I’m in a serious grudge match with my own political convictions. And I am so tired.
Like many believers, I’ve come to see biblical faith as more aligned with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. And for good reason — traditional values, limited government, belief in natural law, liberty over equality, a pro-life plank. These not only represent my personal beliefs, but I think align with certain Scriptural norms. However, lately I’ve noticed that when describing my own political views, I am careful to identify myself as a Conservative, rather than a Republican. The distinction is intentional.
You see, I’m beginning to feel that politics is a drag on my faith. A necessary evil, yes. But the Person and work of Christ is independent of any political attachments. Besides, Jesus and Rush Limbaugh are way, way, different.
One of the reasons why this is such a difficult position for me to take is because of the current religious trend toward political liberalism. I recently left these comments on a “recovering fundamentalist’s” site, in a discussion about politics:
Is it just me, or are most postmodern Christians politically liberal? It makes all their talk about “fair-mindedness” and “non-partisanship” seem disingenuous. I can understand (and sympathize with) someone re-thinking their “fundamentalist upbringing” and contemporary “fundamentalist sub-culture.” But when that journey consistently leads one into “political liberalism,” I am very, very suspicious.
Of course, the opposite point could be made. When one’s journey consistently leads them into “political conservatism,” shouldn’t that also be suspect?
Either way, the pomo = liberal equation just eats at me. For instance, Christianity Today, in an article entitled A Better Storyteller, noted that Don Miller, author of the bestseller Blue Like Jazz, provides links on his website to Greenpeace and MoveOn.org. (For the record, I could find neither link on Miller’s current site.) Nevertheless, the fact that a professing Christian author would, at one time, endorse such radical, far Left groups, absolutely baffles me. Seriously. Sadly, this identification with political liberals seems consistent with the Emerging Church and its postmodern proponents. And this really bums me out.
Still, I can’t let that soften several facts. One, Jesus was apolitical — He simply did not endorse, get sucked into, or encourage political involvement. And He had plenty of chances. Of course, this does not mean we shouldn’t be involved politically, but that politics did not seem very important to Christ or the accomplishment of His mission on earth. Remember, His kingdom “was not of this world” (Jn. 18:36).
Two, the excesses, missteps, moral and social failures of the Religious Right should be fair warning of its fallibilities. In Time magazine’s recent Q & A with Chuck Colson, a man who was front and center in the identification of Evangelicals with politics, said this:
We made a big mistake in the ’80s by politicizing the Gospel. We ought to be engaged in politics, we ought to be good citizens, we ought to care about justice. But we have to be careful not to get into partisan alignment. We [thought] that we could solve the deteriorating moral state of our culture by electing good guys. That’s nonsense. Now people are kind of realizing it was a mistake. A lot of people are going back and saying, “Let’s just take care of the church and tend to our knitting.”
Both positions are wrong. There’s an intelligent way to engage the culture in every area, including politics. But you can’t fix politics or culture unless you fix the church. What we’re seeing in society today is a direct consequence of the church failing to be the church.
Hearing Colson distance himself from partisan politics (“it was a mistake”) and even later in the article explicitly embrace the Enemy (“Democrats do a lot of very good things that we should be supporting”), should be a gut check to religious Republicans. Especially those who perceive politics as a legitimate arm for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
But it’s Colson’s point about the Church that most resonates with me (and, I think, Scripture) — “you can’t fix politics or culture unless you fix the church.” In other words, changing the world starts with Christians, not the House and the Senate.
No, I’m not going pomo. I still believe that the unborn are sacred, government should stay small, morality is not progressive, and the poor will always be with us (Mk. 14:7). I will still vote, watch C-Span, and blog about about politics. And until further notice, I will remain a registered Republican. But as far as labels go, let’s just say I’m a Conservative.
Mike, I'm with you as far as being Conservative over Republican, but my concern is precisely this opinion: ”Democrats do a lot of very good things that we should be supporting.” The amount of current Dems who might qualify under this description could probably be tallied on one hand.
Secondly, there are some excellent small, medium, and large churches in this nation doing their level best to be obedient to the Spirit of God and accomplishing the work of the Lord in small and big ways. All praise for that goes to God, not man.
I'm weary of liberal interpretations of the Word in its specificity just so individuals can stretch their belief systems to include more self-indulgent concepts into their "religion".
Politics is/are ugly. Standing for ideals is vital. All ideals which are worthy of standing for come from God. So, it figures that the faith element will infiltrate the system of government but has no part in politics itself because of the innate corruption associated with doing favors/lobbyist mentalities.
Thank you for this post. I've been feeling quite apathetic for the last few elections. I tend to vote Republican solely on the hope that a Republican president MIGHT select a pro-life Supreme Court candidate. Litmus test / Schmitus test, whatever keeps the baby's heart beating. I vote because I truly believe we are called to be active citizens. Oh yeah, and it gives me a right to complain (although it's usually only my wife pretending to listen).
This has been my stance for years, Mike.
Wait, I can't just agree with you. Hmmmm. Okay. I disagree with the whole Jesus is apolitical argument being applicable to the way we should run out lives.
Yes, you're right about what He did. And the analogy of fixing the church before you fix the government is aprapo. However, it's not an apples to apples argument. The Roman empire did not allow the citizen involvement that we have. Especially from a conquered people like the Jews. We have a goverment apparatus that encourages ( at least in theory) populace involvement. Besides, He had bigger fish to fry.
Not to mention that His teachings are the foundation of our government and the antithesis of Rome's. So in a sense he was starting a grass roots political movement. Mostly by happenstance of course.
Democracy is undoubtedly informed by Scripture. However, this same system sanctions and tolerates multiple points of view, both religious and political. I think it's important to recognize that the Government we claim was extrapolated from a biblical worldview is the same one that has produced two political parties. So baptizing one over the other seems perilous, at least to me.
While the Roman model does not parallel the democratic model, Jesus did have the opportunity to use His influence for political pull, but chose not to. When the people attempted to make Him king, He went to the hills. When they tried to enjoin Him for sedition, He resisted. And then, of course, He made explicit statements about His kingdom and purposes transcending this world, much less its politics. So as far as Jesus starting a "grass roots political movement," I don't think I can agree. He started a movement, but its political aims are never articulated. So ascribing Jesus' signature to our political views is risky business. Thanks for the comments, Dayle!
My internal discomfort resonates (ie — to vibrate or sound, especially in response to another vibration; To have an effect or impact; to influence; to engender support) here. I could go off. I could go on. I could do both. But I'm not going to. Just so you know: I'm resonating on this issue…
Wow, Mike, you see way too much black and white. We're talking subtlety here. I didn't LITERALLY mean a grass roots movement as evidence by the word happenstance. It's not like Jesus was starting a GPAC. He had a different mission. Jesus also did not rollerblade, so using your logic, no Christian should rollerblade. Jesus not accepting the Kingship appointment of the Jews does not mean we shouldn't participate in politics.
You consistently take a subtle point and jump on it like I've declared some all encompassing universal truth. You never seem to "hear" the caveats.
As evidenced by this and all of our past discussions, I really think you and I are speaking two vastly different languages. Our discussions are so fruitless and wrought with mis-interpretation that I've decided to refrain from commenting here in the future.
Please be assured I don't have any hard feelings and I wish you all the best.
Bummer. And here I thought we were having a fruitful discussion. Grace to you, Dayle…
I agree with you Mike. I haven't been a Republican for years, but I've been a conservative (no I won't cap it) voter for a long time — as I would tell my wife, "ever since I grew up."
If we (church folk) would put half as much effort into reaching people who don't yet know Christ as we put into the political arena — well, things would be better, spiritually and politically.
Waiting for the Obama and Nobel post, Mike D. C'mon, you're not gonna let THAT go by are you?
Michael, I'm biting my tongue about Obama winning the Nobel. I'm feeling like I bag on the President enough. But since you asked… this says way more about the politics, ideology, and intentions of the Nobel committee than it does Obama. If ever a prestigious award has lost its luster and become irrelevant, it is the Nobel Peace Prize.