Who represents Christians if Falwell, Dobson and Robertson don't?

I have been wondering about the complaints I have been hearing from Christians who say that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson do not speak for them even though they are the three most prominent Christian political and religious figures in America today.Clearly, all three are radical right-wing Fundamentalists and only represent a small but vocal minority of Christians in the US. However, they are the only prominent political Christian voices I ever hear, and this tends to color my view of American Protestant Christians overall.Why is there no organized, vocal mainstream Christian opposition to these men, and if they do not represent "the rest of the Christians", who does?Admin, please put this wherever you think best, thanks.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

But...Jesus?

A big answer for many Christians is no one, Thank GOD!GOD gave us brains and expects us to use them. We need no Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson to tell us what we think.But they are very, very good at what they do. Like most con-men and hucksters, they are remarkably successful at pitching their snake-oil.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do Christians need a representative?Sure, Catholics have the Pope, episcopals have the Archbishop of Canterbury. But for evangelical Christians, it is supposed to be one of their principle that they are not followers of an earthly leader.I'll grant that they do have a problem with the press. The media play up Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and other self-appointed leaders, because the generate the drama that has become an essenial part of "all the news that's fit to titillate."I would say that Christian groups need ways of getting a better press. But I don't see the need for a representative.

Jar, I would love to see some prominent Christians echoing some of the things I've seen you post on this board. It would be so nice to have some public christian figures that espoused the true christian principles of helping the poor, peace, health care for all, etc.I heard a little of this from Barack Obama at the democratic convention... It would be nice to hear more.It's certainly not fair to judge all christians (or even all evangelicals) by these nut jobs... but I think that happens sometimes.

Author of God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get Itand The Soul of Politics: Beyond "Religious Right" and "Secular Left"There seems to be a nice discussion of "God's Politics" at this blog.I read a bit of "God's Politics", and did like some of what he had to say. He was critical of the "religious right", but seemed to be almost as pushy to get the "religious left" influence into government.By "secular left", he condemns the lack of religious activity by those to the left of the "religious right". Kind of like equating the politically more liberal with anti-theism, rather than merely being ones who want to keep undue religious influences out of government.It would be interesting if Wallis could have his own show on Pat Robertson's network. But that would be like Al Franken getting his own show on Fox.Moose

Oh there are prominent Christians who echo JAR's views I think. Certainly Bishop Spong, but then he's a Brit. Probably the Jesus Seminar and all those guys who are interviewed for the annual Eastertime inquisition of Christ in Time and Newsweek, or the many spokespersons who get interviewed on NPR or PBS on Christianity. Of course maybe they aren't well known enough. Jimmy Carter perhaps? Bill Moyers?This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 05:49 PM

I think that the media latch on to outrageous sayings be people like these because of the "tittilation" factor as has been mentioned. There's very few column inches or air time given to those Christians who say mundane, ordinary things or just go about their lives in an ordinary fashion.It's very like media reporting of teenagers and their behaviour. It'll make the News if a gang of teenagers torch a building, but it won't if a gang of teenagers leave the youth club, go to the chipshop, then quietly go home.The media in general gives a very skewed view on the world. A representative for Christians, if they were any good, wouldn't make pronouncements on which sects were right and which were wrong, they wouldn't condemn those who don't believe in different ideas since they would be trying to represent all Christians. In short, they wouldn't really have much to say except "Treat others as you would have them treat you" and "Don't judge others". Those two phrases would become very boring over time and I don't see the spokesperson getting much air time.

I think Carter is a good example faith.... although he is not a religious leader.

Excellent recommendation, minnemooseus.I haven't read his books, but I have heard Jim Wallis interviewed on a number of radio programs. He presents a well balanced sensible view.

Thanks but certainly not warranted.The things I say are not that unusual. There are many other Christians right here in EvCland that say exactly the same things.The key point is that independant critical thinking and the type of mass distributed dogma represented by the 700 Club are diametric opposites. The 700 Club is designed to answer all your questions. The approach of many Christians is that one should question all your answers.Christianity is a belief. It's a Faith. And it is a personal relationship between the individual and GOD.There are many folk out there today saying pretty much the same thing. You can find one such organization at The Christian Aliance for Progress.This message has been edited by jar, 01-08-2006 05:01 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The problem is not the watchmens family value beliefs but the liberal media anti-family values. I agree that these watchmen are speaking from faith from a christian point of view.The problem is the activist liberal judges forcing their liberal agenda (anti-family values) upon the churches.Politically acceptable speech has bound the church due to the 501c3 mandates which was the whole purpose of these mandates to bind what can be spoken from the pulpit.Liberal activist judges have forced their individual beliefs upon the church. In Canada one can not say sodomy is anti-christian when the bible clearly condemn sodomy.This is the liberal agenda to make fundemental family values sermons against the law. The liberal activist judges want to be the spokesperson for the church (what is an acceptable sermon). The problem with this is the people are the church, not the activist judges.Yet bypassing a congressional request, these activist judges killed Terry Shivo in complete defiance of Congress. (We the People have become We the judges). Its about the liberal agenda to silence the churches right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.P.S. Were in the last days where even our enemies themselves being judges, and their Rock is not our Rock. So the (Rock(Satan) that is not our (Rock (Christ) wants to be the spokesperson for whats acceptable Christian speech. The victory though is the Lords cause he is king of kings and lord of lords, etc... kjv rev 17:14kjv Dueteronomy 32:31 For their Rock is not our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.

Enough already. I am tired of this old song.If the media are pushing anti-family values, then that is due to what the decision makers decide. You know who the decision makers are - they are the big wigs, the top execs, the people driven by the profit motive, the bottom line, greed.Yes, right, you got it - its the conservatives, the right wing who are financing and profiting from what you consider to be "pushing anti-family values".

Gay marriage is an example of anti-family values. How exactly is the right wing pushing this?