This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Instapundit on the Religious Right | Main | Unsearchable God »
March 29, 2005
What Is the Religious Right?
Continuing with our discussion of the religious right, John Mark Reynolds offers his definition of the subject at hand:
A person is a member of the religious right if and only if he is a person who allows his religious knowledge to impact his decision making, he votes, he votes for Republicans, he does not privilege secular beliefs over religious beliefs as demanded by people with secular beliefs, and argues that some behavior at present favored by the majority of the editorial board of the LA Times is wrong and should not receive the approval and support of the state.
Interesting definition, and I wouldn't entirely disagree with it. It's a definition that I need to consider. In a post below, I took issue with some of the spokesmen of the religious right. In retrospect, a few of my comments were particularly strong, so let me offer a mea culpa. In my post I said, "I have very little use for the public face of the religious right, as identified in Dobson, Falwell and Robertson. I believe these leaders have outlived there usefulness as public spokesmen." To say I have "very little use" is perhaps stronger than I intended, particularly in light of Rev. Falwell's recent hospitalization. My prayers of with him and his family.
Still, I am unabashed in noting that I am uncomfortable with these men as figureheads. While I am thankful for their work over the last twenty-five years, I simply believe that at this stage in our society, these men have become ineffective as spokesman. Is it likely that nonbelievers, particularly those outside the red states, find these men convincing? I have a hard time believing it. James Dobson isn't doing anyone - the GOP or the Church - any favors by arguing with George Stephanopolous, and Jerry Falwell arguing with Al Sharpton is completely unnecessary. At some point, we as believers are going to have to decide if these men are effective public figures. In my own estimation, and feel free to correct me, that hour will be sooner rather than later. I say this with a great deal of hestitancy in light of Rev. Falwell's illness, but I am not speaking of him alone; he is part of the issue, not the root or even the center of it.
So where does that leave us? What is the proper marriage of faith and politics? Is it wrong to have Reynolds' stance where faith and theology informs political decision making? Is Rick Santorum wrong?
And here's my neverending quandry when it comes to public figures: Why is that I almost always feel comfortable with William F. Buckley, John Podhoretz, Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh? Why do I usually, though not always, feel comfortable with Al Mohler and Richard Land? And why do I rarely feel comfortable when I see James Dobson on my television?
Posted by Matt at March 29, 2005 06:31 PM
Trackback Pings
Comments
There is no such thing as a religious right
or religious left or anything in between, There is only god.
david
Posted by: david at July 16, 2006 12:25 PM