Tuesday, October 03, 2006

The [New] Christian Coalition

Over the weekend it was announced that Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed (a congregation of 7,000 in the Orlando area) has been selected to serve as president of the Christian Coalition of America (CC).

The organization has struggled in recent years with a shrinking constituency, mounting debt and the recent departure of several state chapters. Formed by televangelist Pat Robertson and led in its heyday by lobbyist and U.S. Senate hopeful Ralph Reed, the CC will--for the first time--be led by a pastor. Additionally, by moving its offices from Washington, D.C., to Central Florida, the organization signals a not-so-subtle shift from a lobbying group that speaks on behalf of the religious right to a church-focused organization that equips local congregations to effect social and political change.

As the Orlando Sentinel notes, although he is against abortion and gay marriage, Hunter also opposes the death penalty. The article cites Hunter's involvement with the Evangelical Environmental Network and his recent book, Right Wing, Wrong Bird, as indicators of his political unpredictability. This has led observers to interpret Hunter's appointment as a signal of the "broadening" of the Christian Coalition's base of issues. There is even consternation from some who feel the CC will risk losing consensus by focusing on issues that not everyone can agree on, such as global warming.

The problem is that the opponents of this "broadening" of the CC have inadvertently pointed out the very reason the CC (and organizations like it) are in such desperate need of reform: They are already too broad--so broad that they have made a practice of championing issues of marginal consequence to biblical Christianity. Don't believe me? Among other things, the CC has:

Expressed disappointment with senators who opposed the flag amendment Supported the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act* Supported the U.N. Reform Act of 2005 Supported Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (FARA) Supported making permanent the 2001-2003 tax cuts

Please understand: I am not criticizing the validity of any of the above positions--I would support most of them. I'm simply questioning whether they should be embraced as "Christian" positions--particularly when this same organization is deafeningly silent on issues on which a biblical worldview requires extensive reflection, such as: creation care, torture, the death penalty, war, poverty, affirmative action, AIDS and human trafficking.

Sure, the topics above are politically divisive at times--and pose real challenges for consensus building. But the beauty of an organization like the CC is that it can afford to be "narrow" in its thrust--driven not by political vagaries or partisan loyalty, but by the unflinching demands of a biblical worldview. Anything less exhibits a disingenuous lack of balance, limiting our ability to speak prophetically to both sides of the aisle and reinforcing the impression that one party has evangelicals in its pocket--and vice versa.

Simply put, we've become too predictable. Joel Hunter's appointment to the Christian Coalition brings a fresh breeze of unpredictability that will scare some but may engage evangelicals who are pro-life and pro-marriage--but who know that biblical values don't stop there.

Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today

*Many evangelicals--"liberal" and "conservative"--have no problem with keeping partisan politics out of the pulpit, nor is this an issue for which there is strong biblical substantiation.


On which of the following issues should Christians take a stand?
Select up to 10 of the following:
Abortion
Marriage
War
Torture
AIDS
Death penalty
Poverty
Affirmative Action
Human trafficking
Creation care



Comments:
Christ has called every believer to a glorious hope. Is it possible that the CC will now reflect that hope in their policies and practices, having so long relied on reactionary call-to-arms inspired by fear?

I'm cautiously optimistic that boycotts can give way to positive participation; That instead of knocking down what we hate, we can try to build up what (and who) we love.

The question for the CC will be whether the portion of their base that leaves to find another religious non-profit PAC will be replaced by believers looking to make an impact. And does it matter more to be a political block or a social movement?
 
Hey, Matt. Thanks for commenting on my post ("Against Torture").

My employer, Christianity Today, has spoken out against torture in an editorial ("5 Reasons Why Torture Is Always Wrong"). And I've seen debates raging about this on some discussion groups. There is also the NRCAT ("National Religious Campaign Against Torture") -- but there are not many Evangelicals represented there.

I suspect its because we are infected with pragmatic thinking. There is nothing less pragmatic than love when it comes to your enemies. But it's what the Word commands. And where we are unable to envision the path Jesus calls us to walk, we are just that much farther removed from his heart.

As I said when I concluded my post, I understand. There is a part of me that rejoices in vengeance and would delight in the torture of someone I consider evil. But that is the part of me that also abhors me.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent
 
From a purely branding point of view, I'm thinking the best thing the Christian Coalition could do is to simply shut down, and re-open under an entirely new name. The CC has generated such negative baggage over the years, that no one is going to actually take them seriously - particularly in the non-Christian culture. Re-brand, re-think, and re-try.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:
<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

How do you rate mobile version of this page?

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser