Bob Edgar: "Red Letter Christian"
Faith and Politics
| October 11, 2006
| Tim
A few years ago, I happened to turn on C-SPAN to see Bob Edgar, who had recently become head of the NCC, giving a speech. Edgar said that he wasn't opposed to Christianity, but that they were going to make war on Christian fundamentalism -- apparently meaning those who tended to a more "literal" reading of the bible.
Fast forward several years: I happen across Bob Edgar again, this time on a radio talk show. And where is Edgar now? He's tell us he's a part of a group which calls itself the "Red Letter Christians", which he tells us means that they actually read the whole bible, including the red-printed letters which Jesus spoke. Perhaps, he says, the conservatives he criticizes could read the bible closely enough to see that they should sign onto his political agenda.
Sorry, Bob, I wasn't born yesterday. One minute, you're telling me you're in a war against people who (you feel) read the bible literally, the next minute you're assuring me the problem is that these people don't take the bible literally enough. Well, which is it?
Yet Edgar's political goal hasn't changed: only the strategy has. Back in the late '90s, he was basicly implying that the text of the bible was what got in the way of his liberal agenda. Now he's claiming the text of the bible demands it. Which is the constant? Which is the variable?
Interestingly enough, during the interview, he finally admitted the belief that the bible required socialist programs was his personal interpretation. Well, very good enough then, but that's not the thesis of the book he was promoting. Instead, it was one of those conservative-bashing books which implied that by not supporting his political goals, Christian conservatives were betraying Jesus. Indeed, using the term "red letter Christian" to promote a political agenda carries the same implication.
Tim, I heard Campolo interviewed on a local radio station the other day...the obvious polictical bent these "Red Letter" guys have is scary. Did you happen to catch this little tid-bit on Edgar's opinion about war? See here.
I thought it's pretty clear in scripture that God puts governments in control, and 'they' can use the sword...Romans 13
Another recent review I spotted made an interesting point that war is an extension of Police Powers of the State. Would Edgar dismiss the need for police in our communities because we don't turn the other cheek to the criminals in our community? I hope this isn't off topic. ;)
Tim, I heard Campolo interviewed on a local radio station the other day...the obvious polictical bent these "Red Letter" guys have is scary.
I don't mind that they have a political bent. I do mind the hypocrisy of pretending they don't. I keep hearing: "Jesus is not a Republican", which is really code for "Jesus wants you to vote for Democrats."
Take Jim Wallis, for example, author of the book "God's Politics". Wallis comes across as believing abortion is morally wrong, and says Democrats should "support reasonable restrictions" [1] on it. And his voter guide "Voting God's Politics" [pdf] assures us: "We're not right-wing or left-wing Christians" and assures us they believe "God is not a Republican or Democrat."
Yet the actual policies advocated by the guide (pg. 14-15) are a laundry list of "liberal" "left-wing" demands: increased minimum wage, governmental programs to reduce child poverty, governmental programs to reduce global poverty, "trade justice", and more foreign aid, US out of Iraq, a demand we promise no threats of force against nations like North Korea and Iraq, yet more support (i.e. money) for the UN, opposition to "environmental racism" (whatever that is), demands for yet more affirmative action policies... etc, etc, etc.
Not a single "conservative" policy appears on the list.
Even abortion -- the only "conservative" policy Wallis conceivably holds -- is muted. His organization's guide only suggests we should "prevent unwanted pregnancies", provide governmental "supports" (i.e. welfare programs), and "provide meaningful alternatives" -- offering zero "reasonable restrictions" on a woman's 'right' to abort at any time, for any reason.
At what level is this narrative emerging? Is it even possible to believe that they didn't notice these are categorized as "leftist" policies? Or is it just that since -- as many accuse their opponents -- they are so deeply in thrall to carrying out "God's will", in precise detail, that such categories can't apply?
Like: "If God wants us to give the UN even more money, then that's not liberal -- that's just obedience to God!" ???
Would Edgar dismiss the need for police in our communities because we don't turn the other cheek to the criminals in our community?
I don't really understand pacifists. (Which is odd, because I was one once. Once I realized the confusion in my thinking, I just changed. That happened before I was twenty, so I don't know what a 60-year-old pacifist has been telling himself to answer those questions. But I digress...)
I don't understand, how, for example, it's wrong to possibly indirectly threaten, say, Iran with force -- and yet it's fine for a policeman to point a gun at someone. I don't understand how you can condemn one and approve of the other, except on pragmatic grounds. (Which a pacifist can't appeal to.)
So I suspect Edgar would be just fine with police, and awful with "world police" as long as it was the US who was the police -- but FINE again with the idea as long as it was the UN in that role.
I'm not saying this makes sense to me: it doesn't. But I'd bet that's about where he stands.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, don!
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Tony Campolo on Marriage |
Front Page |
Page Two
| The Cultural Contributions of Critics »
|
Tim, I heard Campolo interviewed on a local radio station the other day...the obvious polictical bent these "Red Letter" guys have is scary. Did you happen to catch this little tid-bit on Edgar's opinion about war? See here.
I thought it's pretty clear in scripture that God puts governments in control, and 'they' can use the sword...Romans 13
Another recent review I spotted made an interesting point that war is an extension of Police Powers of the State. Would Edgar dismiss the need for police in our communities because we don't turn the other cheek to the criminals in our community? I hope this isn't off topic. ;)
Posted by: don on October 12, 2006 12:29 AM