The Final Straw: The Problem With the Emerging Church - Political Hypocrisy

We have looked considerably at how the Emerging Church Movement's embrace of postmodernism has led to it's rejection of orthodox Christianity. By embracing postmodernism, the Emerging Church fears confronting the culture, it also has become married to the culture rather than being married to Christ, and and turns to deconstructionism as the answer to their exegetical fallacies.


Now, I want to look at the hypocrisy of the Emerging Church. Like most that stand against traditional Christianity and traditional morality, there is a hypocritical world in which they live in. For example, Al Gore travels around the world lecturing on how we're destroying the planet while at the same time his carbon footprint is greater than several Americans combined. But of course, he is not the problem, we are.


The Emerging Church is no different. It lectures orthodox Christians like myself on politics, morality, exegesis, theology, etc. while at the same time turns around and commits the same crimes they accuse us.


The main issue I want to look at today is Emergent Politics.


THE GOOD


The good thing that the Emerging Church offers is that Jesus is not a Republican. I agree with this. It is dangerous whenever the Church aligns itself with a political party. The best evidence of this is ancient Israel. After the period of the judges, Israel asked for a king. God refused to give them one until they insisted on it. God gave them their king telling the prophet Samuel that they weren't rejecting Samuel, but were rather rejecting God as ruler over them.


As a result, the people of Israel put all of their trust into one man: the king. And whenever they needed God, they rather trusted the king. Eventually, the people of Israel were thrown into captivity because of their sin and because of the failure of their king. The king, eventually, couldn't care less about God, his loyalty to God, his kingdom's loyalty of God, nor his responsibility to God, rather, all the king cared about was himself: his power, his prestige, etc. And they were destroyed as a result.


America is no different. If the Church of Christ puts all of their trust into the government, it will cease to be the Church of Christ. To be engaged fully into politics and to put one's trust into government requires one to give up their convictions. They compromise and become complacent. The politicians, on the other hand, use the Church in order to gain their power. Politics becomes a road to power, not a calling to help others.


And this is exactly what we are seeing happening in America. The Church has put it's trust into a political party and system. But we must admit, this is for good reason. Christians oppose abortion and it is clear that only one party agrees with that position. The Christian worldview opposed homosexuality and there is only one party that agrees with that position. Furthermore, Christianity enjoys it's freedom to exercise it's faith openly in this country and there is only one major party that holds to that right. Therefore, it is inevitable that Christians flock towards the Republican Party.


I do not think that any Christian would ever argue that the Republican Party is perfect or is the party of Jesus. It is rather ludicrous to believe such a thing. However, if we skew our understanding of where our help and protection come from, then we will fall into the same trap as Israel. And sadly, we have seen much of it.

Jesus was not involved in politics, nor were the apostles. Sure they made statements and took actions that had political consequences. For example, Jesus commanded to pay taxes to Caesar. Also, Paul appealed to Caesar as a Roman citizen. These have political ramifications, but they are not an affirmation of a political system or party.

Rather, what the Bible says about politics and the Christians relation to it is very clear. Outside of having to compromise our core beliefs, Christians are to obey and submit to their government. Therefore, we pay our taxes, we participate in the arena of ideas, but we do not rebel nor disobey our political leaders. That is essentially the extent of the Biblical concept of politics: submission.

The Emerging Church is appalled by the political engagement of the religious right. They see the dangers of this trend and are calling us out on it. For the most part, if left here, I agree with them. We must be careful not to buy into a politician or a political party. Rather, we must buy into the gospel, and whatever ramifications it has, then so be it.

THE BAD

Where I disagree with the Emerging Church is that they don't stop there. Rather, they completely take the mantel of "Jesus isn't Republican," and run with it. They, like hypocrites, seem to suggest that Jesus is not a Republican, he's rather a Democrat.

Three examples. First, Tony Campolo, has repeatedly criticized Christians for voting Republican and is now on a Democratic committee. I would have no problem with a Christian being on such a committee, my problem is with the fact that he has repeatedly attacked Christian Republicans for their alliance with the Republican party.

Secondly, Brian McLaren has made it clear that he will be voting for Barack Obama and is serving as an advisor to the Obama campaign. Again, I have no problem with someone making that decision. My problem is that McLaren has also criticized Christians for voting for Republicans like Bush. McLaren is also against Capitalism and has criticized it often.

Thirdly, Jim Wallis has made it very clear that Jesus is not a Republican. Again, I have no problem with that statement. However, Wallis has taken such a mantle to a whole new level. When commenting on the outraged of Dr. James Dobson regarding Barack Obama, Wallis said the following:

Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to
use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both
biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and
civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.

I am all for such a "respectful and civil" debate between the views of Dobsom and Obama. However, from other comments made by Wallis, it is clear that he isn't always so respectful and civil. Earlier he wrote:

I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a
liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the
president of the United States. And this isn’t about being partisan. . . . I’ve
heard plenty of my Republican friends and public figures call this
administration an embarrassment to the best traditions of the Republican Party
and an embarrassment to the democratic (small d) tradition of the United States.
They have shamed our beloved nation in the world by this war and the shameful
way they have fought it. Almost 4,000 young Americans are dead because of the
lies of this administration, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed for life,
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also dead, and 400 billion dollars
wasted—because of their lies, incompetence, and corruption.

But I don’t favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until
after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor
investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official
deception, war crimes, and corruption charges. And if they are found guilty of
these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison
- after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son,
daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to
war should not be forgiven.

Where is the civility now? It has completely gone out the window. Wallis seems to hate all things Republican which is precisely the point of this post. Yes, there are dangers in trusting in a political party, and yes we should be respectful and open to debate. But to criticize Christians for language like this, and then turn around and say these things is nothing short of hypocrisy in the rancous sense.

And perhaps he forgot Jesus' emphasis on forgiveness? It would seem to me that forgiving someone like Bush, despite how much Wallis hates him, would still be worthy of such forgiveness. But what do I know?

It seems that what Wallis wants isn't an honest civil debate about the issues we face, but rather thinks everyone ought to agree with him. And in order for that to happen, he must criticize with vitriol those that stand in his way, whether it be the liars like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield or the incompetent George W. Bush, or the religious right. Either way, Wallis wants his will to be done and is walking all over people to get it done.

Is such language Christian? Sure, I've said some rough stuff about politicians before, but at least I am consistent. I am not telling Democrats to play nice and then turn around and do the opposite. Wallis, and others, need to be called out on their hypocrisy.

One more thing should be pointed out here: Emergents continue to criticize orthodox Christians for being too political, but as the above makes very clear, it could be argued that it is the Emergents who are too political. Again, both sides are guilty of this. But my concern is with the hypocrisy of the Emergents. I am all for criticising the religious right, but it is also the religious left like those in the Emerging Church that should be equally criticized for committing the same sins as the right does.

One last example: the Jesus Manifesto. The Jesus Manifesto is supposed to be about calling "people to embrace the Kingdom of God." Sounds noble, yes. But recently, they posted an article declaring that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for Jesus. Call me crazy, but is that precisely the sort of the thing that Emergents are trying to avoid? They frequently criticize us for thinking that a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus, so how is this any different?

My problem with such Emergents and the Emerging Church as a whole isn't with their political opinions, but in their hypocritical actions of criticism of those who disagree with their opinion. That is hypocrisy. While they call for an open debate, they tell us what to believe and how to vote. That is, again, hypocrisy.

THE UGLY

The real ugly part of this whole issue is where such hypocrisy leads. If it is dangerous for Christians to buy into the Republican Party full sale, but it is also equally dangerous for Christians to buy into the Democratic Party (or any political party/system for that matter) full sale. I am fine with criticizing Republicans and Democrats (I do it all the time), but the actions of such persons in the Emerging Church is hypocritical to their words and warnings.

I want to show where this hypocrisy leads specifically. One good example of this comes from Tony Campolo. Campolo is against abortion. He makes that clear in his writings, his speaking engagements, his blog, and everywhere else he can. But in his recent book, "Red Letter Christians" instead of calling for the end of murdering the unborn, Campolo calls for the reduction of murdering the unborn.

In fact, Campolo has taken this suggestion to the committee on which he serves for the Democrats and is quit proud of it. I am all for reducing abortions, but I am not satisfied with such a reduction. It seems to me that if a pro-life person is consistent with their views on abortion, they would want murder to end, not just be reduced.

This is clearly a compromise of values. Perhaps it is driven from his dislike of the Republican Party, but if Campolo was consistent with his disagreements with Christians and politics, he would not be satisfied with reduction of abortions in either party. If he were consistent as a Christian that stands for life, he would fight for the sanctity of all life in every political party. Abortion must go beyond political parties. It should be a moral issue, not an issue that might gain a party votes.

This is one of those issues that helps explain why Christians traditionally vote Republican. Republicans have traditionally been against abortion. And, since the Christian worldview demands being against abortion, they vote for the candidate that best matches their view. This isn't hypocrisy or sin, it is democracy at work. I do not see myself voting for a Democrat unless they support the pro-life mantle.

The reason, it seems, that Campolo has flocked to the Democratic Party is due to their stance on poverty. Democrats are seen as the party fighting for the little guy and going after the rich. This is supposed to help the poor. Democrats are in favor of increasing social programs designed to end poverty. Despite whether or not their policies will work in the real world, this is a noble cause and should be debated. However, his affirmation of this issue and the Democratic answer to that issue has resulted in him adopting the party virtually full sale and therefore compromising on the issue of abortion.

CONCLUSION

The issue of politics is a divisive one, and so is religion. The old saying goes that in polite company avoid two topics, politics and religion. Here, we have ventured into both: when religion meets politics. There is no easy answers to the political and moral issues of our day. If we were all honest, it truly is ludicrous to put all of our trust into any politician. Every political leader is nothing more than man and man is totally depraved. Therefore, whether it be a politician or an entire political system, we must be careful not to go too far.

The issue here goes beyond politics, but rather to where I allegiance lies. If with God, then our approach to politics will reflect that. But if with man, then we will seek more power, worse policies, and eventually, the doom of our country. Let America be a nation that seeks the will of God, even before the will of the people. And let the Church in America be made up of Christians that put their hope in God rather than in a politician and his many campaign slogans.