Why All the Fuss?

A few weeks ago, while I was doing a series of posts about Christian politics, I did one called "Is This Land Our Land?" Terry at Pruitt Communications did some similar posts and Jeff Price from "Now I Don't Want to Get off On a Rant Here . . . " made a comment, addressed to both of us, an extract of which folows:

Perhaps it's because I don't have time to read all the comments or perhaps it's something else going on that I am unaware of, but I am curious about the motivations for these posts. You both seem to be advocating a stance that proclaims that politics will not redeem our nation and that only the Gospel will. I absolutely, 100%, agree with that statement.

My question is why do you continue to beat that drum? Who believes the opposite of what you are saying there? And while we will not redeem our nation through politics, don't we need to be engaged in politics to both put the Gospel message into action and put feet on our faith?

I have been meaning to reply to this and am just now getting around to it.

A couple of preliminary matters first. I'll speak for myself here, Terry may see things differently. Secondly, later in the comment Jeff had given a kind of pre-emptive apology, in case he had seemed disprespectful. I just wanted to assure him that no disprespect or offense was perceived - this is the kind of dialogue that is always welcome here so I hope he and anyone else who disagrees with me will always feel free to comment. Of course spammers and those who would hurl insult and invective are not welcome, but most everyone I have come in contact with on this blog, even my ideological opponents, have been very courteous and the discussion has been worthwhile. Now, on to the question.

As I say that politics will not save our country, Jeff asks "who believes the opposite?" I will grant you that, when backed into a corner, no Christian will say they believe that politics will save our country. However, practically speaking, I believe there are many Christians who act as if the fortunes of the gospel are tied to the fortunes of particular political parties and candidates. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one nonetheless.

There is a kernel of truth in thinking that. I agree, to a large degree with the Blogfather - Hugh Hewitt - when he says "The effective and mass communication of the gospel depends upon the freedom to proclaim it. Though it is possible to proclaim the gospel in the face of persecution, the unfettered freedom to do so is much, much to be preferred." He says that in his book In But Not Of, and this is a book that I have given to college graduates because I share his vision, to a large degree.

On the other hand, I don't think Hugh would say, and I certainly wouldn't say, that his statement should be taken as an absolute. The gospel has often thrived more in the face of persecution than in the face of freedom. I think of the early centuries of the Christian church. The church endured horrible persecution and sustained its greatest growth. As they say, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. It is said by some that the gospel really didn't take off in China until Mao came to power and kicked the missionaries out. Before anyone takes what I just said out of context, I will add that of course Nero and Domitian and Mao and tyrants like them were evil and what they did was unconscionable, and they perpetrated the grossest forms of evil. But I am saying that rather than hinder the spread of the gospel, those persecutions furthered the spread of the gospel.

So, I will accept it as a general principle that the freedom to proclaim the gospel is preferable to persecution, but I think we also ought to admit that there is not a one to one correspondence. We also ought to acknowledge that Jesus promised the church that it would be persecuted.

One of the things I have seen here in America is that we don't know how to take persecution. Early Christians took it as a sign of approbation and received it joyfully, following the example of Jesus to bless those who persecuted them. I don't see this happening here in America, and particularly when Christians enter the political sphere. Maybe it happens, and maybe I am not aware of it, but generally, when Christians are mocked or ridiculed, or our issues are spoken against, I don't see us blessing our persecutors. We tend to use the language of anger and desperation, rather than the language of joy and confidence and blessing and confidence.

The anger, the sense of desperation and panic that I see or hear in many Christians voices when it comes to election time leads me to believe that they are tying their faith to their politics a little too closely. Maybe there is an intellectual compartment of their psyche somewhere that admits that politics don't save, but their emotions and actions often give them away. I'm willing to be proven wrong. I can't offer any statistics on this, except to refer back to my experiences during the Clinton years. Following on the heels of Reagan/Bush, when Clinton was elected, you could feel the air go out in many churches. There was a real sense of depression, and anger that he got elected.

So, though most Christians would never say that politics will save America, we can guage whether or not we believe that by looking at how angry or depressed we get if our guy doesn't win. We can also guage it by how we gloat if our guy does win.

And really, that is all I am getting at. At no point in any of my prior posts have I argued that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. I'm just arguing for a change in perspective. I read some words just today in Nancy Pearcy's new book, Total Truth, that are helpful. Speaking of Christians revived political activism over the last couple of decades she says:

This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, yet the impact remains far less than most had hoped. Why? Because evangelicals often put all their eggs in one basket: They leaped into political activism as the quickest, surest way to make a difference in the public arena - failing to realize that politics tend to reflect a culture, not the other way around.

She goes on:

Today, battle-weary political warriors have grown more realistic about the limits of that strategy. We have learned that "politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around," says Bill Wichterman, policy advisor to senate majority leader Bill Frist. "Real change has to start with the culture, all we can do on Capitol Hill is try to find ways government can nurture healthy cultural trends.

And:

On a similar note a member of Congress once told me, "I got involved in politics after the 1973 abortion decision because I thought that was the fastest route to moral reform. Well, we've won some legislative victories, but we've lost the culture (italics hers)." The most effective work, he had come to realize, is done by ordinary Christians fulfilling God's calling to reform culture within their local spheres of influence - their families, churches, schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, professional organizations, and civic institutions.

I do want to point out that Nancy Pearcey is not withdrawn pietist. Don't forget that she has been the brains behind a lot of Chuck Colson's work. I'll save further comments on this for another post, but these words from Washingtonians truck real well with Jacques Ellul's notion of the "Political Illusion." Ellul says that the "Political Illusion" is the illusion that politics must permeate all aspects of life and that the greatest questions of our day have political answers, thus the ultimacy of politics. These conservative Christian politicians that Pearcey quotes understand that - they are on tail end of the culture.

So yes, Christians should vote, and they should be involved in politics, but they should realize that the culture is the dog, and politics is the tail. My concern is that too many Christians think we can wag the dog with politics, and therefore put too much hope in the political process.