Up until yesterday, Father Orthoduck was a subscriber to a pro-life newsletter that kept him up with pro-life oriented news. No, it was not Right-to-Life. But Father Orthoduck had been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the newsletter because more and more it would keep running anti-government articles, specifically anti-Obama articles. That is, rather than concentrating on anti-abortion issues, it seemed as though the newsletter had more and more articles that were devoted to being anti-Obama. Any appointment made by President Obama was heralded by a phrase on the order of, “President Obama appoints another pro-abortion person to …”. This seemed to be true even if the person was appointed to a post only remotely related to anything having to do with abortion.
But, Father Orthoduck kept receiving the newsletter because of some of the other information received. However, finally the last straw came. In a recent story, the publication said:
Some religious left leaders who have upset pro-life Christians over their support for Obama and his pro-abortion agenda will join Sebelius on the call — including Rev. Joel Hunter of Northland Church in Florida.
That is what surprised Father Orthoduck because he used to live in Florida. If you go to the website of the Northland Church, you will find the following quotes from their statement of faith and their vision statement:
We believe the Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is verbally inspired of God, is inerrant in the original writings, and is the Christian’s final authority in faith and conduct. 2 Timothy 3:16 …
We believe by miracle of the virgin birth that the Lord Jesus Christ, eternal Son of God, became man without ceasing to be God in order to reveal God and to redeem man. He is the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins and arose bodily from the dead for our justification. He is now exalted at the right hand of God, Head of the Church and Lord of the individual believer, fulfilling His ministry as our Great High Priest and Advocate. Matthew 1:18-23, John 1:1-3 …
We believe that salvation from the guilt and condemnation of sin is possible only as the gift of God’s grace. It cannot be gained by good resolutions, sincere efforts, nor submission to the rules, regulations, or ordinances of any church, but is freely bestowed on all who put their faith in Christ and trust in the work that Christ accomplished on the cross of Calvary. All who so trust the Savior pass from death unto life, are forgiven of their sins, accepted by the Father, and born into His family by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. John 5:24, Ephesians 1:6-7, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:23 …
Vision Statement — To see people coming to Christ and growing in Him as we link local and global communities for ministry and worship everywhere, every day.
OK, so what is it that makes this church and its pastor part of the religious left? This is a church whose statements make it clear that not only are they Evangelical, but that they are very theologically conservative Evangelicals. Words like verbal inspiration and inerrant are not the hallmarks of “liberals,” or the “religious left,” rather the opposite. You see, among theologically conservative people, calling someone part of the religious left is saying that they are not really believers. The wording of the sentence in the newsletter makes it clear that “some religious left leaders” are not “pro-life Christians.” Notice that the word Christian is not even used in relationship to “religious left.” Yet, if you were to look through the website of Northland, it would become clear that they are devoted to Our Lord, to missions, to evangelism and pro-life.
So, how did this leader get singled out to be mentioned in such company, despite being theologically conservative and anti-abortion? Well, the pastor made the mistake of daring to say that he does not believe that the healthcare plan actually funds abortion. But, this newsletter has kept on insisting that the Obama healthcare plan finances abortion, regardless of judicial rulings, counter-arguments, etc. Now, that is their prerogative. And, of course, they could always be right, though Father Orthoduck doubts it.
But, here is where Father Orthoduck has a problem with that newsletter. It is one thing to disagree with a fellow theologically conservative Christian. But, when one deliberately misrepresents the fellow Christian and uses language that makes it clear that you doubt their commitment to Christ and to pro-life ideals, one has crossed a certain line. They could have said that they are convinced that the pastor of Northland Church is mistaken in his evaluation of the healthcare plan. That would have been perfectly appropriate. But, they did not. Instead, they used language that deliberately made it seem as though the pastor of Northland Church had come to his opinion for purely political non-Christian reasons. (If you were to read the rest of that article in the newsletter, it would become very clear.) That is where they crossed the line.
At that point, the pro-life organization crossed the line to an attitude that the ends justifies the means. And they fell into the current political attitude that the destruction of an opponent merits the use of deliberately spun language. In this case, the language has been spun to present what is actually a lie. The pastor of Northland Church might be mistaken in his evaluation of the healthcare bill. But, he is neither a liberal nor pro-abortion nor supporting a pro-abortion agenda. And when Christian truth is turned into a non-Christian lie, it is then time to click on the unsubscribe button, which is what Father Orthoduck did.
You are an answer to prayer, Fr. Ernie. Your comments address an issue I have been dealing with for quite some time…because I am politically left of center, I don’t fit in with my peers and am judged. I am currently seeking a new home church because of it. It is no wonder ppl on the left are highly suspicious of anything to do with Jesus. I just think the church needs to get on with the Lord’s business of giving hope to the ppl instead of trying to legislate morality and use Christ as a reason to further divide our country. Do they think it’s ok to lie about someone or to lie about what that person is trying to do just because they disagree with the idea? Or is it more about using God to further their own narrow agenda? Either way, it destroys the witness of Christ to a large part of our country and to use the words of a song “Jesus paid much too high a price for us to pick and choose who can come”.
Good for you, Father. And Betty, do I ever hear you.
I have just about had it with the movement among Christians to glorify the practice of bearing false witness against people whose politics they don’t like. The fabric of lies spread over Christian political “discourse” has become so thick, I despair. I am especially grieved at the increasing degree to which I see it among my fellow Orthodox Christians, some of whom are much too eager to adopt these tactics.
But, naturally, they don’t think they’re lying. Or maybe the realization that they’re repeating lies flashes in their conscience for a moment, but it’s overcome by their self-righteous conviction that anything they say to condemn their opponents is justified. I’m not sure which is worse. Lord have mercy.
Here’s the dirty little secret that is rarely discussed (although Frank Schaeffer mentions it in passing in “Crazy for God”).
Suppose you are “pro-life/anti-abortion” or whatever. You need funding. Well, as it shakes out, the people most likely to give you big bucks are probably going to be quite conservative on economic issues. In fact, it may be all that they are really concerned about. So you get your money to advocate against abortion with the tacit (or explicit) understanding that you will also shill for their broader anti-“socialist” agenda.
Note: I think that Frank Schaeffer is, in many ways, a tragic figure, and I think that he has also simply become a mirror image of what he used to be. I also think he is simply wrong on some issues. Nevertheless, he was a first hand witness to the founding of the Christian Right as a mainstream movement in the early seventies and his discussion of this in “Crazy for God” is indispensable for understanding how things got to where they currently are on that front.
Ya’ll: Hang in there! Orthodoxy is pretty incompatible with neo-conservatism and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
Suppose you are “pro-life/anti-abortion” or whatever. You need funding. Well, as it shakes out, the people most likely to give you big bucks are probably going to be quite conservative on economic issues. In fact, it may be all that they are really concerned about. So you get your money to advocate against abortion with the tacit (or explicit) understanding that you will also shill for their broader anti-”socialist” agenda.
i.e. How Ayn Rand became the Fourth Person of the Trinity.
There seems to have been a shift from Buckley to Rand as indicative of where and how conservatives (or maybe libertarians) field issues with the left or center. Might just be me but I’ve just had that impression. The Rand fans I’ve encountered in the last ten years do seem to co-opt her as a fourth member of the Trinity.
Besides all of the faults/sins you have listed, these people continue to believe that all the rest of us are stupid and if they say it loud enough and long enough, everyone will believe it.
Frank Schaeffer admitted in Crazy for God he had a lot to do with turning his dad toward Religious RIght activism. He has seemed to want things both ways about his father, though. He wants to simultaneously lament his being hard-nosed about conservatism to the point that he somehow corrupted his father while opining that he somehow escaped the rigid religious background he had and it seems to depend on who he’s writing editorials for. I remember his earlier books where he confidently declared that capitalism was really the only economic system that was consistent both with the Christian worldview and with political freedom. He paradoxically (not to say ironically) comes off as mainly a semi-demagogue. I don’t see any reason to question that his family had flaws, and even as an evangelical Protestant I think some of his criticisms are well-founded, but I agree that he seems like a tragic figure. My Orthodox relatives say that he’s technically “on the team” but that he rarely expresses ideas that would be considered widely indicative of what Orthodox converts and cradle Orthodox are like.
As for me, I’m not sure that even evangelical Protestantism leads to neo-conservative politics. 🙂
Well, my parents and their church communities were Christian Right back in the days when that was the “lunatic fringe”; that is, before the early seventies.
I don’t think that Evangelical Protestantism HAS to result in far right wing, or neo-conservative, politics, but there certainly seems to be a pretty large correlation and that over at least the past 50 years.