Doc's Talk: Showboating Evangelical Elites Split With Congregations on Issues

Sunday, July 08, 2012

Showboating Evangelical Elites Split With Congregations on Issues

Evangelicals are known for taking conservative political positions, which is reflected in public opinion polls. But over the past few years several organizations and leaders claiming to represent them have issued a series of faddish, publicity-seeking public statements pronouncing left-leaning positions on political issues. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is one of the worst offenders, along with a few pastors of mega-churches. Notably, a majority of the most well-known and respected evangelical leaders have not gone along with these declarations. The NAE represents 45,000 churches from 40 evangelical Protestant denominations. Ironically, the NAE was originally founded in 1942 to counter the more liberal Federal Council of Churches of Christ (precursor to the National Council of Churches).

The evangelical elites started to drift to the left on global warming in 2006. 86 evangelical leaders, including mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, signed the grandstanding “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” demanding that federal legislation be passed mandating a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. However, the names of prominent respected evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham and Jay Sekulow were conspicuously missing. Several longtime evangelical leaders including James Dobson, Chuck Colson and the late Dr. James Kennedy responded with a statement of their own declaring, “Global warming is not a consensus issue” and asked the NAE not to take a position.

The following year, Dobson became so disturbed by NAE Vice-President Reverend Richard Cizik’s “relentless campaigning” against global warming that he essentially demanded his resignation. American Family Association Chairman Don Wildmon, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and 22 other nationally renowned evangelical leaders signed the letter. NAE president Leith Anderson responded by praising Cizik’s activism. Cizik eventually resigned from his position with NAE in 2008 after expressing support for civil unions. In 2009, many prominent evangelicals pushed back and signed “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which disputes that global warming is manmade.

The evangelical elites’ position on global warming stands in stark contrast to evangelicals generally. Only 33% of evangelicals consider global warming a major issue, compared to 55% of non-evangelicals. Church-level Protestant leadership is equally skeptical of global warming. According to a survey by Lifeway Research, 60% of Protestant pastors don’t believe in manmade global warming. 41% – up from 27% in 2008 – “strongly disagree” that man is causing global warming and an additional 19% “somewhat disagree.” Only 23% “strongly agree” and 13% “somewhat agree.” Evangelical pastors disagree even more. 68% of evangelical pastors “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree” that man causes global warming. Only 14% strongly agree that global warming is real and manmade.

The NAE issued a declaration in 2007 opposing enhanced interrogation techniques. It renounced “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” However, polling reveals that 54% of those who attend church at least once weekly – generally evangelicals – believe that enhanced interrogation techniques are often or sometimes justifiable. Evangelicals demonstrate higher levels of support for combating terrorism than the rest of the population due to their affinity for Israel. So it was equally aberrant when the NAE issued a statement in November practically callng for nuclear disarmament. NAE leadership wrote in an editorial, “We question the acceptability of nuclear weapons as part of a just national defense.” The NAE implied that relying upon nuclear weapons might be idolatrous, claiming that the Bible supports its left wing position without actually citing any scripture, “Scripture shows that national military might too often takes the place of trust in God.”

Last year, several evangelical leaders aligned with Obama to support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. In June of 2011 the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution asking the government to implement a “just and compassionate path to legal status” for illegal immigrants. The NAE issued a resolution in 2009 stating that the government needs to “establish a sound, equitable process toward earned legal status for currently undocumented immigrants” who meet certain requirements. NAE’s Leith Anderson declared, “We believe that undocumented immigrants who have otherwise been law abiding members of our communities should be offered the opportunity to pay any taxes or penalties owed, and over time earn the right to becomeU.S. citizens and permanent residents.”

The NAE claimed the vote approving the resolution was unanimous, but some members including the Salvation Army abstained from voting. Only 11 of the 40 members of the NAE are listed on its website as supporters of the resolution, including Assemblies of God, InternationalPentecostalHolinessChurch, Grace Communion International, and Fellowship of Evangelical Churches. The Churches of Christ in Christian Union denounced the resolution, stating that they had not been consulted about it, do not support it and instead “support legal, regulated, and fair immigration.” My mother wrote a letter to the NAE strongly objecting on behalf of my father, an evangelical pastor, which went unanswered.

Again, the leadership took a stance diametrically opposed to its congregations. According to a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press report, 89% of evangelicals favor “stronger enforcement of immigration laws and border security.” A Zogby poll found that 64% of born-again Protestants strongly oppose or somewhat oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

The NAE is also more liberal than its congregations on federal budget policy, calling for a “Circle of Protection” to stop budget cuts on bloated government welfare programs. Leaders met with Obama in July 2011 and declared, “We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people.” This position does not represent evangelicals as a whole, who overwhelmingly prefer helping the poor through the private sector and are extremely concerned about our escalating federal debt.

A minority of evangelical elites are getting away with issuing these left-leaning statements in part because there is little polling available on evangelicals to challenge them. Most polling organizations that conduct surveys on religion, such as the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, are on the left and have an agenda. Polling results are usually only released about “white evangelicals” in order to create an artificial racial divide and a perception that only “white” evangelicals are conservative. It is virtually impossible to find polling done on all evangelicals; instead there are surveys of born-again Christians or those who attend church at least once a week. The few polls out there that contrast these demographics reveal that differences in viewpoints between white evangelicals and other evangelicals are so narrow that agenda-driven pollsters are deliberately leaving these findings out. Equally distressing to the partisan pollsters is that two-thirds of blacks describe themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians, twice as many as the number of whites who identify as such.

This small number of liberal evangelical elites is also able to continue professing partisan positions because they are more organized and aggressive than other evangelicals. The leadership of NAE has become analogous to unions claiming to represent workers. The unions have an agenda and do not fairly represent union employees, which is why the unions strenuously fight against the right to a secret ballot. Why not let the church memberships vote on NAS statements instead of its leaders?

The Bible doesn’t say anything about these issues and government involvement. While Christians are instructed to help the poor and treat people with kindness, there is not a single verse in the Bible that says government must take responsibility and pass laws in these controversial areas. These leaders are distorting the Bible by claiming that it supports “social justice” by government.

Some would suggest that the church should stay out of politics altogether. However, the Bible does not instruct us to stay disengaged. Christians have a responsibility to participate in governmental affairs. God set many Christian rulers up as kings and rulers, beginning with Noah.

There are plenty of liberal Christian denominations. Perhaps those leaders who are hijacking the evangelical movement against the will of the majority of evangelicals need to find a church better suited to their liberal activism. Unfortunately, many of them are consumed by power and fame, and the evangelical church with its hundreds of thousands of vibrant believers is a magnet they cannot resist.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk