat of the GOP. And that's the problem. The political emphasis was problematic from the start, and many reconstructionists share the blame.
R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North were divided over the foundational spheres of authority. North gave priority to the institutional church while Rushdoony "focused on the family." North advocated dominion in the political sphere while Rushdoony placed emphasis upon Christian self-government, although he would never discourage Christian participation in the political process.
The rise of the Religious Right in the early 80s was due, in my opinion, to the intoxicating lure of politics and it's two-fold temptation of money and power -- even if the money and the power is to be used "for God". The political organizing of these early Christian groups was unparalleled. Now, they are all dressed up and have no place to go. They still possess the money and the power. They also have the established infrastructure, but lack any direction other than a few judge placements and some legislation. Is that all this was about?
I once told Chip Berlet of the Political Research Associates, a dominionist researcher, that if the Christian Right gleaned their motivation to invade politics from the writings of Rushdoony, then he should use those same writings to curb their enthusiasm. With Rushdoony dominion meant Christian self-government in the areas of social concern.
This means we feed, clothe, and educate our own outside of the jurisdiction of the state. The purpose, despite the misconstruing of our critics, is never militant or violent. When we say "government" we mean Christian self-government. When others say "government" they mean civil government. Therefore, when we say "dominion" we do not mean a political takeover. We mean a taking dominion back from the rule of the state. This is a Christian theocracy. Rushdoony said it best, although none of his critics ever quote him:
According to a common error, theocracy means the rule of men in the name of God. The Bible clearly contradicts this view. The state in Scripture is a minimal institution, and so too is the church an institution. The rule of God's law is essentially through the lives of men as they apply their faith, and as they create tithe agencies to govern various areas and needs. Where faith wanes, the theocracy wanes. The Book of Judges gives us no change in polity from beginning to end, but it gives us an alternation from peace and prosperity to oppression and tyranny, and the key is faith. The essential government comes from the self-government of the Christian man. The U.S. was best governed when it was least governed, not because less control from the state was the essential ingredient but because Christian self-government was central in the eras of good government. Without strong, self-governing Christians taking back self-government under Christ in health, welfare, education, and more, we cannot return by politics to less statism.[1]That last portion bears repeating in all caps: WE CANNOT RETURN BY POLITICS TO LESS STATISM. This is what the Christian Right must understand, or else relinquish the title "conservative." The goal of old conservatism is less government. The Biblical ideal is less rule by the state. How then, Mr. Dobson, Mr. Haggard, and Mr. Perkins, can you gain the conservative ideal of less statism through political means? Just by organizing politically for such a goal would add yet another committee to the behemoth bureaucracy!
Less statism is only achieved by a return to Christian self-government. So, how about you shut down the lobbying groups and give that "tithe" money back to the people so they can get out of debt, give their children a Christian education, care for the poor in their communities, and improve the health and well-being of those near to them?
America is not a Christian nation because of a document or century-old ruling by a Federal judge. In fact, America is not the point. Maps change over time. Our country is barely 230 years old and we think we're the sum total of all that is right. We're not. America is not our identity. Our citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), and our task is to do His will on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). If these statements conjure up visions of lobbying in Washington D.C., then you're missing the point.
Civil service is a good thing; but there is greater need within the Christian family and Christian churches. The effects of modern living are taking their toll on the contemporary family. Christian men are addicted to pornography, women are tied down in the workplace, and Christian children are still filling the halls of public schools. What have you achieved with an ostensibly Christian president if your divorce rates remain steady and your most prominent pastors turn out gay?
Modern republicans have done a great deal of damage to this country, and we are on a path to totalitarianism from which we will not escape. I hold no hope that the Democrats will overturn the Patriot Act or the torture bill. The present saber-rattling in the media regarding a nuclear Iran is clear indication that the dogs of war are far from finished. There are tumultuous days a head and only an alert Christian citizenry can be prepared to minister to their countrymen in times of national crisis.
We are first a nation of priests called to shew forth the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). Therefore, I challenge all of us to fulfill our role as kingly-priests to our families and churches so that we may be better prepared to serve our world. If you want to lead, then the Scripture says you must become the servant of all (Matt. 25:27). Remember, it is "the princes of the Gentiles that exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you" (v.25-26).
It is non-Christians, Jesus is saying, that seek political power. His people must seek first to become ministers.
1. R. J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology in Two Volumes (Ross House Books: Vallecito, CA 1994), p. 1141f.
