The election of Barack Obama in 2008 as the nation's first African American president suggests that the Christian Right -- at least as defined and shaped by leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Paul Weyrich and James Dobson -- was falling into disarray.
Contributing to that disarray were the deaths of Falwell and Kennedy, both in 2007, coupled with the often bizarre statements of Pat Robertson that made both him and the Christian Right something of a laughing stock in the larger public square.
Seeds of the American Crisis
It seems clear, however, that following Obama's election, the Christian Right still exerts power by supporting and merging with other explicitly Christian organizations like Values Voters USA or with less explicitly Christian organizations like the Tea Party.
People like Sarah Palin, a devout fundamentalist Christian, and Glenn Beck, a Mormon, now give the marching orders to the great army of the faithful that would still identify with the concerns of the Christian Right.
It may seem strange to many that Glenn Beck would emerge as a leader of the Christian Right since, after all, he belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a tradition many conservative Christians view as a non-Christian cult.
But at his "Restoring Honor" rally on August 27, Beck preached to a crowd dominated by conservative Christians, and his message was the traditional, standard fare for the Religious Right: America can survive and prosper only if it returns to God and to traditional religion. As Beck put it, Americans must go to "God's boot camp."
Including a rendition of the honored Christian hymn, "Amazing Grace," the rally both began and ended with prayer. Most agreed it was "like a big revival," and few if any of the conservative Christians who participated questioned Beck's right to provide leadership for this new incarnation of the Christian Right.
If the leadership of the Christian Right is in transition, however, many of the strategies remain firmly in place. And in its attempt to shape the soul of the nation, the most important strategy on which the Christian Right has relied -- and continues to rely -- is falsehood and misrepresentation.
The seeds of the current American crisis, as I indicated earlier in this essay, lie in the fact that the Christian Right has convinced so many Americans of the truth of the falsehoods it proclaims. For when the possibility exists that the religious "glue" that provides a nation with its deepest meaning is defined by misrepresentations and falsehoods, that nation is clearly in crisis. And that is the state of the Union today.
By using terms like "misrepresentations" and "falsehoods," my intent is not to accuse either the leaders or the rank and file or the Christian Right of blatantly lying, for there can be no doubt that most in that movement firmly believe the messages they preach. But the fact that they believe them does not make them true.
Nor is it my intent to attack Christian people. After all, I am a Christian as well.
But I do wish to hold the Christian Right accountable for its falsehoods and misrepresentations. For at two important levels, the message of the Christian Right is clearly deceptive: the way it portrays the Christian faith and the way it portrays the nation. And that is the truth that a nation in crisis must hear.
The Meaning of the Christian Faith
Paul Raushenbush, religion editor of the Huffington Post, helps us understand how the Christian Right so badly misreads the meaning of the Christian faith in an article that contrasted the most recent census data on poverty in the United States, released on Sept. 15, with the concerns that drove the Values Voter Summit that began just two days later. "According to data released ... from the Census Bureau," Raushenbush wrote, "one in seven Americans are living in poverty. This means that in 2009 a staggering 43.6 million people live in the degradation of food, health care and housing insecurity." Then, Raushenbush made the telling point:
With a startling lack of self awareness, the Values Voter Summit began their conference two days after the census report on poverty levels was released. However, poverty is not what concerns these "Values Voters." According to their website, their values instruct them to: "Protect Marriage • Champion Life • Strengthen the Military • Limit Government • Control Spending • Defend Our Freedoms."
Raushenbush pointed out that Jesus' values "don't include strengthening the military." Nor do they include limiting government, controlling government spending or defending our freedoms. Instead, as Raushenbush correctly notes, there is nothing that dominates Jesus teaching more than justice for the poor, a concern embodied in Jesus' vision of "the kingdom of God."
Time and again, Jesus hammered that vision home. Indeed, that phrase -- "kingdom of God" -- appears in the New Testament more than 100 times, and in almost every instance, the context deals with clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and caring for people impoverished by the self-indulgent policies of the empires and nations of this earth.
In his book, God's Politics, Jim Wallis tells about an experiment he and some seminary friends performed on the Bible. With a pair of scissors, they literally cut from the Bible the several thousand verses that side with the poor and demand that God's followers extend justice to people who suffer from want, hunger and other forms of economic oppression. What was left was a mere fragment, only a shadow of the full biblical text.
But those are precisely the points that the Values Voters -- and indeed, the entire Christian Right -- fail to understand. And so, even though those voters claim they wish to inject the values of Christianity into American politics, the most prominent social value in the biblical text, concern for the poor, is essentially off their radar screen.
For that reason, the "Christian America" vision pushed by the Christian Right stands in stark contrast with the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, a point I elaborate at length in my book, Christian America and the Kingdom of God.
If we were to graph the concern for social justice -- or the lack thereof -- on the part of the major movements that have sought to Christianize the United States over the course of American history, the graph would reveal a steady trend downward.
The Second Great Awakening understood and embraced the biblical demand for social justice.
The Fundamentalist Movement ignored that demand.
The Christian Right, in its first incarnation, rejected that demand in practice.
And the Christian Right in its most recent incarnation has rejected that demand both in practice and in theory.
Thus, Glenn Beck claimed on March 11 that the terms "social justice" and "economic justice" are code words for Naziism and Communism. He therefore advised the faithful to "run as fast as you can" if you find those terms "on your church website," and "if you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish."
Here we find exhibit "A" of the kinds of falsehoods and misrepresentations that have become standard fare for the Christian Right.
But the faithful believe those falsehoods nonetheless, something underscored by the fact that the faithful showed up by the thousands for Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.
They showed up, not to hear a sermon on social justice, but to hear a sermon on why America should embrace a god who is indifferent to social justice. But by biblical standards, that would be no god at all.
They showed up, even though Beck cynically held his rally on ground hallowed by Martin Luther King's March on Washington in 1963, a rally that focused squarely on the need for social justice in America, and by King's speech on social justice that moved the heart of a nation.
They showed up, even though Beck promoted his rally with the cynical claim that he and his followers would "reclaim the civil rights movement" because "we are on the right side of history. We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties and damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement, because we were the people that did it in the first place!"
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Leonard Pitts called this pronouncement "worse than nonsensical, worse than mendacious, worse than shameless. It is obscene. It is theft of legacy. It is robbery of martyr's graves."
Beck essentially laid hands on the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., a legacy that had everything to do with social justice for the poor, and eviscerated that legacy of any concern, any consideration and any compassion for the poor at all.
And that is the worst kind of falsehood, since it is the kind of falsehood that perpetuates hunger, nakedness and homelessness among the poor, even though it cloaks itself in the guise of the Christian faith.
Beck's is the kind of falsehood that prompted the ancient Hebrew prophet Isaiah (5:20) to render this judgment on people whose values were very much like Beck's: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
But there is more, for Beck's is the kind of falsehood that is robbing this nation of its historic sense of meaning.
It is the kind of falsehood that is dissolving the mortar that has bound this nation together for more than 200 years.
It is the kind of falsehood that is killing the nation's soul.
And for all those reasons, it is a falsehood that must be named and exposed for what it is.
The Meaning of America
Not only does the Christian Right misrepresent the meaning of the Christian faith, it also misrepresents the meaning of America.
It does this when it falsely claims that the American Founders intended to create a Christian nation.
It does this when it rejects the fact that religious pluralism was central to the Founders' vision.
It does this when it falsely claims that the doctrine of separation of church and state is a fabrication designed by latter-day secularists to obscure the Founders' real intent of creating a Christian nation.
And it does this when it falsely claims that even if the Founders might have intended to separate church and state, they did so chiefly for the good of the church, not for the good of the state.
The fact is, the Founders consistently directed their passion toward the common good, toward the public square and toward the welfare of all Americans, not toward the welfare of a special segment of the American public, even if that segment happened to be Christian and even if it happened to be the majority.
If one wants examples of the distortions I've mentioned here, one need look no further than the books produced by David Barton, the "historian" who serves the special interests of the Religious Right, especially his books, The Myth of Separation (1992) and Separation of Church and State: What the Founders Meant (2007).
If one doubts Barton's influence in the public square, consider that the Republican Party in Texas elected Barton its vice-chair in 1997. Then, in 2004, that same Party officially rejected church/state separation and affirmed in its platform that the United States is "a Christian nation."
A year later, Texas Governor Rick Perry praised Barton as "a truly national treasure" who "understands that America was founded on our Christian faith."
More recently, Barton was among the "experts" who advised the Texas Board of Education on how best to "Christianize" the history of the United States in the textbooks that are used to teach our children throughout this nation.
I understand that the root concern of the Christian Right is to remind Americans that belief in the Deity and a strong affirmation of religiously sustained morality were central to this nation during the Founding generation. In making that point, they could not be more on target.
But when the Christian Right seeks to translate the Founders' belief in God into exclusively Christian terms, when they claim that the Founders sought to create an exclusively Christian America, when they distort the meaning of the Christian faith and then, based on that distortion, seek to rewrite the history of the United States in Christian terms and to present those distortions to America's children, they have overstepped their bounds and waded into the murky waters of falsehood, misrepresentation and sometimes deliberate lies.
The Most Tragic Dimension of All
But the worst part of the legacy of the Christian Right is the way that movement has helped to shrivel the nation's soul.
Many years ago, Paul Tillich reminded us that any given religion is viable only to the extent that it breaks through its own particularities.
What Tillich meant, I am convinced, is that a religion serves the human family well only when its adherents place the welfare of people above the welfare of the religion itself -- a point routinely made by Jesus himself.
But when religious people place defense of the religion, its ideologies and its orthodoxies above service to people, that religion turns in upon itself and thereby risks losing its soul.
As we have seen in this four-part series of articles, that transformation stands at the heart of the history of the Christian Right, beginning with the birth of the Fundamentalist Movement in the early 20th century.
What makes that transformation doubly tragic is the fact that the Christian Right, by dominating the religious side of the nation's public square for a full quarter-century -- from 1980 to 2005 -- encouraged the nation to do what the Christian Right had already done: to turn in upon itself.
Tillich's famous comment that religion is the substance of culture while culture is the form of religion, sheds great light on this issue, for the Christian Right had become in many respects the substance of American culture by 2001.
Clearly, not all Americans adhered to the Christian Right, and many resisted that movement. But to the extent that the Christian Right, by 2001, dominated the nation's religious broadcasting, the nation's religious publishing, the nation's Christian population and even the American Congress, it is safe to conclude that the values embraced by the Christian Right had become in many respects the substance of American culture.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that by 2001, the nation would respond to a crisis in exactly the way the Christian Right recommended. Through its preoccupation with enemies, both real and imagined, the nation turned in upon itself. And the more it turned in upon itself, the more it lost the authentic meaning of the American experiment.
In that way, the Christian Right helped diminish the nation's soul.
Since 2001, we have seen evidence of America's diminished soul on almost every hand.
We witnessed it, first, in the way this nation responded to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that virtually everyone views as hateful, reprehensible and wholly without justification.
Still and all, those attacks offered the United States an opportunity to do what America has always done best: to help create an entirely new world order by sowing seeds of friendship instead of seeds of hate; by building alliances and forging bonds of reconciliation; and by using its vast wealth to build schools, hire teachers and alleviate hunger, poverty, suffering and disease around the world.
But America, whose soul had been defined for some 25 years by the defensive posture of the Christian Right, did none of those things. Led by a president who had personally embraced the religious sensibilities of the Christian Right, America sought vengeance and retribution and went to war.
Now, almost 10 years after those horrendous attacks, the nation's tendency to turn in upon itself seems caught in a never-ending downward spiral.
We witness that downward spiral in the nation's commitment to fighting wars that drain the national treasury.
We witness that downward spiral in the irrational fear and hatred of Hispanic immigrants here at home.
We witness that downward spiral in the growing national phobia regarding Muslims.
We witness that downward spiral when popular pundits seriously suggest, as Anne Coulter did, that the United States "should invade their countries [Muslim nations], kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" -- a sentiment that, at least in some quarters, now grows in popularity.
More recently, we have witnessed that downward spiral in the frequent claims that President Obama is a Muslim or a racist who hates white people.
And we have witnessed that downward spiral when Americans have tarnished the President of the United States with labels like "socialist," "Communist" and "Nazi" in response to his efforts to provide health care for the poorest of the poor.
To return once more to Robert Bellah's analysis immortalized in his important 1975 publication, The Broken Covenant, it is clear that America's "third time of crisis" began in the 1960s, a fact we noted in the first of this four-part series of articles.
But it is also clear that that "third time of crisis" is with us still, thanks in large part to the defensive and reactionary nature of the Christian Right.
This current crisis is at least as severe as any threat from Muslim terrorists. It is at least as severe as any threat from a flagging economy.
For this essentially religious crisis now threatens to dissolve the nation's spiritual core. And that is a threat this nation will ignore at its peril.
This article concludes the four-part series based on Richard Hughes' book, Christian America and the Kingdom of God (University of Illinois Press, 2009). Hughes is Distinguished Professor of Religion at Messiah College.
Arianna Huffington: Glenn Beck, President Obama, and the Hunger for Purpose in Times of Transition
Christian right steps up attacks on Obama - Politics - Decision ...
ThinkProgress » Christian Right: Obama Is A Heretic For Observing ...
Christian right intensifies attacks on Obama
Obama as Mr. Rogers: What the Christian Right Really Fears
Christian Right Vows to Stay Strong Under Obama | Christianpost.com
Even though it has no truths in it, its propaganda has been quite powerful, effectively brainwashing its followers.
Jesus may have a loving heart; however, we should be careful about his self-proclaimed fundamentalist followers.
"There are now more than 1500 radio stations operated by owners who have a Religious Right political/theological bias. Such broadcasters are almost all members of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), an organization that is overtly oriented to very conservative politics. Messages that cast most Democrats in Congress, and certainly President Barack Obama, as dangerous liberals who are leading America towards socialism and secularism are common in their programming. It is easy to discern an anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-environmentalist, pro-militarist, and pro-gun worldview in what is heard on their programs. While not claiming to be religious broadcasters, T.V. commentators the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly lend support to the Religious Right rhetoric."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-campolo/why-the-religious-right-w_b_778979.html
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_christian_fascists_are_growing_stronger_20100607/
So, yes... the Bible wants us to help others, but on our own accord. THAT is what some statists fail time and time again to understand.
Since you are not a Christian and since you obviously haven't read the Book (or even seen the movie), I don't see that your post means much.
'Thems that don't know don't know they don't know' - applies perfectly to them.
And that political ideology is not only not Christian in the sense of the teachings of Christ, but it is a malevolent, anti-Christian ideology.
Jesus said feed the hungry
The Christian right says cut food programs for the poor
Jesus said heal and care for the sick;
The Christian right says kill Obamacare
Jesus said love your enemies;
The Chrisian right says bomb our enemies pre-emptively
Jesus said, forgive those who trespass against you;
The Christian right says 'we will get even'
Jesus said, help the poor
The Christian right says, cut spending for social programs and spend on the military.
Jesus said, 'blessed are the peace makers'
The Christian right says, 'give me a gun and make my day'
Fanned and Faved.
I agree that the Right is essentially godless, but not the way Hughes meant. Glenno called his pep rally to reinforce the belief that the quest is over, and American Christians have all the answers because they ARE God. The belief in "exceptionalism" (the right's latest buzz-word) is a claim of infallibility (the Vatican is wrong!) and, despite Jesus's injunction to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", a claim that the individual trumps the community (government is wrong!). They claim that knowledge supplied by revelation is enough (education is wrong!), and that the only remaining form of social organization that matters is the congregation (all other religions are wrong!)
As I've said before, the Thumpers are so busy proclaiming that God is on their side that they don't know or care if they're on God's side.
The Right isn't "Godless". They just identify with a more (to put it bluntly) "primitive" definition of God.
The God they worship is essentially a TRIBAL God (like the gods of Greek Mythology, or the Jehovah of the Old Testament) that is wrapped in the trappings and rhetoric of a Universal God.
In the mindset of someone who worships a tribal God is that his or her "principles" only apply to interactions with those people who worship that same tribal God (Us)....and that they are free to do as they choose (or can rationalize) in dealings with "outsiders" (Them). The actions of their God(s) often reflect that same mindset. Just look at the viciousness with which the God of the Old Testament treated non-Jews....and Jews who defied His laws.
They are blind to the hypocrisy that is so apparently to you, because that tension doesn't develop until you reach a point where you truly believe in a Universal God. One who does not play favorites among His children. There is no hypocrisy in what they are doing when one believes in a tribal God who rewards His Chosen People...and smites their enemies, and those who defy Him.
kellygreen, Primitive? Tribal? I guess considering God was since the beginning, but the choice to follow his commands are universally open to everyone. Since the beginning with Adam and Eve, God placed a choice in the garden to follow him...or not. Choice was man's and is man's today.
Is this the God of all religions? After the failure of man to follow God, even after starting over with Noah, God did start this chosen people thing, "tribal" if you will, with Abraham, but God sent his Son to die for the atonement of sins for all, everyone who believes in God's Son as their Lord and Savior will have eternal life. Sounds like a universal God to me, same God as there was in the beginning, giving people a choice to choose him or not. Does any other religion have God's son, Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? Then how can they be God's children? God the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. No, other religions are of the world, now who is the master of that?
From previous post I know you know the gospel. Your world view makes sense to me now that I can see you are not Christian. Should have looked at some of your posts before wasting my time.
In the case of trying to remake America so as to be ruled in accordance to Christian theology, it is downright and undeniably unpatriotic. Rule of law showing no preference or advantage for practicing one religion over another, or practicing no religion at all if that is ones choice - - that was the intended America - - freedom from tyranny religious and otherwise.
Seems like the right actually adheres more to God's commands when selecting elected officials and, as a Christian, I believe it is Christian duty to select officials that believe in Christian values. It seems to be the left's position to side with the world.
There is not a talking head out there that is not going to make his platform clear, left or right. There are a lot of extreme left zealots as well. Maybe neither is doing God's will.
Point is, Richard Hughes is publicly blasting brothers and sisters in Christ, and does so without knowing the charitable work we are doing based on extreme right talking heads. He is due some serious research and self examination. Wonder if he will give up his charitable works and donations list? Sounds like Richard has an agenda to push world view.
That said, I found your post condescending and disingenuous. You do exactly what you blame others for doing - I think that's called hypocricy.
And as far as my comment to Richard, this may have been condescending but not disingenuous, it was blatant. I have looked into both the Messiah College and Princeton College, and have found theological teaching accepting unrepentant homosexual Christian leadership, yet he has the audacity to preach against the right.
I am a person who attempts to follow the teachings of Christ, but I can't stop with just this description, even Obama professes to follow Christ based on the "precepts" of his teaching. I follow the teachings of Christ with a repentant heart, and more, I believe in the inerrant word of God, and I believe in Christ as my Lord and Savior. Also, no matter what the left, right, or middle are saying or doing I am proud to call myself a Christian, a child of God the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
----Martin Luther King, Jr.
Matthew 7:16-32
Not all who profess to be Christians are followers of Jesus or live according to His example. You shall know those who do by the fruit of what they do. Those who act in love (like Mother Theresa) produce trees that bear the fruit of love. Those who act in fear, judgement and hatred work iniquity...and their labors will bear the thistles of fear, judgement and hatred.
Richard Hughes is simply looking at the THISTLES that the tree of the Religious Right is bearing in this society.
Those who need to do the "reasearch" and "self-examination" are not those who clearly see those thistles for what they are....but those who actions produce them, while they delude themselves that that they are agents of Love and Compassion.
There are also many fallacies in what he claims are Christian conservative platforms. He may have picked "a view of one or few extreme right", and generalized this as majority conservative Christian view. In this way, I did not condone the extreme right, in the same way I did not condone the extreme left.
I know I am not a Mother Theresa, but I do my best giving time and funding to community and global efforts. I hope you are not comparing yourself or Richard to Mother Theresa.
Good verse in Matthew. This fear, judgment, and hatred thing, appears to have gone on for four parts now with more to come. There are many pertinent verses in Mathew that relate to this article:
Matthew 7: 4-5 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Ironically kelly the self-righteous attitude is yours. You believe "that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is what manifests in our hearts when we love our fellow human beings unconditionally and egolessly."
Two things. 1. You have to achieve your righteousness from within, by works, by self. I rely on Christ to complete my righteousness. 2. Your action toward me and I am sure others with my viewpoint are far less than your creed in "loving your fellow human beings unconditionally and egolessly". After all your posts are from the manifestation of your heart. I guess unless, in your next post you tell me you love me unconditionally and egolessly.
And for Mother Teresa. Again I applaud her use as a benchmark. Yes she did spend her life ministering to the suffering and the poor WHO WEREN'T EVEN FELLOW CHRISTIANS. They were Hindus, but she did so for one reason, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Again, what a wonderful testimony for our Savior, and do you think she may have led a few to Christ?
-- Mark Twain, Notebook (1898)
* If someone's calling themselves Christian uses the Bible as their source for instruction how to live as a people of faith they can't necessarily equate being a "Good American" with being a "Good Chrisitan." The Abolitionists were considered to be bad Americans.
* There're Christians in other countries that aren't American and practice prinicples that aren't endoresed by the Christian Right. In fact there are more Chrisitans outside of America.
* Anyone who would state that social justice is not Christian has either no understanding of the Bible, social justice or both.
* The Founding Fathers were by no means all Christian. Take a read of Jefferson's Bible if you will where he cut out everything that he didn't believe in.
* The ideal of a government wed with religion would look a lot like Saudi Arabia or even 1930's Germany.
* One can believe in the innerrancy of Scripture and still believe in social justice. The right has tried to make us all look like we denied divine inspiration to believe in social justice.
* To have a group of religiously conservative people follow after someone who they believe is going to hell because of his Mormon reminds me of Jesus' statements about wolves in sheeps clothing.
Above all I tell Christians to read Isaiah 95, The Sermon on the Mount and the teaching of the Sheeps and the Goats then get back with me on
---Lao-tzu.
"Kindness is my religion."
---Tenzin Gyatso, HH The Dalai Lama.
The Christian Right not only has lost the essence of Jesus' Teachings...they have become the contemporary equivalent of the publicly-pious, and hypocritically small-souled Pharisees that Jesus spent much of the Gospels condemning.
Their goal is to see that their religious-and-cultural mindset dominates the country...and to Hell (literally) with the rest of us.