BreakPoint with Charles Colson Commentary #050203 - 02/03/2005
Getting It Power versus Influence
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
Since the 2004 election, the American media are trying to understand religion's role in the lives of Americans. It's a difficult task for them because, as CNN's William Schneider once put it, "the press … just doesn't get religion."
More...
A recent high-profile attempt to "get religion" is the new issue of Time magazine. In it, Time identifies what it calls the "25 most influential evangelicals in America." These are people "whose influence," in Time's estimation, "is on the rise or who have carved out a singular role."
This kind of recognition is, if we are honest, gratifying—not only to the people named in the article, but also to every Christian. But Schneider is right: The press doesn't get religion, starting with how the press views what it means to be an "influential" Christian.
Judging by its profile of people like Rick Warren, Roberta and Howard Ahmanson, and Chuck Colson, for Time, "influence" is simply synonymous with "power." The chief criterion for Time for inclusion on the list seems to be whether politicians will take your phone call.
Even people like Rick Warren and Billy Graham aren't cited, as they should be, for their impact on people's lives. Instead, their ministries become means to a political end, as Time sees it. Thus, in Time's view, Warren makes the list because fifteen senators "from both parties sought his advice." Likewise, while Graham's general reluctance in political matters was noted, Time also pointed out that Graham has "had the ear of presidents for five decades."
Anyone who has read the Gospels will know that Time has it exactly backwards. Service and humility—dying to self—not power are what matters in the kingdom of God. A Christian's true influence is measured in the lives he touches, not in the legislation he gets passed. And, indeed, that's why the list of twenty-five is influential—not because of their political influence.
The person I know the best on Time's "25 Most Influential" list is Chuck Colson. While it would be disingenuous to deny Chuck's status or influence within the Christian world, this so-called "power" is nothing compared to the kind of power he once exercised. Today, Chuck may be able to, as Time put it, get a bandwagon moving, but not so long ago, he didn't need a bandwagon to get things done. He did it through the power of the Oval Office in the White House.
Yet, it wasn't until he lost that power, what most people would call real "power," that Chuck began to make a real difference and exercise the only kind of influence that really matters. Prison Fellowship is possible only because its founder, Chuck Colson, was forced to personally identify with those people who hold a special place in God's heart: prisoners and their families.
The pursuit of political power prompted the old Chuck to demonize offenders; the desire to wield godly influence prompted the "reborn and rehabilitated" Chuck to make their fate his primary concern for the sake of the Gospel.
Christians need to keep this contrast between power and godly influence in mind. My concern with the Time article isn't that the magazine presumes to tell Christians who our "leaders" are. It picked some great folks. My concern is that we may accept Time's criteria for why they have influence and, thus, allow the larger culture to define us. Remember, the press doesn't "get religion." It would be a shame if we didn't, either.
