Note: Sent in response to Ron Sider's article "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" (Jan/Feb 2005 issue). His article began: "Once upon a time there was a great religion that ... grew complacent [i.e. mainline] ... In response, a renewal movement emerged [evangelicalism] ... [but] the polls showed that [its] members [had the same problems with divorce, materialism, sexual promiscuity, racism, physical abuse in marriage, and neglect of a biblical worldview] as their neighbors ..."
Dear Editor,
Once upon a time, there was a leftist who scolded America for being too rich in a hungry world (as if being poorer would be helpful in solving this problem). He cast his lot for America as welfare state, assuring us that Jesus would be pleased by this development. But alas, the model for all welfare states, Soviet communism itself, was at length shown to be the utter failure that it (and all fellow-travelling collectivist ideologies) has always been (and always will be). Feeling rage at this development, and being further provoked by his man Kerry's loss, this leftist has embarked upon a renewed crusade of vengeance to tar and feather "evil" so-called American Christians for not living up to his exalted standards. I refer, of course, to Ronald J. Sider (The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, Jan/Feb 2005).
Sider sniffs that "if Christians do not live what they preach, the whole thing is a farce." WRONG! Failures among believers say NOTHING about God, only about fickle people. Nothing anyone does tarnishes God's eternal Truth and Righteousness. Sider indicts America on divorce, materialism, promiscuity, racism, spouse abuse, and improper worldview, echoing the 'blame America first,' anti-American leftist view which dominates media, academia and urban areas.
He laments that "the public agenda of prominent evangelical political movements and coalitions ... virtually never [feature] justice for the poor ... as an area of significant concern and effort." By "justice," he apparently means not REAL results (consistently delivered by market solutions proposed by "uncaring" conservatives and libertarians), but marxist-inspired left-liberal coercive redistribution programs (alas, promising much, delivering little, but oh, their promoters so "feel your pain"). Sider cites "studies by the UN [that] suggest that just an additional $70-80 billion a year would be enough to provide" for the basic needs of the poor. Would that amount also cover the rampant corruption that would inevitably be associated (especially if administered by the UN) with these new programs?
He cites a disconnect between the Bible's concern for the poor and Christians' practice. WRONG. The best way to truly help the poor is to spread Christian republicanism and capitalism (i.e. political and economic freedom) as far and wide as possible. Sider's economic credibility has been hovering near zero ever since publication of "Rich Christians." His (and all leftists') political "cred" has been declining in recent years. Can his theology be unscathed by these egregious errors?
Sider is angry that evangelical leaders were mostly absent from the Civil Rights movement. To the extent this was true, it was largely due to conservative uneasiness about the leftist nature of that movement, a stance amply born out in today's degeneration of idealistic aspirations to immoral and unconstitutional QUOTAS and reverse racism, which proponents assured would NEVER happen.
Just recently I read of a woman who was deeply offended by Sider's "Rich Christians" book, mistakenly identifying its negative, accusatory, guilt-based tone with God's outlook and therefore feeling alientated from God. Fortunately, after some reflection, she realized Sider was way off-base and that she could find her own response to God (with no need to respond to Sider). I suspect her story is far from unique. Sider is an embittered, leftist, pharisaical scold. Bottom line: If you're God, go ahead and judge, but if you're Ron Sider (or any other human), leave the judging to God and be content to simply encourage imperfect people to do the best they can.
Steven P. Sawyer