Skip to main content

Politicization of the Pulpit

After the death of Jerry Falwell and the declining popularity of Pat Robertson, surprisingly the legacy of the evangelical right persists in politically conservative media (like Fox News) and conservative evangelical churches (like some Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God churches). Equipped with sensationalistic jesters and political preachers, bearers of such legacy can pester the current administration. No wonder Obama and his advisers are launching an attack on Fox News, the main source of information for the evangelical right. Since the presidential campaign season for the 2008 election, I heard numerous anti-Obama sermons in a large congregation with a devoutly Republican pastor. A devoutly Republican pastor is one who cleverly subsumes the Christian message under the Republican agendas. Many conservative evangelical churches have devoutly Republican pastors, who regularly politicize the pulpit by unnecessarily turning congregants against Obama.

In a subtle way, this is dangerous, since politicization of the pulpit corrupts the Christian message by allowing it to be shaped by partisan agendas, compromises the fairness of an electoral process by manipulating the will of generally uninformed voters, and spreads politically divisive messages that encourage unnecessary and subtle rebellion against the current regime. No one should underestimate the political power of the evangelical right. The victories of Reagan and G.W. Bush are the legacy of such power. In election, sheer number rules. Fallacious, irrational, or outrageous inferences proclaimed by devoutly Republican preachers naturally condition the minds of those who cannot critically process complex and politically relevant information. Whether or not these people understand the issues, they cast their votes and aggressively express their political opinions. So, the best candidate, policy, or program does not necessarily win in the process.

In order to incite anger against Obama, there’s nothing better than identifying Obama with the coming antichrist. Recognized for his peacemaking goals, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, for such political preachers, is the one who deceitfully and initially brings about peace, as precursory to the rapture (or Jesus’ second coming for his saints). He is viewed as the antichrist, who is supposed to deceitfully and initially appear as a bearer of peace. Considering the bestselling Left Behind series as the primary shaper of popular evangelical imaginations on end-time prophecies, no wonder the evangelical right supporters readily accept this mistaken notion about the coming antichrist. So, peacemakers are no more blessed. Cursed are the peacemakers for they are potentially the antichrists. For such political preachers, blessed are the warmongers for they will be free from such apocalyptic suspicion. However, in the beatitudes, Jesus praises the peacemakers, not the warmongers. So, no one should be inhibited, due to apocalyptic suspicions, to promote peace. Such political preachers once again rehash their political narrative. But it now has apocalyptic twists.

Ironically, these political preachers also challenge moral stances that, as Christians, they ought to support, considering the unambiguous biblical support for such stances. They will support unjust wars with utilitarian justifications for the promotion of neoconservative goals. Obviously, the peace-loving Jesus will oppose such wars. Furthermore, they will oppose any program or policy that appears to redistribute wealth or that attempts to provide equal access to the basic needs of Americans (such as affordable healthcare, decent homes, quality education, etc.). Jesus is the one who told a rich man to sell his wealth and distribute the proceeds to the poor. In the Book of Acts, some of the early Christians sold their possessions and distribute the proceeds to their fellow Christians. These political preachers are not just enemies of reason. They are also the modern-day Pharisees, whom a modern-day Jesus will challenge.

In the midst of the current economic crisis, we do not need malicious oracular pronouncements that chant the collapse of the current administration. For the sake of genuine concern for the victims of the current economic crisis, Christians are supposed to invoke divine guidance on the formation of policies and programs that can pull us out of this mess. Don’t allow your Christian values to be tainted by your partisan ideologies and the political dreams of your political idols. In addition, Paul in Romans 13: 1 – 7 even urged early Christians to respect the authority of earthly leaders, since such leaders are appointed by God. By inculcating unnecessary and irrelevant doubts on the current administration, such political preachers disrespect the authority of a capable earthly leader and dishonor God by unnecessarily questioning His appointee. These political preachers threaten the integrity of the Christian message and American democracy.

Comments

Unknown said…
I was wondering if I was the only one that thought so.
Hello Sara

You are not the only one. There are many people who are sick and tired of the attempts of pastors to politicize the pulpit by incorporating agendas that subtly corrupt the agendas of God's kingdom. Take care.

Jun-Jun

Popular posts from this blog

William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig, a leading evangelical apologist, is featured in a major article in The Chronicle of Higher Education [see http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en ]. That should be a surprise, since CHE is not known for having a taste for people like Craig. I think that Craig is overrated by evangelicals, but underrated by academics. His triumphalism, I think, weakens the merits of his arguments, since it underrates what I consider to be persuasive cases for atheism. It tends to caricature his opponents’ arguments as unworthy of serious considerations. However, his skills as a debater are unparalleled. He is definitely a force to be reckoned with. Of course, winning a debate is not a sufficient condition for establishing the truth of one’s claim. But I think that his opponents, like Alexander Rosenberg (Duke philosopher) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist), are mistaken for downplaying the role of formal debates in