Think Wink.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, two former Presidents of the US and are both Democrats, have created a new social initiative within the Christian church. Now this makes me uneasy because of how liberal these guys can be. For more info on the initiative and some Christian reaction, go see what Brad Andrews wrote at relevintage.com here and here. Dr. Russell Moore, who is filling in for the sick Dr. Albert Mohler on the Alber Mohler Program, tackled this issue today on the radio with guests Tony Campolo and John Mercurio. It was very interesting to hear the comments.

First there is what Tony said. He said he liked the idea but wished it wasn’t two politicians who raised the issue. He also wished it wasn’t two Democrats either. Instead he preferred that it would be a Democrat and a Republican so that it wasn’t so politicized. He feels, and I agree, that Christianity has become too political in recent years. What he, and I, mean by that is that a Christian has to be Democrat or a Christian has to be Republican. The Church has been too affiliated with one party when both parties are not biblical on all of the issues. In response to Carter talking about there being too much disunity in the church, Tony feels there might be some merit to that. However, unity cannot truly exist without it centering on Christ. We can unify around a specific issue, but this unity isn’t true unity, nor will it last. He also said that Carter and Clinton should not call this a Christian movement because the people aren’t unifying around who Jesus is and what he did and these important issues of doctrine. If this was a Christian movement there would be unity in these issues that are specific to Christianity. Instead he thinks this should be called a social movement, which I think is the better label for this initiative. It is a social initiative asking Christians to join. It isn’t a true Christian movement and it’s not real Christian unity. Dr. Moore, who tends to be more conservative than Campolo was in absolute agreement, which they joked about because about the only thing they do agree upon is Jesus and the Bible.

John Mercurio looks at this from a more political angel. This is an attempt to show evangelical Christians that they can vote for Hilary in 2008. John says that this is planned for the presidential primaries and for the election seasons. Clinton is trying to show that he isn’t a Dukakis secularist but is compatible with evangelical Christianity.

Dr. Moore feels that this is a fraud because it isn’t centered around Christ and the gospel of the glory of Christ. Moore feels that he can’t trust Clinton who denies key doctrines of Christ. Clinton is very much a secularist, he is very pro-abortion, and did allow pornography to increase under his administration. He feels that this man is not fit to teach about the New Testament and to tell us what is found in the Bible because of who he is and what he stands for (note I am speaking of Clinton in the present tense). He disagrees with Carter pushing issues like the doctrine of Christ to the side.
I like Tony’s wisdom on this issue. In his past sermon, John Piper said we as Christians are too isolated on social issues except abortion and homosexuality. We as Christians need to become a larger voice on more social issues. But this initiative should have been brought up by recognized Christian leaders, like the leader of the SBC or example, instead of two political leaders of the same party. I do agree with this being a social movement that it will not unify the church because this unity is not centered around the central issue that divides: the doctrines of Christ and the Bible. To shift the focus off of Jesus to attain unity is not going to solve anything. It doesn’t even become a Christian movement because the movement has nothing Christian about it other than it is a bunch of Christians acting, as Tony said. I think the thing that makes me most uncomfortable is that Clinton is in on this and he is not a Christian and the initiative is scheduled to meet in the thick of the presidential race and his wife would be running for president. They may be sincere, but the timing smells rotten. It seems more like politics and less like love for people. It should have been conservative evangelical leaders and liberal leaders within the church doing this, or at least people that are both Dem. and Rep. and not just from one party. It is too politically charged to really mean anything. But that doesn’t mean that the Church shouldn’t be seen as a force for social betterment. The church must be political, or involved in the political process. The church should not be political, identified with just one party when both parties are right and wrong.

God is SO good.