The American Spectator : Evangelicals and the Tea Party

Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Evangelicals and the Tea Party

By Mark Tooley on 11.2.10 @ 6:08AM

They are a close match, much to the chagrin of a weakened Evangelical Left.

With the Tea Party credited for Republican energy in the 2010 elections, evangelicals, typically a key Republican constituency, have been overshadowed. Purportedly, evangelical zeal for Republicans declined with the close of the Bush Administration, and young evangelicals were trending more liberal, based on their reputed environmentalism, wariness of war, and distaste for dicey social issues. Evangelical Left activist and theorist Jim Wallis, a prominent Obama supporter, is ostensibly the voice of a new breed of more progressive evangelicals.

White Protestant Evangelicals make up about a quarter of the electorate. Exit polls showed 75 percent of them voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2004 and 73 percent in 2006. In 2008, 73 or 74 percent voted for McCain, a small dip from 78 percent who supported Bush in 2004. But liberal evangelicals like Wallis made much of this dip, pointing especially to young evangelicals, who remained strongly Republican in 2008, but less so than their seniors.

Though polling is a little scarce, evangelicals almost certainly compose a disproportionate share of the Tea Party. A recent Public Religion Research Institute polls showed 36 percent of Tea Partiers are evangelicals. Although the Tea Party does not emphasize social issues, the poll showed strong Tea Party majorities are conservative on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Evangelical Left elites unsurprisingly are alarmed by the Tea Party's resonance among evangelicals and insist the appeal is mostly to oldsters. Or they deride the Tea Party as primarily libertarian, i.e., materialistic and out of sync with religion. "The younger Evangelicals who I interact with are largely turned off by the Tea Party movement -- by the incivility, the name-calling, the pathos of politics," commented former evangelical lobbyist Richard Cizik earlier this year. Calling the Tea Party "irreligious," he expressed chagrin that some evangelicals are attracted to it. Cizik, who lost his long time job with the National Association of Evangelicals for publicly supporting same-sex civil unions, has since worked for George Soros's Open Society Institute. He now works with the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.

Commanding a larger following than Cizik, Jim Wallis blasted the Tea Party in a recent news release and devotes the November issue of his Sojourners magazine to a Tea Party critique. Like Cizik, Wallis has also received Soros funding for his efforts to pull evangelicals leftward. The Tea Party's rise, and its appeal to evangelicals, potentially disrupts the Evangelical Left narrative that evangelicals are reorienting towards a progressive social justice narrative.

Wallis' Sojourners critique is headlined "The Theology of the Tea Party: Can Libertarianism Be Reconciled with Christian Faith?" Lest readers miss the point, the article is accompanied by a critique of the late Ayn Rand, with the headline: "Jesus Shrugged? To Follow Ayn Rand and Her Vision, One Must Give up Christ and His Cross." It accurately describes Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, as a "staunch atheist." But the Wallis/Sojourners attempt to portray Tea Partiers as anti-religious Objectivists is absurd. The recent Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll found that 80 percent of Tea Partiers self-identified as Christian.

In his recent news release, Wallis asked: "Is the Tea Party Christian?" His answer naturally is "no." But he lamented that 25 percent of Evangelicals identify with the Tea Party, obviously referring to the PRRI poll. "The libertarian beatitude, 'Blessed are those who are just left alone' has still not joined those in the Sermon on the Mount," Wallis opined. In his Sojourners piece, Wallis warns that the Tea Party's "political commitments are rooted in the libertarian philosophy" and is a "secular movement, not a Christian one." Wallis's best-selling 2005 book, and his Sojourners' blog, are called God's Politics. The implication is that non-liberal political stances are inherently NOT God's politics.

Wallis darkly observes that "some people who regard themselves as Christians" support the Tea Party, but he emphasizes "that doesn't make it 'Christian.'" Still, he insists the Tea Party can fairly be judged based on "Christian principles," which he proceeds to do, but while wholly conflating libertarianism with the Tea Party. He highlights Kentucky Republican Senatorial candidate Rand Paul's critique of the 1964 Civil Rights Act earlier this year as one example of how libertarianism "falls short" of "biblical ethics."

Not entirely unfairly, Wallis contrasts libertarianism's individualism with Christianity's concern for the "common good." He criticizes its emphasis on private charity as falling short of the "biblical calling" for government to protect the poor. He asks if an "anti-government ideology" can be biblical, accurately noting that Christianity understands the state to exercise a providential role. He chastises libertarianism's ostensible "supreme trust" in a "sinless market" and for heeding the Chamber of Commerce over God. Wallis chides the libertarian "preference for the strong over the weak," which contrasts with Christian concerns for the most vulnerable.

Most egregiously, Wallis ominously wonders if "white resentment" guides the Tea Party, noting that 89 percent of Tea Partiers are white, according to one survey. "I wonder if there would even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren't the first black man to occupy that office," Wallis asks. Does he think the Tea Party would not exist if a President John Kerry or Hillary Clinton had pursued Obama's same policies? If not, it's not clear why. Wallis also asks if libertarianism is the "furthest political philosophy from Christian faith." Further than Communism, Nazism, Fascism, or theocratic Islam? It's a silly question, given the other possibilities.

Wallis's desire to identify the whole Tea Party with an extreme, soulless, Ayn Rand-style libertarianism that exalts the strong and disregards the weak is a stretch. Not all Tea Partiers are libertarians, much less clones of Ayn Rand. And many Christians believe in limited government for moral reasons -- because human fallibility makes centralized political power dangerous, and because big government can displace religion, family and other human institutions with divine purpose. Wallis's essay warns against the free market because of human sinfulness. But he does not acknowledge that human sinfulness may also argue against his brand of big government, which, unlike the market, has the power to tax, regulate, incarcerate, and even kill.

The current economy and political climate, of which the Tea Party is a symptom, may have neutralized whatever gains Wallis's brand of statism had achieved among younger evangelicals. Evangelical Left elites want to emphasize Global Warming regulation and government health care, while most evangelicals almost certainly share Tea Party distress about too much government. Wallis's alarms over the Tea Party, and evangelical support for it, may reveal his own political intuition that the Evangelical Left's moment has receded.

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Taking Back the United Methodist Church.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (90) | Leave a comment

Vaemar| 11.2.10 @ 7:29AM

"The sinless market" - what a deranged concept! It's like talking about a sinless steam engine.

Ted Z.| 11.2.10 @ 9:41AM

Go, Giants, go!

San Francisco's golden sun still shines for you!

The beautiful city by the bay celebrates today!

John B| 11.2.10 @ 11:32AM

Wallis embraces the same mistakes as all "social justice" Christians. The Bible calls for Christians to care for the vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals as individuals acting on their Christian principles. To delegate that duty to secular governmental entities openly antagonistic to Christian principles is illogical. Also, a well formed Christian conscience understands the the state can exercise a providential role in these social issues, but very seldom does, if for no other reason than it's reduction if individuals to group identities, an outright denial of individual dignity and sanctity. The dignity, and sancity, of an individual is inextricably tied to individual liberty.

Alan Brooks| 11.2.10 @ 3:46PM

If you are Christians then why do you tolerate the idolatry of Confederate statues depicting rebel anti-heros all over the Deep South?
Tear the statues-- those abominable graven-type images of rebels against God-- down to, sell them as scrap.

Ole Sarge| 11.3.10 @ 11:52PM

Alan, what have you been smoking, need to give it up. If you don't like us Reb sorts, shoot, stay north of the M/D line bud.

Jay Pitsby| 11.2.10 @ 7:39AM

Evangelicals are fast becoming Useful Idiots.

Ryan| 11.2.10 @ 8:36AM

How so?

yt900| 11.2.10 @ 10:51AM

If the Tea Partier's on this page are examples of "Christians," God help us all!

The Tea Party posters I read on AmSpec are rude, closed-minded, vulgarians . . . and, I might add, dumber than dirt.

Tim*| 11.2.10 @ 11:27AM

New York Times/CBS News poll:Tea party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public.

Jay Pitsby| 11.2.10 @ 11:38AM

Tim, that's not hard to fathom. Re yt900, don't feed the idiot trolls.

DRed| 11.2.10 @ 11:41AM

Wouldn't that make you a pack of elitists, Timmy?

Tim*| 11.2.10 @ 11:54AM

That makes us Smarter & Wealthier, Stupid.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 3:30PM

Everyone Christ has accepted into Heaven is elite.

The Founding Fathers were elite.

Why would anyone want any leader or elected official to be anything but elite?

The Lord God Almighty is not only elitist He is prejudiced, sexist, racist, and He discriminates.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 11:57AM

yt900, your post was rude, close-minded, and vulgar, and an example of an opinion by someone who is dumber than dirt. On the other hand it is not the dumbest post (thank Jay Pitsby for that).

Jay Pitsby| 11.2.10 @ 12:38PM

Hey Skip, if you don't get it, it's okay. Ask your mom what "Useful Idiot" means.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 12:48PM

In order for me to 'get it', why don't you provide an example to back up your statement that evangelicals are useful idiots?

Jay Pitsby| 11.2.10 @ 1:50PM

Read the Tooley article above. You may have missed the fact that my comment, while not precisely specifying the "Evangelical Left" was, in the context of the article found on this page, referring to the fact that the Evangelical Left are the useful idiots. If you don't understand or are unaware of the connection between the Evangelical Left and the political left over the past several decades and the Evangelical Left's emphasis on social aspects of the Gospel and drawing some fairly radical notions from this group's reading of the Gospels (think: Jimmy Carter) then I can't help you.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 1:56PM

So, to review, I claimed the dumbest post was your comment to the effect that evangelicals were useful idiots, which you have now altered to evangelical left, which is no longer a blanket condemnation of all evangelicals. I stand by my claim that your post, at that time, was the dumbest.

Stirling| 11.3.10 @ 12:54PM

skip, with comments like this one, please tell me you're not an evangelical

Jay Pitsby| 11.2.10 @ 11:49AM

The article describes those of the "Evangelical Left". Evangelicals tend to fall into the conservative category but a number over the years have indeed played into the hands of the radical left.

ConantheContrarian| 11.2.10 @ 10:55AM

Only some Evangelicals are useful idiots, along with some Catholics. My church is overwhelmingly conservative.

Alert1201| 11.2.10 @ 7:47AM

It is amazing that liberals scream about greed in libertarian free market policies, how its corrupting influence oppresses the down trodden and exalts the wealthy and powerful in the capitalists system. Yet they fail to see the same corruption and greed in government as well, doing far more damage then it could do in a capitalist system. The same greed present in capitalist systems is present in governments, only the greed and its possibility for destruction and oppression is greater in government because there is nothing to limit it. The brilliance of our forefathers is they devised a force and mechanism to limit it. The force - the will of the people; The mechanism - the constitution.

Another Coal Carrier| 11.2.10 @ 9:02AM

Bravo, Albert! Bravo! I couldn't have said it any better myself.

I voted this morning. Wearing my TEA Party Teapot pin for inspiration. Felt good to vote for REAL change :)

skip| 11.2.10 @ 11:24AM

You left out:

The authority - the Lord God Almighty of the Holy Bible of the Evangelical Right.

yt900| 11.2.10 @ 12:11PM

The Lester Maddox Evangelical Right. Yeah, Lester was an evangelical Chrischun.

Lester, pass them axe handles around. We gonna use 'em when we git in power.

Tim*| 11.2.10 @ 12:34PM

The DEMOCRAT Lester Maddox:
# Appointed more African Americans to state government positions than any other governor before him.
# Appointed the first African American to head a state department (the Board of Corrections).
# Named the first black GBI agent.
# Named the first black state trooper.
# Ordered state troopers to desist from using the word "nigger" and "boy", and to address African-Americans using "Mr." instead of by their first name.
# He integrated the lines of farmer's markets throughout the state.

yt900| 11.2.10 @ 1:06PM

Wow!

I recall, as does everyone else reading your list of Lester Maddox superlatives, that he stood outside his restaurant in Atlanta and passed out axe handles to keep the "niggers" from integrating his Pickrick Cafeteria.

My family was living in Atlanta at the time, and how well I remember the staunch segregationist.

When he became governor, he was pressured to relax his racist positions, but he never apologised for being a segregationist.

Stop trying to twist the truth, Timmy.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 2:01PM

This post is somewhat rude, close-minded, and vulgar. If this post is supposed to be an example of an ideal post God help us all.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 2:06PM

It takes someone generally rude, close-minded, and vulgar to confuse The Lord God Almighty of The Holy Bible with Lester Maddox. A person so confused is probably dumber than dirt. God help us all.

Tim*| 11.2.10 @ 2:28PM

The Operative Word is "DEMOCRAT"
Maddox Was One Of Yours,ObamaBoy.

Aaaand , Pickrick was 1964 .
Follow The Chronology ObamaTroll Boy.
Maddox carried out those hiring acts etc. as Governor from 1967 to 1971.

Bottom Line, He's One Of Your Democrats, ObamaBoy.

Aaaand, don't attempt to compare him to We Tea Party Rebels , Truth Twistin' Twerp Ass Troll .

Seek| 11.2.10 @ 6:29PM

A Democrat is not the same thing as a liberal, contrary to the eagerness by some conservatives to declare holy war on "racism" as practiced by the Left. The Southern Democrat was a distinctly political type, a New Dealer on economics but staunchly traditionalist on social issues.

Personally, I could give a rat's ass whether Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK sometime between 115 and 136 years ago (or whatever). The term "racism" is an empty one, and we ought not be doing the Left's dirty work.

Cromwell| 11.2.10 @ 7:55AM

Liberterians and Evangelicals are as unnatural an alliance as Puritans and Parliamentarians. CharlesI forced them to ally. Similarly Evangelicals were apolitical (avoid the sins of this world) or as lower class Democrats. The Militant Atheism and intolerance of the present Democrats have forced the alliance of evangelicals and conservatives.

Ryan| 11.2.10 @ 8:37AM

Really?

How is a freedom different from the desire to see the world come to faith in Christ?

Tim*| 11.2.10 @ 8:11AM

Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Core Values

* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.

kerry| 11.2.10 @ 1:17PM

thanks for posting. I have people of all faiths/no faith, gay/straight, conservative/libertarian and independent in my tea party. This is quite a coalition but it is strong because we all care about and are fighting for one thing: OUR FREEDOM.
The last thing I need right now is a bunch of self righteous evangelicals forcing social issues on the tea party movement. Right now our focus is on our three core values as listed above, and judging legislators on those votes that effect those values.The Republican party better start voting correctly on these issues, since we have worked hard to elect them based on their promises to follow and respect the constitution. We will have no country or freedom to work on social issues if we fall off the cliff financially/economically.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 3:00PM

Note the philosophy of the tea party, where unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator The Lord God Almighty. It is a major component of the tea party. There may be no atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals in the tea party. The last thing the tea party needs is self righteous people lacking in intelligence and lacking in honesty to the extent that they disregard the movement is relevant primarily because the tea party recognizes the authority of The Lord God Almighty as the basis for any true right.

DRed| 11.2.10 @ 3:19PM

If that's true then, thank God the Constitution wasn't written by the tea party.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 4:19PM

The tea partiers want the Constitution to be enforced as written word for word you idiot.

DRed| 11.2.10 @ 5:08PM

Even the parts about religious tolerence? That doesn't seem to be something you're very fond of.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 5:27PM

Find where I posted it is illegal to be atheist, agnostic, or homosexual in the United States. Tolerance has nothing to do with moral acceptance. Just because it is not illegal for the ku klux klan to have a parade in this country doesn't mean I have to approve of the parade or morally accept it.

DRed| 11.2.10 @ 5:44PM

Skippy, why would I do that? I don't know you from Adam, but on the internet you don't come off as a polite person, or as a particularly tolerant one. And if that's true, I'm glad people like you didn't write the constitution, a document that embraces tolerence and encourages compromise.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 7:38PM

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the priviledge and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay

I don't tolerate unintelligence.

I don't tolerate dishonesty.

I don't tolerate liberalism's destruction of the Constitution.

I don't tolerate liberalism's destruction of Christianity.

I don't tolerate two unintelligent and dishonest people who are hypocritical; who are so unintelligent and dishonest they don't even realize the hypocrisy of supporting the very policies that ignore and defy the very Constitution they cite.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 7:48PM

The Founding Fathers would approve of and support the efforts of today's tea party, and would recognize that today's tea party is attempting to preserve The Founding Fathers efforts on our behalf.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 10:38PM

Let's review:

You are thankful for the authors of the Constitution because this document embraces tolerance and compromise.

You are aware those same authors of tolerance and compromise rebeled against England to the point of declaring independence, that they displayed their tolerance by shooting and killing British soldiers in defense of that document, and compromise consisted of sacrificing their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors.

You utter hypocrisy defies description.

I suppose the other day when you posted to another by referring to him as an asshole you were being polite.

You are unintelligent and dishonest. I have no intention of being polite or tolerant about pointing this out since you insist on continually posting your drivel here. I will not compromise on this position either.

RCV| 11.2.10 @ 5:42PM

Including this, Skippy? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Any person, Skippy, not just those you approve of.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 7:28PM

Like the over fifty million innocent American unborn babies 'legally' murdered you tool of satan?

R(CV's real Christian love)
C(onflicts with the)
V(ictims of abortion)

skip| 11.2.10 @ 7:55PM

It is time for you to watch the election results.

R(eal Americans)
C(ontradict the)
V(ile venal vacuous vomitus that is the vanity of Obama and his supporters)

skip| 11.2.10 @ 9:49PM

'...abridge...privileges or immunities....deprive...of...property'

Your own quote goes directly against liberal taxation policies and liberal spending policies.

You sure are an intellectual heavyweight alright.

R(idiculous interpretation of the)
C(onstitution is the)
V(ice of every liberal)

RCV| 11.2.10 @ 10:05PM

Skippy, they'll cover this next year in American government in high school, but it doesn't prohibit depriving you of property, only depriving you of property without due process of law. Tax bills passed by elected representatives in Congress are enacted with due process of law. You'll understand when you grow up. Back to your word games, please.

skip| 11.2.10 @ 10:44PM

Thank you for another post proving my claim that liberalism is wholly lacking in intelligence and wholly lacking in honesty.

R(ancid opinions utter lacking in)
C(onscience and morality but)
V(ile venal virulent dreck nonetheless)

skip| 11.2.10 @ 10:48PM

Another three thousand seven hundred plus Americans were deprived of their life today, much less their liberty and pursuit of happiness, yet day after day, you remain silent and fail to enlighten one and all on the legal nuances of the Constitution on this issue.

R(epugnant repulsive retched)
C(onstitutionality but the)
V(alued apple of satan's eye)

RCV| 11.3.10 @ 12:12AM

The Supreme Court has already done so, Skip. You can look it up.

skip| 11.3.10 @ 12:11PM

So real Christian love and abortion are compatible.

R(eally, the day will)
C(ome when a post is not)
V(enal, really, you'll see)

Alan Brooks| 11.2.10 @ 10:25PM

"or freedom to work on social issues"

Since when are minarchists/libertopians SERIOUSLY interested in social issues?

Doctor Right| 11.2.10 @ 8:26AM

Unfortunately, many devout Christians have a strong faith for Christ but a weak foundation in scripture, history, politics, and economics.

The Church I attend is a religiously conservative Christian Church. Nonetheless, more than a few members of our congregation supported Obama in 2008, and continue to support him and the Democrats today.

At least 30% of our members are black. I would have hoped that as Christians they'd have been among the 8% of blacks that vote Republican, but no dice, and this includes one couple who are both registered Republicans.

The support of some other members is based on their bizarre belief that socialism is a Christian philosophy. This is based on a complete misinterpretation of Acts 2:44-45:

"44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need."

The idea that this "sharing" took place primarily among fellow Christians, or that it was voluntary and not coerced by the iron-fist of government seems to have completely eluded them.

Other members simply have a very shallow understanding of the proper role of government vis-a-vis the US Constitution, and do not recognize how the Constitution has been abused by the Left, and what the implications of that abuse mean.

Since our Congregation is fairly representative of a cross-section of society, it's easy to assume that these attitudes would be present. However, in my humble opinion, believing Christians should know better.

Any devout, faithful Christian who pulls the lever for Democrats give his/her tacit approval for infanticide and gay marriage, to say nothing of allowing the Federal Gov't more power over the 1st Amendment Right of religious freedom. By listening to fools like Jim Wallis and the "social gospel", they have allowed themselves to become useful pawns for the Left.

daddio| 11.2.10 @ 9:22AM

Sheila| 11.2.10 @ 9:45AM

Well said, Doctor Right. The Christian faith is intended for individual salvation, not community organizing. Salvation is through grace alone; works may (indeed should) result - voluntarily - from faith but cannot earn what has already been freely given. Modern American Christianity has been inextricably linked to progressive philosophy and "social justice;" even many "conservative" congregations push these values, along with multiculturalism, as being biblical (somehow they always seem to forget about the Tower of Babel). Socialism is neither Christian nor American. Tribalism + democracy + stupidity = racist idiocracy.

joe tea party| 11.2.10 @ 11:16AM

Doc,

Your last paragraph directly and right to the point properly puts the entire article in the proper perspective. Those three items alone are anathema to any Christian.

Well said!

Patrick| 11.2.10 @ 3:54PM

While they are quick to cite Act 2:44-45, they turn a blind eye to John 12:1-7.

How often I am told the excuse that through their liberalism, a liberal need not contribute in taxes as much as a conservative for liberal government spending. Likewise, it is no longer a surprise when it is the wealthy liberal who is most allergic to the collection basket in church. I suppose that such dishonesty will be rewarded as it was to Aranias and Sapphira.

coal carrier| 11.2.10 @ 8:35AM

Mr. Obama, you have the audacity to appoint this preacher as your spiritual advisor. Oh, that’s right, he’s different then the other preacher that you spent 20 years with.

Joe Wilson was right; “you lie!”

Ryan| 11.2.10 @ 8:36AM

There are plenty of us who are both libertarian - or at least lean that way - and Evangelical. We agree with precisely the second half - that we do NOT ask other men to live for our sake, but we will live for theirs if they need it.

But not forcibly through government, but through our own generosity. There are MANY on the left who don't seem to get this point - that generosity is from the heart, not through force.

We ARE called to respect and obey the rulers that are placed over us (and Paul wrote that about the Ceasars); and they are called to protect and enact justice.

Further than that, scripture doesn't say anything, and to read further is to read something that really isn't there. The system we live in allows us to change our government - more or less - and we are called to do it responsibly and prayerfully.

JimP| 11.2.10 @ 8:40AM

It sounds like the "Evangelical Left" is Liberation Theology under a new name. They are Evangelicals, but they don't accept Biblical authority? They pick and choose and interpret as suits them? These folks are obviuosly a Fifth Column.

Margie| 11.2.10 @ 1:03PM

Bingo.

Patrick| 11.2.10 @ 3:37PM

Just as liberation theology is another name for the "social gospel". In the end, the devil may be devious, but his imagination is often lacking.

Alan R| 11.2.10 @ 8:55AM

Leftist government is totally incompatible with the Gospel. Charity is not charity if forced at the point of a government gun.

Jesus commanded us to help the poor and make disciples of all nations. He did command us to use violence to force our neighbors to help the poor and become disciples.

Alan R| 11.2.10 @ 8:56AM

WOOPS - correction to typo:

Leftist government is totally incompatible with the Gospel. Charity is not charity if forced at the point of a government gun.

Jesus commanded us to help the poor and make disciples of all nations. He did NOT command us to use violence to force our neighbors to help the poor and become disciples.

believer| 11.2.10 @ 9:59AM

There's no denying that the Fundamental churchs in America are slowly getting more Liberal, give them another 20 years of brainwashing by public schools and the Republican party will look like they came straight out of the Russian revolution.

Seek| 11.2.10 @ 6:32PM

You call praise music "rock n' roll?" By whose standards? Led Zeppelin? Simple Minds? And what's wrong with rock n' roll anyway?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.2.10 @ 10:57AM

Tea parties and Christianity should be merely "complementary" (with the "e")

Jay| 11.2.10 @ 11:10AM

I believe that for the Tea Party to be successful, it needs to understand the term "Freedom of Religion" means to enable one's Religion to be practiced freely provided it doesn't suppress another's nor violate the broader ethics of "good behavior".

NotALibertarian| 11.2.10 @ 12:13PM

The problem we face, Jay, is that the public has been scammed into believing that Normal is "religious suppression". Many -- you may be one of them -- have been tricked into thinking that traditional marriage is "the establishment of religion". (It isn't. It's just Normal.)

That was the point of the Left's culture war: to insert chaos in American society, so that they could dismantle our political system. Schools, for example, CANNOT be neutral on marriage and family structure. They either validate the liberal view and "persecute" Christians and Jews (and Muslims), or they validate the traditional view and "persecute" the Left.

The desired end is to create a society in which it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to apply the Constitution. So, the courts must begin ignoring the Constitution. And begun they have.

Sons of Liberty| 11.2.10 @ 11:38AM

The concept of a leftist evangelical is an oxymoron. If Reverend Wallis is a true believer in the Bible and the Word of God he cannot reconcile the cross of Christ with accepting and supporting those who support and promote abortion. It just doesn't work. So he disqualifies himself from the beginning.

Most of the young evangelicals I know, and they are many, are quite conservative both fiscally and socially. They are bright, educated and active. They support the Tea Party and its goals of fiscal conservatism, small and limited governement and individual responsibility. They understand that their relationship with Christ, as God designed it, is personal and individual not collective. They understand that the Word of God says that each of them should individually help care for the poor and that nowhere in God's Word does it say that the government, Levitical or secular, should confiscate an individual's money and goods to support activities that the government deems "necessary".

I think that Reverend Wallis and his leftist, social justice "evengelicals" are going to continue to be disappointed as even larger numbers of evangelicals, young and old, support and elect Tea Party supported candidates.

As for taking back our government, the Tea Party desires to take back our government and governing philosophy from the progressives (big, intrusive government and elitists) and return it to the small, limited government of the founders. Only in that way can we be protected from the tyranny that will necessarily proceed, and already has, from an ever-expanding central government.

Walkthetalk| 11.2.10 @ 11:41AM

What is the evangelical left? It is a social movement riding the back of religion, calling itself Christian, hijacking the Bible by re-imagining God, and reinterpreting the scriptures to suit their social(ist) message (creating utopia where all are equal and thus happy). They think Jesus was a man who showed us the way to this happiness. They see the state as the catalyst for this change (you can believe in). Their order of concern is Self first, friends, personal support organizations (churches, unions, government, schools, etc.), family, and Jesus last, if at all. As CINOs they justify themselves (to make themselves look superior) by any means including lying, personal attacks, and generalizing the opposition (those alive in Christ) in such a way as to demonize them.

The Bible says there are two kinds of people, those who believe in Jesus (God, Creator, Savior), and those who don’t. It is a choice God gives everyone. Moses put God’s offer succinctly saying, I set before you a blessing and a curse, life and death, choose life. Why would you die? You see, life is in Christ, not in competition with, nor apart from him. The example is humans – they have to be in air and have air in their lungs to be alive. Another example is fish – they have to be in water and have water in their gills to be alive. Jesus is like that. To have life you must be in Jesus and he must be in you (spiritually). Apart from him you are spiritually dead. The evangelical left is nothing more than self-deception and foolishness masquerading as Christians. Jesus had one word for those caught up in churches of the left – REPENT. (If you are confused about whether your personal church is left or right see www.christforamericans.com )

Margie| 11.2.10 @ 12:48PM

Simply put, if you're going to call yourself Christian you must obey Him. His words are in the Bible. If you reject His words you reject Him.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

"But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." Is. 66:2.

These so called Christians )who actually despise real Christians), those like the Rev. Wright and his ilk~ they preach another gospel, not of Jesus Christ. What they actually preach is Socialism and Communism, its "Father."
Of course they will preach against the conservative Christians who are (naturally, by the way), TEA partiers~ because what we ARE for freedom, and they are for POWER, just as the Communists were.
Communism has never died and it's alive and well in the USA~ in the Democrat party.

I'm posting this testimony of the Richard Wurmbrand who spent 14 years in Communist prisons under Communist torture and lived to tell, write many books on the subject, and spoke before Congress in 1966.
Communism is still speaking its "gospel" of Social Justice today, as it was then:

"By these weak Christians, the Communists used religion for their propaganda.
When the Communists came to power in Rumania, they convoked in the building of our parliament a congress of all the cults. There were 4,000 priests; pastors, rabbis of all religions were there. Our Prime Minister Gorza, said the same things which you hear now in the West. This was in 1945 when they came to power with us. "You know Rumanian communism will not be like Russian communism. We are a democratic communism. We will not persecute the church. We are on the side of monarchy. We will never collectivate agriculture. We are something entirely else and you should be on our side and then we will protect religion and we will give salaries to the priests."

And the priests, good men, simply believed him and cheered him. Priests and bishops one after the other stood up and said, "Well, if your communism is otherwise than the Russian communism, if it will be a good communism, we do not object against communism in principle." And one after the other stood up and praised this form of communism. There was only one in that congress who protested and said that communism can never change, that terror is an essential part of communism, because communism is contrary to human nature.

What would you say if I would take the purse out of your pocket? Everyone wishes to have something. A dog wishes to have a bone, and communism is against human nature because it does not allow you to have anything of yours and so communism must use terror. At that congress there was only one who said these things. This one is now before you.

But what has happened? I went to prison, this was one of the charges against me. I met in prison all those who had praised communism, all those who have collaborated with communism, and they were treated just like me. They had been the fools. There was only one difference that I was in prison with a good conscience and they were with a bad conscience. In prison they had remorse. Religion was used for Communist propaganda in our country.

Just to give you one example: To the Orthodox Church of Rumania foreigners come and see the liturgy and see everything so beautiful. The church is open. They do not understand the language, they do not know what is preached. I will give you the test of the sermon. It was a sermon about an epistle of St. Paul where it was written that Chris is our peace , and so the priest explained, "Christ is our peace. Who is against peace? American imperialists. And who is on the side of the peace? We, the Socialist countries."

So you see that Christ identifies Himself with socialism and so on. Such sermons they have. They have used the religion for their own purposes in the country. Then they have used the religion for getting political positions in the West. They are not fools to send in the West representatives of the Communist Party. They send bishops with great beards and beards are always very impressive here in the West, and through these beards they influence the West."

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes.....mbrand.htm

God bless everybody as today is the day of reckoning! I am very encouraged by the waking up of the electorate and largely it's due to the Obamanation. So, as I said before~ thanks Obama! You've single handedly woken the country up to what exactly Socialism is~ and we're not liking it very much.

Like the Bible says~ "As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.." Gen. 50:20.

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.

Like Old Tex said~ TEA parties & Christianity should be merely complementary. And they indeed are. Just as the founding of this nation by God fearing people began in unity and freedom, it is still our very core. Freedom NEVER dies.

Socialsm=Communism=Satanism. And who do you think is going to be defeated? Christians know.

JP| 11.2.10 @ 1:08PM

Ayn Rand in reality has very little influence on American politics. Few people actually read her works; fewer still really understand her infantile politics. Libertarianism in the US is closer to Jefferson than Rand. In many ways, conservatives over the decades have become more Libertarian. I remember George Will admitting this a few decades ago; Jonah Goldberg occaisonally admits this. At heart, people who wish a return to Federalism and Constitutional Republican governence find themselves siding with Libertarians more times than not.

Walls politics are an impossible brew of Protestant Communtarianism, socialism, with a smattering fascism. His calls for overcoming selfish individualism and foistering a more "spiritual" communalism borders on the same language used by Mussolini and the Nazis. Beware of any "leader" who wraps his political and social message with the language of spiritualists and mystics. Walls is to Progressives is what Hess was to National Socialism.

Walls reminds me of those Protestant social reformers of the late 19th Century. They gave us Prohibition, the Income Tax, Eugenics, and the Federal Reserve.

Reagan Loyalist| 11.2.10 @ 2:35PM

Is. 9:6-7

"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice. From that time forward, even forever. "

Margie| 11.2.10 @ 4:13PM

And THAT...is the rest of the story!
And the Communists can't stop Him.
And they can't stop us.
Amen.

Jim Hlavac| 11.2.10 @ 4:22PM

You write:
"Though polling is a little scarce, evangelicals almost certainly compose a disproportionate share of the Tea Party. A recent Public Religion Research Institute polls showed 36 percent of Tea Partiers are evangelicals. Although the Tea Party does not emphasize social issues, the poll showed strong Tea Party majorities are conservative on abortion and same-sex marriage."

So which is it? Polling is scarce, or you know strong majorities are conservative on ...
here, let me help you with your sordid analogy:
Killing babies versus
Legal recognizing what already exists for hundreds of thousands of taxpaying, productive, peaceful, decent, patriotic Americans -- committed gay relationships -- as you accuse us of being anti-family as we form them regularly.

And you lump killing babies in with love? Boy, someone's got their priorities screwed up and compares apples to steel beams -- especially since it's legal to kill babies -- and still illegal for gay couples to file a joint tax return, as if that will collapse the Republic. Was strange folks you are. Hell, until 2003 it wasn't really legal for gay couples to even not make any babies to kill, while you heteros have slaughtered millions for near 40 years. Such strange hates you have, against your fellow citizens in the womb, and those of us are a bit different outside.

Pitiful.

Seek| 11.2.10 @ 6:35PM

Has it occurred to you that there were many abortions in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade?

skip| 11.2.10 @ 7:44PM

Did it occur to you that people were murdered before any law was enacted outlawing it?

Did it occur to you that people stole from others before any law was enacted outlawing it?

Did it occur to you that people raped other people before any law was enacted outlawing it?

Has it occured to you yet how unintelligent and dishonest your post is?

RCV| 11.3.10 @ 12:19AM

Skippy hasn't gotten to logic yet in school so he's just missing your point.

skip| 11.3.10 @ 12:19PM

Another comment from a concerned and engaged poster who has synthesized his 63 years of experience and honed his reasoning skills for the benefit of readers at this site.

R(ants patheticly)
C(ontemptibly)
V(omited in vain)

Stirling| 11.3.10 @ 12:59PM

Skip, after reading your posts I can only assume you are:
1) a Moveon operative sent here to discredit Christians
2) someone who does not practice II Timothy 2:25.
If you are an evangelical, please get on board with the teaching of II Timothy and realize how you say something is at least as important as what you say

skip| 11.3.10 @ 7:22PM

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life..."

Today, like every other day since 1/22/1973, more than 3.700 'legal' abortions occurred; those who are citizens of this country are responsible as they elect those who legislate, execute, and judge laws.

How much gentleness is appropriate?

R0y| 11.4.10 @ 2:37AM

Substantively, I agree - it is ridiculous to group abortion with "gay marriage".

However, the preening sanctimony is unwarranted granted the fact that most (active) homosexuals eagerly promote the arbitrary vivisection of unborn infants, and for many, the only reason they don't engage in it themselves is that their preferred manner of tingling their crotches does not lead to "unwanted pregnancies".

Ariel| 11.3.10 @ 7:07AM

Ayn Rand gives more spiritual, intellectual ammunition to the Tea Party than any other thinker.

Witness Rick Santelli's invocation of her in his seminal rant; the countless "Atlas Shrugged" and "Ayn Rand Was Right" signs at Tea Party rallies; the enthusiastic endorsements of her by notable Tea Partyers and political candidates during this election cycle.

And for the first time ever, a self-identified Objectivist, Stephen Bailey, ran for Congress and handily won his party's nomination from Colorado's 2nd District.

Rand is a pre-eminent force for good reason: her philosophy of Objectivism provides fundamental, cogent, evidence-based answers for why the world teeters on the edge of an abyss. The existence of the latter is now obvious to everyone, but how do we step away?

Rand is "extreme" in the positive sense: we need a radically different prescription for what ails us, since nothing else has worked, for decades, or even the last century. She shows how to reverse course by embracing rational selfishness and individual rights, which would lead to a world of human flourishing and prosperity.

Rand "exalts the strong and disregards the weak" only in the sense that she doesn't regard weakness, rather than efficacy, as metaphysically important.

Nor does she regard weakness as a moral lien on the lives of other people. It's precisely because we've engaged in such an unprecedented sacrificial orgy of the able and productive, by means of the welfare and regulatory state, that we're in the sorry mess we are now.

As an antidote, Rand advocates a return to limited government, based on life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; she maintains that the rights to the latter give one the social freedom to _be_ moral, to act according to one's own perception and judgment.

The election results are now in, and have decisively established the Tea Party as a historic, albeit temporary reprieve from impending leftist dictatorship.

For those who would take the results as a referendum for right wing, theocratic, "compassionate" welfare-statism instead: be warned. Those of us who value individual liberty and limited government will not stand idly by. We will be watching, and will act and vote accordingly the next election cycle.