Tony Perkins vs. Compassion

I have been receiving the notices from the Family Resource Council for some time, and I’ve generally enjoyed the information and had mixed feelings about the opinions.

The other day I received one, though, that bothered me tremendously. To be fair, I have not yet watched the forum about which he’s complaining. It’s possible that the thing is terrible. However, his complaint certainly doesn’t convince me, and it does show me something that deeply troubles me.

Under the heading “Faithfully Liberal?” it reads:

It was meant to be a dialogue about faith in the public square, but last night’s “Compassion Forum,” broadcast by CNN and hosted by Messiah College, may have revealed more about the agenda of those within the ranks of religious liberals than it did about this year’s presidential candidates. While the event was endorsed by pro-family champions like former Senator Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, organizations like FRC, which have historically addressed faith issues, were not invited to participate or even submit questions to the candidates. Instead, the event’s radical board, which included pro-abortion and homosexual advocates, used the forum as an opportunity to chip away at the traditional agenda of the faith-based community. The bulk of last night’s program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians’ hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty. Although I have argued that those are important issues that demand the church’s attention (in fact, in concert with Bishop Harry Jackson I’ve written an entire book on the subject), our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty. Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message. Have the concerns of our day changed? Yes, of course. But the prioritization of those issues must not. As our own Declaration of Independence states, it is for “life” and “liberty” not “global warming” that government was instituted among men. As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church.

I’m not sure where to begin. I suppose that working through it from start to finish is the best way to go.

He objects to the FRC being left out of the forum, which could be a cause for concern. Then again, the FRC has not generally demonstrated a great record of wanting to talk to anyone who isn’t already on board with itself. The fact that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have endorsed the forum counts for something. (Note, by the way, that Mr. Perkins identifies Rick Santorum as “former Senator” and he doesn’t grant Mike Huckabee a title of any kind … Perkins has been rather outspoken in his criticism of Gov. Huckabee over the past year, and I would interpret this as a snub.)

Since I don’t yet know who was on the board, I don’t know if Mr. Perkins is right to call it “radical.” I do know, though, that when Mr. Perkins uses the term “radical,” he sometimes means radical. Other times, he means, “not Republican enough.” But I’ll get back to that.

This sentence got my attention, and I had to do a double-take to see whether he actually wrote it. Yes, it seems that he did:

The bulk of last night’s program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians’ hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty.

It has been said that in the 1980’s Jerry Falwell presided over the marriage of the Religious Right and the Republican Party. I have pointed out that this is exactly the kind of adultery that prophets throughout the Old Testament derided … the Church is already married. We are the Bride of Christ. We don’t have room for another husband — and that includes the Republican Party.

This sentence from Mr. Perkins demonstrates exactly why I think that the Church needs to put some distance from politics and do some critique of where we stand. I know what he means about issues dear to our hearts.

But, let’s be honest about it … Which issue do you think is dearer to God’s heart? Making sure that gay men can’t legally marry each other, or keeping children from starving to death in the Sudan? Making sure that every child in public school has to pledge to “one nation, under God,” or preventing the catastrophic death toll that AIDS in bringing to Africa?

American Christians have issues which are close to our hearts. But we need to look at what is close to God’s heart, and prioritize better than we have been doing. Yes, this forum clearly was held to try to refocus Christians’ efforts. I knew that as soon as I heard anything about it. And, yes, that is the point.

The fact that he derides this as being the playbook of the Religious Left, but fails to explain why any of this is bad, gets back to my point … too many Christians have sold out to the Republican Party. Too many of us have forgotten our first love and chased after another.

Any time you find yourself questioning whether global poverty is really that big a deal, then you’ve got a problem.

Of course, then he goes on to explain why he has concerns greater than the lives of millions of people:

our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty.

First, let’s decode his euphemisms. By “protect the sanctity of human life,” he means “end abortion.” I say this because AIDS and poverty threaten lives, and he states that those should be subordinate priorities. So, let’s not pretend that he’s taking so much a pro-life position as an anti-abortion one. For my own part, as I’ve said before, “pro-life” should mean more than just anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia.

I agree that preserving marriage is important. Again, though, if I had the power to alter reality and had to make some choices, I would permit gay marriage in the US if by doing so I would abolish AIDS in Africa.

Defending religious liberty is all well and good. I won’t even try to unpack the phrase to see what he really means, because that isn’t really what I had in mind.

Of course, his reference to the Founding Fathers is more than a little misguided. Most importantly, he refers to following their agenda rather than that of caring about poverty and AIDS. I might remind Tony Perkins that the Founding Fathers did not write a single religious document. Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence is actually a religious document per se. They’re religiously inspired, but treating them as sacred would be akin to revering the words of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The Founders themselves were of varying levels of religious sentiment. To be honest, I think that Mr. Perkins would have called Thomas Jefferson a radical had they been contemporaries.

He went on.

But the prioritization of those issues must not. As our own Declaration of Independence states, it is for “life” and “liberty” not “global warming” that government was instituted among men.

I agree that life is important. We just went through that. I think it’s pretty clear, though, that the Founders weren’t talking about abortion.

Mr. Perkins ended with one more point, and I find it more than a little ironic what he had to say:

As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church.

I agree that the Church should not be altered by political parties. That applies, whether that party is the Democratic or Republican Party. Other updates from Mr. Perkins have told about the evils of tax increases and social spending, which works on a very thinly-veiled Republican slant.

The more-liberal Christian group Sojourners has long promoted the statement (and bumper sticker) “God is not a Republican … or a Democrat.” This is a very good point. I think often that Mr. Perkins has forgotten that God doesn’t need to learn from the Reagan agenda. Rather, where God’s heart conflicts with the goals of the Republican Party, we as Christians must side with God.

I’m not sure that Mr. Perkins remembers that.

There are changes happening to the political lives of evangelical Christians. More and more of us are looking critically at the whole package of issues, and thus taking positions that might be considered liberal or non-traditional. That doesn’t make them wrong.

What more does God ask than that we do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God? Does God want our ritual and sacrifice, or that we care for the widow among us?

As I said, I haven’t seen the Compassion forum yet. I probably won’t until Friday morning, by which time I know that it’s ancient history by blogosphere standards. However, Mr. Perkins’ criticism does nothing to convince me that it was wrong. He has shown me a problem in his own politics, though … which reflects a problem in his own heart.