'Elite' evangelicals

[simplicio]

I never heard the "a vote for Romney..." line. And I agree that support of the candidate is
not an endorsement of the candidate's theology -- or morality, IMO. ISTM it is the judgmental anti-Trumpers who are making the "vote for = agree with completely" argument.




Yes, and I went along with it. I still would, but henceforth that will be much lower priority for me.



Not what I was saying. I voted for both -- Romney a bit lukewarmly, Bad Orange Man quite reluctantly.



I'm not sure how he could have "courted" us without repenting of or lying about his heretical beliefs. AFAIK, those were the only impediments to voting for him. We had no doubts about his morals or ethics, or his Pro-Life views.

You made the argument that support for Romney could leads some infidels into accepting Mormonism!

GW Bush integrated evangelicals into his campaign, and did it successfully. It is the model for all candidates to follow.

Yes one can reluctantly vote for a candidate, and it sure seems to be the rule among Christian conservatives. But that does not account for the arguments made in countering the criticisms of Trump. There is a pattern unwavering support for any apparent mis step.

Why are those Christian arguments taking a lower priority now? Does temporal concern have precedence over the theological or moral?

[Cow Poke]

I never said anything about trucks.

...A redneck family moved in across the street and they constantly had broken down cars and trucks in the street....

And there are 197,351 other posts where you say stuff about trucks.

[One Bad Pig]

And there are 197,351 other posts where you say stuff about trucks.

I rather doubt that even Sparko is so far gone that he follows broken down trucks around.

[Cow Poke]

I rather doubt that even Sparko is so far gone that he follows broken down trucks around.

But you don't know that for SURE, do you?

[Sparko]

I rather doubt that even Sparko is so far gone that he follows broken down trucks around.

What's to follow? They are broken down. They ain't going anywhere.

[demi-conservative]

It's not completely unreasonable to say that these people are on the left. Their position on immigration is on the left, and the increased government welfare required would be at least hundreds of billions per year.

[Thoughtful Monk]

"By contrast, evangelical leaders who have come up through established institutions tend to acquire the training and tastes of the wider American elite. They often disdain the religious and political populism of the base."

The educated elite are largely out of touch with the base, as Galli himself admitted. The split will only grow, and soon these elite will lose influence.

Christian leaders that are highly educated get respect and deference, but they're throwing this away with their barely hidden elitism.

I once heard that India was one of the most religious country in the world and Sweden was one of the least religious. The US was then described as a nation of Indians (the county) being lead by Swedes. I think this same split has come into church leadership.

[simplicio]

I once heard that India was one of the most religious country in the world and Sweden was one of the least religious. The US was then described as a nation of Indians (the county) being lead by Swedes. I think this same split has come into church leadership.

I wonder if it the problem of translating the faith into action.

We are comfortable with the faith being compartmentalized, keeping it in place in Sunday. But as soon as we try to tackle real life problems in society, whether it is giving vouchers for food and housing, whether going to war is just, even the mundane decisions on how much water a toilet should flush, we have to decide which arguments and principles apply.

And in each of the examples we see similar divisions along the political lines.

[mikewhitney]

I wonder if it the problem of translating the faith into action.

We are comfortable with the faith being compartmentalized, keeping it in place in Sunday. But as soon as we try to tackle real life problems in society, whether it is giving vouchers for food and housing, whether going to war is just, even the mundane decisions on how much water a toilet should flush, we have to decide which arguments and principles apply.

And in each of the examples we see similar divisions along the political lines.

It is questionable Christian doctrine that take away individual charity and puts aid in the hands of an impersonal government. Once it goes to the government coffers, there is only cold policy that operates. Money goes to people who shouldn't get it. People are trapped into welfare life. People who should be helped are not. Government is a godless system and socialism tends to promote atheism. Christians who advocate socialism are sawing off the branch they are standing on. It seems that people are caught up in this naivete -- it seems good. it seems right. There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end is death.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I wonder if it the problem of translating the faith into action.

We are comfortable with the faith being compartmentalized, keeping it in place in Sunday. But as soon as we try to tackle real life problems in society, whether it is giving vouchers for food and housing, whether going to war is just, even the mundane decisions on how much water a toilet should flush, we have to decide which arguments and principles apply.

And in each of the examples we see similar divisions along the political lines.

All the things you list are good and a Christian should consider them. I think it's a difference in motivation.

Viewing this as solving real life problems is incomplete. Yes, we should work at it but we'll never solve them all. After all when Jesus was at the pool of Bethesda, He only one of the many that were there. (John 5:1-9). We are also called (I would say primarily called) to proclaim the Gospel and aid one another with their relationship with Christ.

Too many leaders like their names in the news. It's a common hazard of leadership to want to be recognized for leading. It's certainly easier to get your name in for doing good works instead of proclaiming God. Over time, they want to serve the good works and slowly God drifts out of their lives.

I go to church to hear about God and His expectations on me. Too often, I hear about man.

[seanD]

It is questionable Christian doctrine that take away individual charity and puts aid in the hands of an impersonal government. Once it goes to the government coffers, there is only cold policy that operates. Money goes to people who shouldn't get it. People are trapped into welfare life. People who should be helped are not. Government is a godless system and socialism tends to promote atheism. Christians who advocate socialism are sawing off the branch they are standing on. It seems that people are caught up in this naivete -- it seems good. it seems right. There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end is death.

Wow, man.

[simplicio]

All the things you list are good and a Christian should consider them. I think it's a difference in motivation.

Viewing this as solving real life problems is incomplete. Yes, we should work at it but we'll never solve them all. After all when Jesus was at the pool of Bethesda, He only one of the many that were there. (John 5:1-9). We are also called (I would say primarily called) to proclaim the Gospel and aid one another with their relationship with Christ.

Too many leaders like their names in the news. It's a common hazard of leadership to want to be recognized for leading. It's certainly easier to get your name in for doing good works instead of proclaiming God. Over time, they want to serve the good works and slowly God drifts out of their lives.

I go to church to hear about God and His expectations on me. Too often, I hear about man.

Of course it is incomplete, it is hardly a theological treatise. The soul is an integral part of man. But so is the body. And man was not created to be alone, he was made to be a part of a society of men, whether family, body of Christ, or secular and mmundane society.

Can we work toward a just society without any government intervention? I wonder if that approach is utopian and humanist (if it can be achieved), or is a dystopian Hobbesian world (if it is not achieved).

The two extremes are the social gospel types which truncate the faith and leave out the individual; the other extreme is the "me and Jesus" cheap grace gospel. Both extremes truncate the faith.

There are seven days in the week, and the Body of Christ is a society of men, a society which finds itself residing in a wider society. And each individual nears the imago dei.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Sorry, I'm a little biased in my posting these days. In my part of the world, it's real easy to find a church teaching about ministring to your fellow human. It's real hard to find a church that will preach on God.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry, I'm a little biased in my posting these days. In my part of the world, it's real easy to find a church teaching about ministring to your fellow human. It's real hard to find a church that will preach on God.

We do both - for what good is it for a man to have a ham sandwich but perish in Hell? (OK, I paraphrased)

[Thoughtful Monk]

We do both - for what good is it for a man to have a ham sandwich but perish in Hell? (OK, I paraphrased)

I'm glad. Unfortunately for me, flying down there and back every Sunday for church service doesn't seem practical. If you ever want to go to a mission field in the US, I'll be glad to be the local native to help you out.