Review of Tim Alberta’s “The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism”
“The book is at its best in shedding light on how American evangelicals have confronted – and continue to navigate – the relationship between faith and politics. Across his travels, Alberta recounts a colorful cast of characters and churches.” - Providence
- 963 views
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Those who have a concern about evangelicals and politics seem to offer a variety of solutions.
- Vote only for those who hold to a Biblical view as we hold it.
- Do not vote at all since politics is corrupt
- Vote for those who are atheists or reject Biblical principles in order to punish those who have some semblance of Biblical value but are impure in other areas.
- Vote for those that have some semblance of Biblical value even if they are corrupted in other areas.
Am I missing another option and if so, please help me to better understand where we should look going forward? Although I do not hold to points 1 or 2 entirely, I can respect those who do. I have trouble understanding #3. I wish I had a better option than #4, but find myself going there because Jesus is not yet ruling here with his rod of iron.
Choosing option 1 would mean I could not vote for a Catholic or Charismatic and some could not even vote for those who baptized babies. We would all have to find where to draw the line I guess. Thus, I am not comfortable with option 1, but would not want to encourage someone to violate their conscience if that is where they were at. At the same time, I would hope those in #1 would not become legalistic towards those who are not there.
JD, what do you mean with #3 by "Punishing those.....?"
I’m not sure “biblical view,” “biblical principals” and “biblical value” cover it. For example—and this is hypothetical to illustrate the categories problem—suppose a candidate holds to biblical principles but is discovered to have rapidly advancing brain tumor a week before election?
Or he holds to biblical views, principles, values verbally—even in policies—but is discovered to be a holocaust denier?
What if he suffers a brain damaging accident, and his IQ drops to about 5th grade level?
My point is that there are multiple categories of qualifications that can be grouped under “fit for duty.”
Character is certainly one of them.
Ravi Zacharias affirmed biblical values, biblical principles, and biblical views but was later found to have profoundly unChristian conduct in at least one really important area of life.
So… we’re really making progress if we even embrace the idea that character matters in political officials and that policy outcomes are not enough. You dot not have to be Christian at all to believe:
- Elected officials should keep obvious lies and distortions down to, say, one or two a week
- Elected officials should demonstrate that they know the difference between fantasy and reality—say, 25% of the time
- Elected officials should never say they want to throw out the Constitution
- Elected officials should not be on record as saying they want to abuse women
I could go on, but we’re talking about really low standards here.
So I guess there could be a #5 in the list: Vote only for candidates who are decent human beings, aren’t profoundly delusional, show at least the average human’s regard for truth in public discourse, and consistently respect the Constitution, at least verbally. Is that really too much to ask of evangelicals? That doesn’t seem like a high bar to me, but the times are what they are.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Joel, I do not hold or understand view #3, so I would prefer that those who do explain where they are coming from.
I can appreciate Aaron's #5 provided that it is held equally to all candidates. The challenge is that too often neither major candidate fits #5. I can understand voting 3rd party in such a situation and I have, but there are times that I have chosen a candidate that did not fit #5 because I felt it was for the better good. I am sure many of you who voted for the other candidate did the same (Some voted for Biden rather than 3rd party because they thought Trump was too far from #5 so they made a decision for the greater good. Others voted for Trump rather than 3rd party because they thought Biden was too far from #5 so they made a decision for the greater good.) Let us remember to show grace toward one another as we make these difficult decisions.
Often I have heard #3 framed framed as evangelicals usually vote for a particular party and that party has nominated some people that do not fit with Biblical values so all of that party's candidates should be voted against to send a message to that party.
....is that politics is an engineering problem, a situation where one needs to take the best option out of a number of imperfect options, not a mathematics problem, where there is one right answer that is 100% right.
So in light of Aaron's list, given someone who halfway agrees with me on some things, yes, I will pull the lever for a guy who has bragged about disrespecting women over a woman who has enabled her husband's disrespect and abuse of women personnally.
The big reason I did so was Hilliary's server; I knew from my experience working for military contractors (TRW, now Northrup Grumman at Space Park) and being interviewed by the FBI for friends' background checks/security clearances, that when compromising information is found by foreign governments, they take advantage of it. Imagine a politician with a serious issue being approached by a foreign operative and being told "how'd you like this on page 1 of the New York Times? If you don't want that, this is what we want you to do.".
Politics isn't, sad to say, beanbag, and there are times when I want to bathe after I vote. But Jesus said we are to be wise as snakes for a reason.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Imagine a politician with a serious issue being approached by a foreign operative and being told "how'd you like this on page 1 of the New York Times? If you don't want that, this is what we want you to do."
Yep - The obvious corruption in DOJ, FBI, etc. makes me think we have a LOT of compromised leaders. That includes elected and appointed. I almost feel like we should have an amnesty week for child molesters. Come forward now and you will not be prosecuted for past offenses.
People have always disagreed about big-vs-small government, etc. But the level of desperation to prevent Trump from a second term is amazing. Many seem to believe the world will end. Which makes me think that for them, with their past, it just might.
People have always disagreed about big-vs-small government, etc. But the level of desperation to prevent Trump from a second term is amazing. Many seem to believe the world will end. Which makes me think that for them, with their past, it just might.
Why do you think a second Trump term would cause corrupt people to "believe the world will end" for them? It seems to me, based on Trump's character, that the corrupt people would rejoice. As long as they pledge allegiance to Trump, they might even get a cabinet position or ambassadorship.
I purchased the book and am about 1/2 way through it. VERY thought-provoking on many levels.
It seems to me that most of the comments in the thread above are missing the point -- or at least "a" point -- in the book's intention. This isn't about conservative politics -- it's about evangelical Christianity.
My concerns as to whether or not my refusal to engage in activism any longer as a spiritual leader on the behalf of conservative politics is missed, detrimental, unpatriotic, or anything else remotely negative simply no longer exists. What DOES matter to me is whether or not my activism for political leaders and parties diminishes my testimony, effectiveness as a pastor and ability to represent Christ accurately as His ambassador. I am fully convinced that it does, therefore I dropped out about 20 years ago during the end of the first term of the second Bush Presidency. The last 7 years has only convinced me of the rightness of that decision further.
You should read the book. If you have more in common with Trump (Gaetz, Greene, Jones, Boebert) than you do with Alberta, well, then....we simply have different priorities.
Disclosure: I was a card-carrying member of the Moral Majority and a friend of Jerry Falwell, Srs.
my refusal to engage in activism any longer as a spiritual leader on the behalf of conservative politics
I would say this is where I was 10 years ago.
There is a concept in sociology called loss aversion. It says that people hate losing something that is "theirs" far more than they like getting something of equal value given to them. In politics, this means that if we alternate between conservatives and democrats(socialists), we will trend more and more socialist. Because the conservatives simply cannot take away the things that the socialists give. Take government health care. Before Obamacare passed, it was a legitimate question: should the government provide health care? Now, it's not even on the table.
So I felt, and still feel, that it will be impossible to prevent the socialist slide of our country.
Overall, you may be right - we are lights in the world. It will be an increasingly (and likely rapidly increasingly) horrible, anti-christian world. Trying to drain the swamp might be a noble effort, but an impossible one. Perhaps stop tilting at windmills and be the light we are called to be. I think that's what you're saying.
Why do you think a second Trump term would cause corrupt people to "believe the world will end" for them?
For the exact reason that the Epstein client list has been hidden by the FBI and no attempts have been made to prosecute anyone on it.
Why do you think a second Trump term would cause corrupt people to "believe the world will end" for them?
For the exact reason that the Epstein client list has been hidden by the FBI and no attempts have been made to prosecute anyone on it.
I don't see that "exact reason" changing any with a second Trump term. Do you?
It wouldn't really be surprising to me if Trump himself was actually on Epstein's client list, so I'm not understanding how your response is an answer to my question to you.
I don't see that "exact reason" changing any with a second Trump term. Do you?
Hmmm... Well, in 2020 as the election approached, when Hunter's laptop was found. At the next debate, Biden had this response ready:
“Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”
Indeed, 50 former and current intelligence did say that.
However, before congress Gary Shapley testified in 2023 that FBI had verified the laptop in 2019.
So here's a bunch of "intelligence folks" willing to lie to influence an election. And you're thinking Trump is the corrupt one here?
So here's a bunch of "intelligence folks" willing to lie to influence an election. And you're thinking Trump is the corrupt one here?
I have no doubt there is more than one corrupt person involved in government. I just don't think any corrupt people are against Trump due to them thinking "the world will end" in any way for them if Trump becomes president.
Discussion