Donald Miller At The DNC And The Pandering Of Politics
It seems to me that its been a very religious election year. Four years ago of course it was obvious that the Christian right was one of the primary heaves behind President Bush’s reelection. I keep in mind that I can’t accurately recall how much of a hot issue it was either then or back in 2000, or even during the elections of the Clinton years. Perhaps I’m just too young to remember the old days, and perhaps my mind is so much more oriented toward religion in America than it has been in the past. At least religion in politics in America.
Obama and McCain both are pandering. Big time. The evangelical support of Bush was obvious in 2004 (see chart courtesy of christianitytoday.com at right), but my curious mind wonders, was it a political shift or a religious-culture shift? In other words, did the evangelical movement get directed into politics or was the entire movement in a way, coming of age at about that time.
Either way, the effect was obvious and now the scheming, conniving Democrats are trying to get a piece of the action. The equally scheming and conniving Republicans are noticing that the Democrats are trying to take a part of the base that McCain would have under his belt by default and are trying not to lose it. This results in arguably non-religious politicians pretending to be religious and provides further suggestion that two don’t mix.
That being said, its not much of a surprise to see that the Obama campaign has asked Donald Miller to give an invocation. They first asked Cameron Strang of Relevant Magazine who accepted, then declined the offer and recommended Miller as a replacement. Strang’s primary reason for declining was in order not to imply an endorsement.
Meanwhile, Miller seems to me to be the kind of guy much more suited for the job than Strang. I say this not because of the philosophy or theology of either man, but because Miller is, honestly, quite famous. Somehow it throws a wrench into some of my theories about how political minds work. I would have thought that Miller would have been chosen early on over Strang in the first place because he is such a recognized name in the young evangelical community. ( Which I find ironic because if I were the type to embrace the classifying of people within the Christian sub-culture, I wouldn’t place Miller under the “evangelical” label ) Perhaps the whole thing is a matter of circumstances (Strang has been in communication with the Obama campaign for a while) or perhaps the Obama campaign doesn’t really know who’s-who of the evangelical world. I suppose it also could be considered a matter of asking whether politics panders and is just trying to get votes or is actually concerned with what the citizens think.
I’m trying to look beyond that exploration into cultural movement and chaos theory as applied to societal values and instead focus on the real life here-and-now situation, but having a hard time with it.
Miller had a few good words to say about it. He said, “When somebody calls you and asks you to pray, you do.” Miller also mentioned that he switched his party registration to Democrat a while back because he had seen the hijacking of the evangelical movement in its early days surrounding ( and still surrounding ) the abortion and homosexuality issues.
I get a bit frustrated when the evangelical position is reduced to two issues.
He says he felt “used” by the Republican Party on that basis, but if I were to hang out with Miller for a day I would point out to him that its no different where he is now. My exact point is that left or right, a foregone conclusion of politics is that the people will be manipulated through their conscious.
Reading his responses to questions on the Christianity Today blog, my disagreement with Miller is based not on real world issues but on some much deeper premises of legitimacy of the political process, the innocence and genuineness of Obama (and any politician), as well as the positive possibilities of Americanism in the world and the actual world perception of the US, though he did mention that America represents Christianity around the world. Thats true, and its a bad thing for a country that is more selfish and imperialistic than the Christian right has either noticed or cares about. Selfishness and imperialism tend to be the opposite of what Christ taught, by the way.
The best thing Miller had to say (in context of a meeting he had with Republican Party representatives) was
When someone asks you to come, you come, and you have a conversation.
I can at least applaud him for the fact that he recognizes conversation as more important than dogmatic dismissal of either real or inferred differing opinions. Thats why Don and I would likely get along well, because I’m sure we’d have some great conversations. (if I were cool enough to hang out with famous people, that is)
So please don’t get me wrong. I like Don, I like what he does/is doing, I like his book, and I like that he’s doing the invocation at the DNC. Read his book, even if the young evangelicals are obsessed with it but don’t know why.
RSS Feed
RSS by Email
Nice. In regards to your line, “…In other words, did the evangelical movement get directed into politics or was the entire movement in a way, coming of age at about that time.”
I can’t say they were directed so much as they were herded by fear. Fear of Clinton, fear of a democrat, fear of liberals, fear of homosexuals, fear of all sorts of things. The problem is they missed what was driving the fear. Fear of being marginalized. More specifically, the leader’s fear of being marginalized.
If you compare the timeline of Emergent, the presidency, and George Barna’s Revolution, you will see some similarities. Revolution was published in ‘05. Which means the numbers are current from that time.
So you have people leaving the church (as an institution) documented by Barna who churches loved to quote until Revolution.
You have Emergent starting to become a competitor to the evangelicals as a more community-centered form of institution.
And finally, you have a bunch of homosexual, unborn baby-killing, didn’t-inhale pot smoking liberals trying to take over the government.
Sounds like a good recipe to froth a bunch of scared, middle-aged, evangelicals into thinking they are losing their country to me.
So fast-forward to today.
You have evangelicals trying to look ‘post-modern’ with who they hire as pastors and what kind of facial hair they can grow. Their programming is trying to look emergent. Their mega-churches tout community among 10K people because of ‘home-groups’. They have consolidated to make their numbers look bigger and more impressive in bigger buildings.
Market share is all it is. Not to say their desire for God isn’t real, but the lens through which they view the world is so capitalistically-colored, numbers are everything.
So are politicians in on the change? I dunno, ask Donald Miller.
Suggested reading:
Revolution by George Barna.
Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw.
The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd.
-mike
@mike — very true, my friend, very true. I have little to add to that.
Of course any group of people can be susceptible to fear and its easy to herd people with a herd mentality. I think those fears you listed are quite reasonable and especially as you said, fear of marginalization is a big one. Christians don’t want to be irrelevant. This country is supposedly a Christian nation, and they are growing increasingly scared of losing that domination. (This is of course accepting the premise for the moment that this once was a Christian nation in the way Christ would have it be)
Its built into human nature to defend yourself and your identity, and that identity is greatly under inferred attack. I say inferred, because its not directly under attack ( ok, there are a few out there who actively attack the identity of Christianity ) but along with capitalism and imperialism we develop the US vs. THEM mentaility without even knowing it and it becomes Christian Americans trying to take back their country from those awful non-Christians. Whether it be direct political manipulation or the mystical blind wandering of a human sub-culture, I couldn’t say, but that’s one thing that has contributed to the rise of evangelism in the political arena.
It seems that the evangelical movement up to now has started trying to stay “relevant”, which is why it wants to be “post-modern” and have home groups and a worship service with drums. “Relevant” is one of those buzz terms that makes me cringe because it feels like I’m being sold something. Other words I’d group in that category are virtual and instant. I would say that the E movement’s problem from top to bottom is its being in bed with the American ideas of commercialism and competition. It causes it to be unable to let go of the notion that credibility comes with the number of people in your church service and the idea that we need to convince non-christians that Christians have better lives simply because they are Christians, which leads to the idea being sold and not genuine.
Its a bit dangerous of us to talk in the generalizations in which we do of course, because the hearts and minds of those I’m close to don’t perfectly represent the mass movement of the culture, but its the game we play with analyzing and predicting cultural movements. Its as Chris wrote on your blog today about trust. I know those who are close to me, but find myself unable to give the benefit of the doubt to the movement as a whole. To judge that, I must look at the wider picture.
Speaking of George Barna, I was quite annoyed by the negativism of and seemingly unfocused conclusion of this co-authored book, Pagan Christianity. I’m hesitant to pick up Revolution, but am thinking I might at least get a copy and add it to the already long list.
I’ve not read Pagan Christianity, so I can’t comment. Looking back on Revolution, I would have to say I wished there were more stats instead of commentary, but I think it was done to reach a larger audience. (I say this while having a post, still in draft form, saying stats and surveys are more marketing infiltration…go figure) As with any book I recommend, I never fully agree with the author as evidenced in my comments on The Great Giveaway. However, I think Revolution is worth skimming at the bare minimum in a bookstore.
I understand your concern about generalizations. I know there are those out there who are earnestly strinving after God. I also know there are those out there earnestly floundering for God as well. I should clarify that most of my comments and generalizations are leveled at hierarchical leadership who are more concerned about maintaining power, image, and numbers. I cannot judge their hearts, but I can see their fruit or lack thereof and comment on such.
-mike
@mike — I as well rarely read an author with absolute agreement. In my opinion, thats a sign of a healthy mind: one that doesn’t leave anything unquestioned or ununderstood.
good thoughts amos.
I have a pretty strong stance on this and the fact that I am sick of the word “relevant” and agree that it smacks of the slick, commerical driven consumer culture we live in. When this is our focus how are we any different than the world in how we share our faith. I think Miller is totally naive or doesn’t care about the impact this will have with younger evangelicals. I think he is totally selling out and allowing himself to be used by the DNC to propagate their agenda in pandering to and gathering in as many younger fence riding evangelicals who haven’t made up their mind on obama or mccain. If Miller gives this address which it looks like he is I will be severely disappointed. But then again I’ve decided not to allow the latest fad or movement to become an idol b/c the Lord has a habit of crushing and destroying those in our lives.
@steve — thanks for the comment. I sense by your remarks that you lean to the right, whether you like McCain or not might be another matter though. I would want to say that we should be careful about assuming that any and all Christians or even evangelicals are Republican by default, and I would propose that its dangerous to have the distinction in the first place. Few things are more of this world than its politics and Christ called us precisely to be in the world but not of it. I sense a negativism in your words towards the Democrat party, which is understandable, but I would consider it unfair to leave the right out of scrutiny in any Christianity-oriented discussion of politics. The Republican Party has an agenda to propagate too.
Meanwhile I might also mention that Miller is a registered Democrat. I’m curious as to exactly what it is you consider him sold out to. I highly doubt his being a Democrat is for profit. Whats more, in his defense, he won’t be giving an address, as you say, but a prayer.
Well it’s funny that you say that. I have the same criticism of the right as well. I think you are right in all the things you say. Funny I sounded like one but I’m not a republican, but an independent. I guess my problem is the over the top way in which the democratic party in hoping to pander toward the younger evangelicals is taking someone whom they consider to be “popular” as a younger evangelical (I use that term b/c I can’t think of a better one) to give them credibility within the younger evangelical circles (ages 25-40) (most of who are quite frankly disenchanted with the entire political process) I guess I see him allowing the democrats to use him to pander toward the younger evangelical crowd as something that marginalizes him and makes him no different than the right wing conservative (whowould obviously would not be invited to the dnc) who is invited by the RNC to speak or offer an invovation. I guess I wish Donald Miller had the insight to see that he is only being used by the left to propagate a pseudo evangelical softness which would in turn reign in votes. Because after all that is the way of the political world…that is winning gaining and staying in power.
I guess as a Christian I see the the political process as completely anti-thetical to the kingdom of God which as Christians is what we should be pursuing. I guess the republican equivalent would be ralph reed or someone like that (don’t get me started him the religious right). I guess after reading Blue Like Jazz and maybe I’m reading b/tw the lines he seemed to come down on no party affiliation and not being partisan politically. Overall my problem is not so much with Miller as it is the shamelessness of the DNC to use any means they can to gain power. Again the right is guilty as well. I am hoping the Relevant Mag. owner turned it down b/c he has a more panoramic view that he would be marginalized and pigeon holed by even taking on the appointment to take spiritual leadership at the DNC. Again sorry for the strong language but I when I heard about this morning I had some pretty immediate thoughts on it. I am an equal opportunity employer in critiquing both the left and the right. thanks for letting me post
@steve — I think we see things from a similar perspective. You’re right about how you describe the pandering and the attempts just to use a marketable figure for the promotion of their cause, and many other things you had to say.
This is one of the things I would love to hang out and chat with Don about- knowing just how legitimate he considers the entire political process in this country to be as well as the consumerism that we live by today. If someone were to consider the politics and consumerism to be a good thing (and still a good thing when mixed) then I would think that person wouldn’t see themself as being used, because they would perceive it as a good and right cause, especially in the case of Miller who is a Democrat in the first place. This is of course how the whole process continues. The empire and its politics is already established in the minds of men as legitimate, and Christians are too in bed with the whole idea to get up and get out. Claiborne and Haw, in Jesus For President, make a bit tado about it with the term “Whore of Babylon”. And I agree.
I still stand with Miller, however, in that he says when asked to pray, you pray. Though I’m sure for him it means more than just that: things like a career boost and possibly a chance to support political ideas he believes in. And in all honestly there’s so much to this situation that its quite a blurry grey area of knowing what Christians who understand the “Whore of Babylon” situation really should do. How much to be involved? How much to speak out? What to say and suggest as alternative? Lots of things of the sort which I don’t even feel worthy myself of tackling.
The reason Cameron Strang turned down the offer was because he didn’t want to imply an endorsement. Strang is actually a Republican, but throughout the whole process for him, he decided to change to Independent. I’m excited for him in this, because I think if the political spectrum were both legitimate and reduced to a single dimension, Independent is the best place for Christians to truly be.
Millers prayer was not simply a prayer. It was a political statement.
I am a fan of DM and I was disappointed to hear the obvious political slant of his prayer.
Much of the message I appreciated in his books was about how he was raised in a religiously political atmosphere and how contrary to the gospel it was. I guess the reality is that the gospel being corrupted by politics didn’t really bother him. It was the fact that it was conservative politics.
He has demonstrated the fact that if you hate something enough you will become what you hate.
Very sad.
I think that this country’s “evangelicals” are losing sight of why we are here. I agree with the previous posts in that we are not to be pursuing social policie and political gains. We are supposed ot be spreading the Gospel…one person at a time. And while either party should not think they will gain the approval of Christians by being on the right side of a couple of issues, we as Christians should know what is right and why. We can not make people feel comfortable in any sinful lifestyle…they need to know that God loves them and wants them to repent. Same as we all do every day. I personally think that a lot of the “evangelicals” of this age are pandering. And then on the other side some are showing outright hatred towards people. I personally like John MacArthur and find him to be presenting the truth in love. Hopefully there will be a new generation of such teaching soon.