- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Kuo states:"The problem is that Christians have been so invested in evangelizing politics that they have politicized their religion, and they've bought into an us-and-them mentality, so that frankly we -- they -- can no longer even communicate with people who happen to have different political views. Jesus sought out people who were prostitutes, outcasts and lowlifes. I fear that Christians are forgetting to invest in these very people and in the process isolating themselves by focusing too much on politics. I hope that by taking a step back we can give some of those hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent on attack ads, give it to the poor, give it to an after-school program, spend time with neighbors. As hokey as that may sound, it's what Jesus said to do, and I think it's more important right now than politics."
Utter nonsense.
I've been an active conservative evangelical for 25 years. What I've observed is that conservative Christians--both in leadership and especially at the grassroots--who are the most passionate and active in socially conservative politics are ALSO some of the ones who are the most passionate and active in compassion outreaches and ministries. Yes, there are many politically liberal evangelicals, like Kuo, who are involved in compassion ministries, and virtually all politically conservative Christians are thankful for that, and often partner with them (cf. World Vision). But . . . there are MORE politically conservative Christians who are involved in such ministries, both numerically and in terms of donated dollars and volunteer hours.
It's not just my observation.
If you do a survey of those denominations, individual churches, non-profit organizations, and individuals who are BOTH politically active AND heavily financially invested in compassion ministries (poverty alleviation, feeding programs, counseling, addiction recovery, etc.), you will find politically conservative Christians massively involved helping the poor and needy. The Southern Bapists are just a small example of this massive effort. And if you look at the operations of those ministries, you will see that although evangelism plays a role, no "conversion" is required to receive help such as food.
As always, there will be exceptions to this scenario, but the general picture I've painted is accurate. In general, politically conservative evangelical Christians have their priorities straight: evangelism, compassion, politics. On many issues, these three areas intersect (such as religious freedom, justice issues, etc.). And often, some evangelical leaders do indeed get dazzled and suckered. But not in general. In general, these three priorities remain.
Another Kuo fallacy: the demand for faith-based bucks by evangelicals.
The truth is that in general, the faith-based initiative never did sell well with top evangelicals. Some were on board. Many others were skeptical. When the money didn't come, most faith-based groups didn't care. They didn't want the strings that would have been attached to such funding. In that regard, Kuo is indeed naive, because this was well reported in the Christian media. There was never any massive push for the money; the demand was tepid.
Another Kuo fallacy:
He says Jesus would not care about "political" issues like abortion and the legal definition of marriage. So, I guess Kuo doesn't see the brutal dismembering of what even liberals agree is a human baby to be a "compassion" issue. I guess he doesn't see giving pregnant women an option to adopt out their baby and get the skills to climb out of poverty or destructive relationships as a "compassion" issue. I guess he doesn't see the statistical relationship between the sexual revolution's legal and cultural attack on traditional marriage and family and the increase in STDs, abuse, messed up children, a nose-diving lifespan and skyrocketing mental illness rate for gay people (especially in geographic areas where they are most "affirmed", such as San Francisco, New York, and L.A.), and other pathologies as a "compassion" issue. I guess he doesn't see this because part of the problem (and solution) involves "dirty" fields like law, public policy, and politics.
The fact is that politically conservative Christians do see all these as compassion issues. So they pour in volunteer hours, money for the poor and needy, and political activism where necessary into such causes.
And not to establish a theocracy (no reputable Christian leader advocates such a thing), but to have the freedom to serve others and express their viewpoint.
Maybe Kuo needs to take a fast from politics, but not from reading his Bible. That Bible shows that Jesus, who is God over all things, is very interested in using all avenues--including, but not limited to, civics--to advocate for compassion and justice. That's politics.
And hopefully, all the paranoid posters I've read regarding this article will get a grip. The big, bad evangelical monsters under your bed aren't there. We're out trying to live our lives, love our families, befriend our neighbors, help the poor, and persuade others of our ideas regarding freedom and justice. If that scares you, then you're scared of the 1st Amendment.
