.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Corruption of faith

How is it that the "most faithful" believers of a religion of peace and turn the other cheek have been the top supporters of war?
Just over half of the white evangelicals who attend church at least weekly said the war was the right decision and the extra troops were helping, while about four in 10 said the war is a success — well more than Catholics and Protestants measured in the survey.

This is not intended as a snark post, I mean this as a real question. What has gone on in the Christian movement that it has become so distanced from what I understand to be the traditional doctrines of the New Testament?

Historically, evangelicals stayed out of politics fearing its corruptive influence. It wasn't until the rise of the large televised ministries (and now the subsequent organization into megachurches) that they were mobilized.

What has happened that these groups' primary message to outsiders has now become political rather than religious?

Just speaking a little heresy on a Sunday morning.

11 Comments:

  • I've noticed that most of the evangelicals I've grown up with live their faith not through love but through division. They're not empowered through the love of Christ but empowered through the their "correct" interpretation of scripture. And the feeling that being "born again" is a unique source of Salvation that no one else can experience except those that "believe rightly" can experience.

    I think their whole worship tradition makes them easily conditioned to suggestion due to their feeling of being in a unique state of Grace.

    Like most mass movements with a cult-like ritual structure they're easily manipulated.

    By Blogger matt, at 4:01 PM  

  • The focus seems to be on the Old Testament these days, Apocalypse and Divine retribution....not a very cheerful bunch.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:12 PM  

  • Matt, so you see it as an element of fundamentalism (in the dictionary, not religious sense.)

    The national movement is interesting to me, though, because their foundation was largely a rejection of traditional religion in favor of small very independent congregations.

    ...

    Anon, I agree. I'm always a little fascinated when the protestants reference back to before the covenant of Jesus. From my understanding, Jesus and his "new deal" represented a reforming of the covenant that disclaims the relationship outlined in the old testament.

    But I'm definitely not an expert. It's all voodoo to me.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 4:33 PM  

  • I think Matt is dead on. I'd also add that true believers often rationalize why it is OK for them to violate the "rules" in order to promote the faith. For example GWB, trashes the Constitution in his effort to protect America and promote American-style freedom and democracy abroad.

    Fundamentalism is more than a little bit of a mental health issue, in my opinion.

    By Blogger -epm, at 4:46 PM  

  • I've read some pretty interesting stuff on fundamentalism as a localized cultrual phenomenon. (Not just religious, but political, and even business.)

    Fundamentalism is a developed culture that generally ends up eating itself in its search for purity.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:30 PM  

  • To wit the religious right and the current crop of GOP contenders?

    By Blogger -epm, at 5:50 PM  

  • Evangelical Christianity in the U.S. has long tended toward a kind of shallow, God & Country, belief system. There is little ability to distinguish between "nation" and "government."

    This is especially true in matters of war and peace. I suspect in most of these churches you will find wide support for any war, anywhere, anytime. All it takes is for a president to wave the flag and push the right buttons.

    Combine this with the natural human reluctance to admit mistakes, and evangelicals can usually be counted on to back any war to the bitter end.

    By Blogger Patrick, at 6:06 PM  

  • I think evangelicals, as a group, tend to buy the 'clash of civilizations' argument.

    I think they operate out of fear that Christianity, their Christianity, is under pressure, both overt and subtle, by Muslim millions moving into the West, wearing headscarves and insisting upon their own ways of doing things, rather than adopting Western ways.

    I also think that evangelicals see liberal Americans and Europeans as enabling the 'takeover', by being 'soft on terrorism'.

    I think they see American troops as defending white Christianity.

    +++++++

    By Blogger r8r, at 8:26 PM  

  • Patrick, interesting point. I don't know enough about the evangelical belief system to fully concur, but I can say that there are churches that have been antiwar almost everytime.


    ....


    8r, That's a very interesting add on. Let me try to stretch it a little.

    Since they already feel that they're under attack here, by our culture, they're more willing to accept the idea of "holy war"/clash of civilizations because they feel they've been fighting it already?

    Maybe they're already wired to the "infidels" type of thinking?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:38 PM  

  • Of course there are always exceptions. I'm thinking mainly of the Southern Baptist church in which I grew up: nice, sincere people who just don't think through the implications of what they believe. Nor do they understand how inconsistent some of their actions are with the Bible they love so much.

    The hallmark of Protestantism, of course, is that everybody is entitled to interpret the Bible for themselves. No surprise that the interpretation tends to match the ideology they acquired through other means.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:01 AM  

  • Politics:
    Fear = Votes
    Religion:
    Fear = Higher attendance and MORE MONEY/Power! Which, after all, is all politicians and churchleaders strive for...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home