The New York Times is where Christians should go to for advice? As insanitybytes22 points out, the answer is NO!
Nevertheless, it sometimes pays to listen to your opponents. They will tell you things your friends won’t mention. Is there a problem? Consider this observation from insanitybytes22’s post.
I do believe that some change needs to come to the Western church, to the Body of Christ. I do believe that entwining the religious right and the Republican party has created a lot of collateral damage. I do believe there is a huge unchurched church sitting on the out skirts of evangelism. I do think this election really shook things up, ripped the roof off “the church,” so to speak, tossed some dirty laundry out onto the street. I also think that’s a good thing. I am all about addressing dirty laundry and putting the fun back in dysfunction.
The Christian Right, Evangelicalism, the Religious Right or whatever it is is not a monolithic block or a distinct organization. So nobody speaks for it, and that is something of a problem. Therefore, the Christians who voted Republican each have to do their own explaining. When the New York Times and the Democratic Party start equating Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism with racism, sexism and xenophobia, we need to call them what they are, liars.
Here is my take. To the extent there is an identifiable Conservative Christian movement, the reason that movement votes Republican has to do with the Republican Party’s stand on certain specific issues. For example, lots of Christians voted for Trump because he promised to appoint judges who would respect the Constitution and because Trump is Pro-Life. Would overturning Roe v. Wade be racist? Really? How so?
Another example? Lots of Democrats rejoice that America is becoming darker in complexion. For some reason, that joy is not considered racist. On the other hand, Democrats effectively call trying to preserve America’s cultural heritage and constitutional republic racist. Why? Do Democrats ever explain?
Logic often does not have anything to do with the name calling. The object of New York Times‘ name calling is to destroy the people who oppose its agenda. Ironically, these people are behaving like religious bigots. You don’t agree with them? You must be a bad person.
First let me say with all good humor here, I am a latte colored female and forever young, so this article totally does not apply to me. I do have some affection and fondness for several “old white men” however, so there is that.
I speak of The Old Gray Lady, the New York Times, who has blessed us with this opinion piece, “The Evangelicalism of Old White Men Is Dead.”
To give you a feel for the article, here is the first sentence, “As the election retreats like a hurricane heading back out to sea, first responders are assessing the damage left in its wake. One casualty is the reputation of evangelicalism.”
Right off the bat I want to say that is the wrong focus. Evangelists are not supposed to be focused on our worldly reputation, the favor and approval of men. We’re supposed to be following Jesus…
View original post 494 more words