More Active Posts
Front Page
The attributes of Christian political involvement
 |
 34 Comments |
It’s the presidential election cycle, so evangelicals are in the news again. Which candidate will they support? What price will they exact? Are they even relevant? The New York Times ran a story recently on fissures within the movement (“The Evangelical Crackup”). But anyone who thinks that American evangelicals are going to dwindle in numbers or retreat into their old fundamentalist cultural withdrawal is deluding himself.
Nonetheless, evangelicals are not primarily a political movement, but a spiritual community. So they are for the most part conscientious and prone to seasons of critical self-assessment. Thus, a growing number of evangelicals has become uneasy with the spiritual toll that politicking has taken on them personally and on the evangelistic calling for the church. (Consider Blinded By Might: Why the Religious Right Can’t Save America, published in 2000 by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson).
Immediately after the broad Republican congressional defeat in 2006, David Kuo of the JWalking blog published this reflection on the evangelical soul searching that continues today (”Putting Faith Before Politics,” New York Times, November 16, 2006):
There has been a radical change in the attitudes of evangelicals—it’s just not one that will automatically be in the Democrats’ favor. You see, evangelicals aren’t re-examining their political priorities nearly as much as they are re-examining their spiritual priorities. That could be bad news for both political parties.
John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, the conservative Christian organization that gained notoriety during the 1990s when it represented Paula Jones in her sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton, wrote this after the elections: “Modern Christianity, having lost sight of Christ’s teachings, has been co-opted by legalism, materialism and politics. Simply put, it has lost its spirituality.” He went on, “Whereas Christianity was once synonymous with charity, compassion and love for one’s neighbor, today it is more often equated with partisan politics, anti-homosexual rhetoric and affluent mega-churches.”
Mr. Whitehead is hardly alone. Just before the elections, Gordon MacDonald, an evangelical leader, wrote that he was concerned that some evangelical personalities had been seduced and used by the White House. He worried that the movement might “fragment because it is more identified by a political agenda that seems to be failing and less identified by a commitment to Jesus and his kingdom.”
After the 2006 election, Beliefnet.com conducted an online survey of 2,000 people. Two findings struck me:
- nearly 60 percent of non-evangelicals have a more negative view of Jesus because of Christian political involvement
- nearly 40 percent of evangelicals support the idea of a two-year Christian “fast” from intense political activism
A fast from “intense political activism” may be a healthy exercise for some, but abstaining from political engagement in general would be misguided. Christians are called to be good citizens. In a free republic, good citizens are politically engaged. It would also be a sinful neglect of one’s neighbor’s good. How to go about that political engagement Christianly appears to be the question for us at this end of the Bush presidency.
Let me suggest a theological answer. That is, I suggest that Christian political life in this land of liberty take its bearings from the character of God. I have three particular attributes in mind: his wisdom, his sovereignty and his goodness. In order for God to be trustworthy, he must have all these three attributes. If any one of them were missing, we would have no grounds for trusting him. (I’ll leave you to think it through.) Following this pattern, if Christians are obedient to the wisdom of God, we will be a godly influence. If Christians are confident in the sovereignty of God, we will be a humble influence. If Christians are confident in the goodness of God, we will be an effective influence.
It is not enough to be culturally conservative. We have to be biblically faithful. But biblical fidelity entails not only godly ends, but also godly means, godly temperament, and sensible efforts to accomplish those ends in a world that is not amenable to, and even resists, godliness.
However wise we have been at selecting our policy positions, we have behaved terribly in the way we have advocated those positions. As a result of our public involvement over the past thirty years, people have come to see evangelical Christians as self-righteous, unloving seekers after an earthly kingdom. “Humble” is neither the first nor the last word that comes to mind for most impartial observers. Unlike the non-Christians who share our political positions on matters of justice and morality but who are strangers to Christ, we should be oddly winsome. Though faithful to the truth, we should demonstrate a personal concern for our opponent’s well being. Public debate should be a form of love for neighbor, and evidently so.
As to effectiveness, Jesus calls us to be as wise (Gk, phronimos - prudent, provident) as serpents, but as innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). God wants more than good intentions. He wants us to do good. He wants not only veracity, but also charity, and the best charity actually gets things done.
Looking to the next election, the one still ahead of us, Kuo offered these last words:
We will have to wait until 2008 to see just how deep this evangelical spiritual re-examination goes, and how seductive politics will continue to be to committed Christians. Meanwhile, evangelicals aren’t flocking to the Democratic Party. If anything, they are becoming more truly conservative in their recognition of the negative spiritual consequences of political obsession and of the limitations of government power.
Evangelicals should see that we live in tension between two poles. It is wrong for Christians to act franticly in the political arena the way our political opponents do who are without God and without hope in this world, and to grieve the way they do when we lose. It would also be wrong for us to retreat from our responsibility to exercise godly influence in that legitimate and noble sphere of life. Though there are limits to what can be accomplished through politics, there is also an obligation to accomplish what we can, and to do so in the confidence that God does not depend upon our efforts, but does all things well according to his at times surprising and even puzzling will.
 |
Topic: Academy, Editor's Choice |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: democrats, elections, evangelicals, politics, republicans |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
Darn. They’re catching on.
Very balanced analysis, thanks.
Very well-written and thoughtful piece.
David, that was, by far, the best article I’ve ever read here, thank you. Not only do I hope WORLD will publish a version of it, I think it desperately needs to be the cover story.
Wow, a World article on Christian involvement in politics with which I agree!
The church in America is coming to a realization that hope in princes and armies will always disappoint. We must hope in Christ, who alone can change the heart of our nation to serve the LORD.
Good article. It shows how the MSM and the other libs in our society really don’t understand what the evangelical movement is all about. They’re scared of the impact Christians can have on society (political AND otherwise), so they lump us all together and then try to minimize us.
#6: They’re scared of the impact Christians can have on society
And why not? The transparent attempt to teach the occult in public schools (take your pick, the assault on science or mandatory prayer disguised as “silence” or the rail against sex education).
FROM THE ARTICLE: Let me suggest a theological answer.
Please don’t. The last thing many of us want to hear are ramblings about “God power”, mysticism and the supernatural. We have “real” problems, not made up ones against our sons and daughters.
No one has given a single good reason why we need the occult other than vague “to save ourselves spiritually” or “because of the lack of morals”. Well, we have laws. That takes care of the “morals issue”. What’s next?
RDean, David doesn’t seem to be arguing to impose a theocratic answer, but rather to re-evaluate the theological position of politics within Christian thought. To put it in Rawlsian terms, he seems to be arguing for a rethinking of Christian political involvement to better achieve an overlapping consensus without abandoning the Christian values which would motivate it.
outkast post 6,
I suggest for consideration that the conservative Christian right is instead a self-minimizing movement.
If I look at the conservative Christian movment what I see is a movement focused on beliefs: what is usually termed woldview. And they often draw what would appear to be a hard line between their philosophy and what is sometimes termed a “humanist, relativistic” approach which is focused on outcomes.
But politics is a melange of many different forces and, with the possible exception of highly centralized authoritarian systems, it is result, not belief, focused.
So it would appear that when a belief centric approach participates in a results centric field, the reuslts are not likely to match the belief-centric expectations.
The authoritarian option of course, remains, but that is indeed what results in posts such as rdeans post 7.
I am not highly worried in the main: the U.S. governmental model AND the allies of the conservative Christians all consipire to blunt the conservative Christian authoritarian impulses. If the U.S. gets an authoritarian structure (some argue that we already have), it seems highly liklely that it will not match the epxectations of the conservative Christian right: the Bush years would appear to been less than kind to conservative Christians.
I’m amazed to see that quote from John Whitehead. He and his ilk had a lot to do with poisoning the political well in the last decade with their constant and deeply personal attacks on the Clintons.
But in general, I agree with the article, I see a real disconnect between Christ’s teachings and some evangelical political stances, and a huge gap in the tone one would expect from Christians.
Today’s news that Robertson is endorsing Giuliani over Huckabee or Romney or even McCain is just baffling. I just don’t understand how supporting Giuliani is consistent.
#8: better achieve an overlapping consensus without abandoning the Christian values which would motivate it.
I know that sounds good. The problem is that Christians can’t quit.
I suspect that many Christians believe that evolution is a true science, but have been told so many times that it leads to Godless ways, they want “mystical creation” taught for “balance”. In their minds, that makes sense. Unfortunately, it’s part of what causes us to lose potentional scientists when we need them the most.
It’s also their push to disenfranchise their gay children. They come up with vague reasons why we need to formalize discrimination, none of which are the least bit logical. They simply repeat the same tired indoctrinating phrases.
I have to admit, there are Christians that are starting to appreciate the environment. They have preached this mantra of, “it’s a looeny left cause” for so long that it’s really difficult for them to say, “Yes, the left was correct”. The more Christians we can get to live in this world, instead of “yearning” for the imagined next, the better off we all will be.
Nicely written. However, I would go one step further. What does politics have to do with Christianity at all? The only thing Jesus ever said about Rome was to obey the law and pay your taxes. His political commentary was about a kingdom that was not of this world.
Does this mean Christians are to ignore the world? Of course not. Loving your neighbor is not ignoring him. As good citizens we have a responsibility to serve others and seek their best. This can translate into all sorts of things, being politically active, voting one’s conscience etc. But it has nothing to do with the mission of the church. Evangelicals have been confused on this point since the so-called “Moral Majority”. Perhaps David Innes notices a maturity emerging finally. One can only hope.
xion post 12,
your understanding of the Gospel always holds me spell bound. Nicely written post!!
RDean [11], Christians certainly have had considerable difficulty quitting in the past (indeed, they’ve most often demonstrated a lack of willingness to admit that a problem exists), and I agree that it seems as though they will continue struggling with it into the future. I, however, read David’s article as encouraging them to struggle to correct past bad habits — surely it is better that they struggle?
All heavenly minded, no earthy good seems an apt phrase here. You’re certainly right that Christians are moving towards a more active “stewardship” — as they like to call it — of the environment, but I think you’ll also see improvements coming up in the area of gay rights. It will take time for them to assume positions of leadership, but the up and coming Christian kiddies tend to be much more comfortable with the idea that gay people should be afforded equal consideration and respect. Much of this, I think, is in reaction to the Moral Majority since young Christians are realizing the incongruity of their approach with Christ’s command to focus on removing the log from one’s own eye.
The majority of Christians don’t drink, don’t take drugs and have a very strong work ethic. All of this leads to a very good sense of community.
THIS is where our scientists need to come from. Instead, many Christian children are taught that entire branches of science are lies or that science leads to secular corruption. The baby boomer generation has certainly failed in this regard. We are lucky that we still lead in many areas of science. We have succeeded in spite of not because of.
I agree.
A quite conservative church I attended for awhile recently has a very large number of men in it with PhD’s in different areas of engineering. Isn’t this science? I didn’t notice anyone being uneasy about science or afraid of being corrupted by it. I think the idea that Christians hate science may be a myth of some kind.
janie post 18,
try this simple test:
if the objective scientific evidence appears to clearly refute facts as presented in the Bible as typically understood, what is your position or the position of these men?
#18: A quite conservative church I attended for awhile recently has a very large number of men in it with PhD’s in different areas of engineering.
To #19: A doctorate is engineering is very difficult to achieve. I suspect this person is “mystically creating” facts.
rdean post 20,
actually there are a number of people with doctorates in my church. Many if not most are in engineering or science.
However, none of them will accept a strict-interpretationalist model of the Bible.
And of course there is the now hackneyed example of Fancis Collins who is an excellent scientist and evangelical Christain. But of course Collins does not accept a strict-interpretationalist model of the Bible.
It is the strict-interpretationalist model, not Christianity, which is the issue.
And of course, the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not insist on a strict-interpretationalist model of the Bible.
Watching the PBS show the other night on the Dover “Mystical Creation” trial, one “minister” went on and on about, “If you believe in evolution, then you absolutely CANNOT believe in God”. He said, “The Bible is either 100% true or entirely made up”. “You can’t have it both ways.”
I go with “made up”.
rdean post 22,
but of course as I note repeatedly, the demographic denominational majority of Christians do not require a strict-interpretationalist view of the Bible. so this ministers view is a minority view among Christians, and as such most Christians have no Biblical difficulty with evolution.
I think it unwise for either side in an argument to paint with too broad a brush.
No two Christians on this planet, who call themselves strict interpretationalists will agree on every interpretation of every passage.
You can’t lump every one who believes as such, in the same category.
“The transparent attempt to teach the occult in public schools”
Which one of these things are protected by the constitution?
The right to practice religion freely, or, the right to have “public” schools.
“the conservative Christian authoritarian impulses”
1) A conservative philosophy is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
2) It would take a pretty stupid Christian philosophy to think that legally forcing people to behave as Christians would change their hearts, and “save” them.
But when you say authoritarian, relating to matters like education, it is the left who tries to limit the exchange of ideas, and act as “authoritarians”.
We haven’t, or wouldn’t force any of you in to anything.
Yet the left forces their policy decisions through the judiciary constantly.
Mr Meaner post 24,
are you meaning to tell me that a strict-interpretationalist perspective on the Bible does not mean that the strict-interpretationalist “will agree on every interpretation of every passage.”
Surely you must be wrong here. I have had so many posts which insist that a given passage means a specific meaning and only a specific meaning.
Are you telling me that even under a strict-interpretationalist model passages still require understanding to interpret and may not have an unequivocal meaning?
Next you will be telling me that I need to understand the backround, context, and details of translation of the Bible to ensure I fully understand a passage.
You of course are aboslutely right on these point. Would you mind informing the rest of the strict-interpretationalists on this blog of this point?
are you meaning to tell me that a strict-interpretationalist perspective on the Bible does not mean that the strict-interpretationalist “will agree on every interpretation of every passage.”
add an “s” at the end of that interpretationalist, and..yep.
“Surely you must be wrong here. I have had so many posts which insist that a given passage means a specific meaning and only a specific meaning”
We know better than that.
I call myself a strict interpretationalist.
How many others here, who call themselves the same, would agree agree with my interpretation on everything? (or anything, for that matter)
Maybe 10-20 percent?
I can’t convince anyone of anything.
Heck, I don’t even think most of these people like me.
I keep putting out these controversial interpretations on various subjects, hoping people will bite, but they rarely do.
This remark was made by Romney … “I think the attempts to attack me on the basis of my faith are un-American,”
Since when is free speech un-American?
Thought I’d add this
I think it’s because that even though we disagree on the details, we can all (I think) agree on the few fundamentals.
I’ve read comments on doctrine by posters that I didn’t agree with, but didn’t comment on, out of respect that they are following their convictions. I’m guessing that it is probably their respect for my convictions that’s the reason for most of my religious discussions being with secular posters.
27
You’re right.
If the govt. was attacking him on the basis of his faith, he’d have a point.
Welcome to the club, Mitt!
Mr Meaner - 27
What is FREE SPEECH to Romney? Have we lost it, and if we have, when did that happen?
Mr Meaner post 26,
when I speak of strict-interpretationalists, I am typically referring to a Chicago statement model, although there are other formulations which have similar behavior.
Under a Chicago statement form it would appear that deep study is typically not required, since God has preserved every comma etc.
This can results in some truly hilarious arguments such as the one regarding whether the glad tidings were for all men or men of good will during one of last Christmas’ meditations.
When I look at your interpretations, these are among the deepest interpretations I have ever seen posted in this blog. I am truly delighted by your depth of knowledge and the effort you expend in reachings your understandings. I may not always agree with your conclusions, but I am always fascinated and delighted by your approach. I am explicitly trying to learn and emulate some of the simpler of your procedures and processes.
And if I might, I would not categorize you as a strict-interpretationalist. To coin a new phrase I would call you a deep interpretationalsit. Any one who can make me work this hard for Genesis 2.4 is clearly working at a very deep level indeed.
P.S. I observe that if you present a complex subject with good supporting data and a strong analytical approach, then few on this blog will be willing to comment. This has also been noted in a parallel discussion in this blog.
Wow
I’m speechless.
That’s one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me.
Thanks.
BTW, I had no idea the record setting creation thread was still active.
I left a little something for you and SBG to check out, and comment on, relating to Noah’s flood.
Will check on it.
Mr Meaner:
left a comment on the Creation thread for you.