I’m intrigued by the discussion about the Christian’s role in politics being carried on by Frank, Jared, Matthew, Doug Wilson, and Dr. Beckwith. My own sympathies shift back and forth depending on whose post I’m reading; they are all very convincing. While I don’t want to jump in with my own solution, I think we will find it in a synthesis—a both/and compromise rather than an either/or dichotomy.
I think this is a fruitful and necessary topic for debate and I’m pleased with the way it is being carried on: civilly, rationally, and with an emphasis on Scripture.
But I also get the feeling that we are making much ado about . . .well, not nothing, of course, but not much. I think the truth is that our concern about evangelicals’ involvement in politics is a lot like our concerns about the emergent church movement. We evangelicals have spent countless hours debating that movement, written at least a hundred books about it, and fret about it constantly. Yet how many people actually attend such a church? I literally know thousands of Christians and I can count on one hand the number that are emergent. True, more evangelicals are seriously involved in politics than are seriously involved in the emergent movement. But its not that much more.
Contrary to what many secularists claim–and many Christians believe–we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, just like we talk a lot about sports and religion. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities—lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.—would be well nigh impossible to support with actual evidence.
I say this not only as a self-professed (and self-critical) member of the “religious right” but as one who has often had a direct observation post on the political battlefield. I have almost no interest in politics. I know that may surprise some people who think I’m some sort of political junkie (ahem, Jared W.), but on my list of things that actually interest me, politics is down there with urban gardening and complexity theory—interesting topics that I don’t really want to think about too much. But because of one of my primary interest—defending the dignity of human beings—God has seen fit to stick me in situations and places where politics dominates. So be it. If nothing else, it’s certainly been illuminating. From my vantage point it is easy to see that the commitment—much less the influence—of evangelical in politics is wildly overstated.
For example, a few years ago Family Research Council (FRC)—the premier lobbying organization of the Christian right in Washington, D.C.—attempted to collect signatures on an online petition asking President Bush to approve new Title X regulations ensuring that no taxpayer money goes to subsidize the abortion facilities of groups like Planned Parenthood.
Over a million emails were sent by FRC and various other groups asking evangelicals and other Christians to do nothing more than add their name to an online petition. This is about as minor a level of commitment or involvement as it gets, yet less than three percent of the people contacted did so. More evangelicals voted for the 5th place contestant on last year’s American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.
This is the typical reaction at the grassroots level to almost every political initiative in the “religious right.” Lot’s of talk; little to no action.
FRC is considered one of the major players in the world of conservative evangelical politics. And yet that organization’s ability to have any influence or impact in the political realm is limited by the lack of grassroots commitment. Though FRC and similar groups attempt to rally the troops, they are unable to lead the army of politically engaged evangelicals because such a group is all but nonexistent.
Consider that for more than two decades the number one issue on the agenda of the evangelical wing of the religious right has been abortion.
The bitter irony is that this is perceived as the “number one” political issue for evangelicals when it really isn’t one of our top priorities. If evangelicals–and Christians in general–truly cared about this issue, abortion on demand would not be the law of the land.
Imagine if every Christian in America vowed not to cast a vote for any candidate of any party for any office if they supported or condoned the killing of the unborn. Imagine if every pastor in America had the courage to stand in the pulpit and deliver the Gospel-centric message that God abhors this slaughtering of the innocent and that for the church to tolerate this sin is a fecal-colored stain on the garment of Christ’s bride.
But it will never happen because the evangelical church isn’t committed as the church to rectifying this grave injustice. We never have been.
In a 1971 resolution on abortion, the Southern Baptist Convention resolved that “society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life.” The largest evangelical denomination in America had a peculiar definition of “sanctity of human life”, however, for the very next sentence called upon Southern Baptists to “work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion” under such conditions as “fetal deformity” and damage to the “emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” Three years later–and two years after Roe codified this position–the SBC reaffirmed the resolution. It wasn’t until 1980 that the SBC finally condemned abortion as a grave evil, a position that has always been maintained by the Catholic Church.
Forty later, we evangelicals still haven’t caught up on issues of the sanctity of life. Come to the annual March for Life held in Washington, D.C. every January and you’ll find fifty Catholics for every evangelical. For Catholics it is a moral, spiritual, and political issue. For evangelicals it nothing more than an emotional issue that we aren’t really dedicated to doing much about. I suspect that there were more evangelicals that participated in the recent Tea Party protests than have every participated in the March for Life. (And speaking of the Tea Party movement, could any evangelical group or groups ever muster that level of support about anything.)
Rather than assuming that evangelicals are a large, powerful, committed political bloc that, for some inexplicable reason, is completely ineffective, the more realistic conclusion is that politically engaged evangelicals are like a herd of unicorns: powerful and abundant in the imagination while not actually existing in the real world.
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:27 pm | #1
You’re just jaded, Carter. Way to shut down the j’dai esprit (or however they spell it).
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:30 pm | #2
:-)
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:36 pm | #3
I should clarify that I think the conversation we’re having is imperative. We need to come to a clear biblical understanding for what the Christian’s role should be on this issue for when we do get involved. I just thought it was worth adding a side note to point out that the problem is not quite as pervasive—yet—as some of our internal and external critics think it is.
October 22nd, 2009 | 1:40 pm | #4
I added this line which should have been in the original: “I think this is a fruitful and necessary topic for debate and I’m pleased with the way it is being carried on: civilly, rationally, and with an emphasis on Scripture. “
October 22nd, 2009 | 2:03 pm | #5
Hey: we can put an end that that RIGHT NOW, BABY. We are BLOGGERS and SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS WRONG!
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:36 pm | #6
Speaking of false dichotomies, could I just throw out the possibility that low(er) attendance at a March for Life does not necessarily equate to lessened work toward the pro-life aim?
This underlying a lot of my previous points. Just because I’m not spending a lot of time politicking doesn’t mean I’m not spending a lot of time fighting for the unborn. (And I think this is why after my first post I heard from more than one person questioning my level of concern for the unborn.)
We may be marching and picketing less, but one place I’ve seen greater visibility and harder work is in the area of adoption advocacy. That’s just one avenue evangelicals are opting for now, and I think it’s more gospel-driven — I’m going to keep using phrases like that, I don’t care what nuny’all say :-) — than holding a sign outside of a Planned Parenthood. (It’s also harder.)
And, yes, I know we can do both. Not saying we can’t. I’m just saying that just because it doesn’t look like it looked from the 80′s until the recent past doesn’t mean we gave up and stopped actively caring.
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:37 pm | #7
Oh, at least one unicorn impales me every day.
I think some of you “Eh, it’s not so bad” guys must live in Bizarro Evangelicalism. :-)
October 22nd, 2009 | 3:38 pm | #8
Excellent article Joe! I agree that we’re often more talk than action. But how would you respond to the “separation of church and state” people? They always like to throw that in our faces when it comes to political involvement, as if their own worldview isn’t based on a belief system.
October 22nd, 2009 | 4:03 pm | #9
Joe – overall, perhaps you are correct. However, there are certainly some “evangelical” segments that are more than willing to hope into bed with three time unrepentant adulterers who never had the time of day for them while he was in Congress, but now that he is out….If those segments had no influence, they would not be courted by those who seek power
October 22nd, 2009 | 6:55 pm | #10
Jared Speaking of false dichotomies, could I just throw out the possibility that low(er) attendance at a March for Life does not necessarily equate to lessened work toward the pro-life aim?
I will certainly agree with that. But that just reinforces my point that our critics—both internal and external—have it wrong. If we were completely political than such rallies (which I’ll admit are mostly a waste of time) would be more popular. Indeed, while there is some work being done for the pro-life cause (e.g., crisis pregnancy centers), but not much effort is really being put into the political side. We can’t even hold the line in refusing to support a politician who supports abortion. We have all kinds of people screwing themselves into contortions to justify supporting evil for some “greater good.”
I think some of you “Eh, it’s not so bad” guys must live in Bizarro Evangelicalism. :-)
Are such people out there? Sure. But how many do you have in your church? Probably very few. I can’t think of any that I know of in my church. When we see them they are likely to be online. But online you can find every type of people under the sun—and they all have a megaphone. So it skews the idea that we are all like that.
By the way, you were the first to break out with a post on politics. What’s up with that? ; )
JJ Mahoney They always like to throw that in our faces when it comes to political involvement, as if their own worldview isn’t based on a belief system.
Oh, man, don’t get me on my “myth of secular neutrality” soapbox. I’d be ranting about that all day. ; )
I wrote some about that recently on the First Thoughts blog (Catholic Justices and the Myth of Secular Neutrality).
dac If those segments had no influence, they would not be courted by those who seek power
I think what they have is the perception of influence. Real influence means that they could actually get something done. But what do they have to show for it? What victories can they add to their win column? Most politicians know that the only time you need the support of evangelicals is on election day. Voting is the one political activity that we tend to participate in.
So you’ll have guys like Gingrich pander to us because deep down he really does believe some of what we do and agrees with us for the most part (even if his personal life doesn’t show it), but they’ll only pander to us so far. They are much more likely to be influenced by the economic conservatives than any group on the religious right.
For example, the Club for Growth has 30,000 members. The American Family Association has 3 million (I didn’t believe it till I got to peek at their database). Yet the CFG holds much more influence that AFA or any other single group that is tied to evangelicalism.
October 22nd, 2009 | 7:59 pm | #11
If we were completely political than such rallies (which I’ll admit are mostly a waste of time) would be more popular.
I thought we already established they’re at the Tea Parties. :-)
Are such people out there? Sure. But how many…
I’m not going to say anything negative about my church.
But there are lots of “those people” out there and I encounter them every day, often online, yes, but not in random, I-seek-them-out fashion. They are within my sphere of friends and family or within the spheres of my friends and family.
My friend pastors a church full of them and it is costing him his emotional well being.
Everybody got “Obama the boogeyman” email forwards, didn’t they?
October 22nd, 2009 | 9:05 pm | #12
Joe,
I thought you might be interested to know that Dr. Wayne Grudem is currently working on a new book, “Politics: According to the Bible”.
Being in his Sunday school class, I am privileged to watch the birthing of this book.
If you, or your readers, are interested in following along, just hop over to my blog. I will be blogging the whole series, complete with audio.
October 22nd, 2009 | 9:54 pm | #13
I think part of the problem associated with the lack of involvement by the grassroots as you describe is the centralized nature of orgs like FRC. It’s all happening in DC and unseen to people in middle-America. Out of sight out of mind. But the tea parties, abortion clinic protests, talk radio….those are all things that non-beltway people can actively participate in in their own part of the country. Sometimes they want to do more than sign a petition and mail it back in the self-addressed envelope….not suggesting those things aren’t helpful, but you know what I mean.
October 23rd, 2009 | 8:35 am | #14
Sarah –
Aha!
I see the long shadow of the LOCAL CHURCH coming this way, and I love when that happens. All of a sudden we’re talking about real Christians and not statistical stereotypes.
October 23rd, 2009 | 4:07 pm | #15
Jared,
I think ultimately the difference comes because of ones understanding of these two camps in evangelicalism.
http://www.forerunner.com/statesman/twoviews.html
BTW ….This is the reason I am not a evangelical and why I am Reformed Baptist ie…. I hate Pietism and love Puritanism.
October 27th, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #16
Joe,
Scott Klusendorf sent me this way and I’m glad he did. I am currently leading FOTF’s “Truth Project” at my local church. Last week’s discussion of the role of The State led to this exact issue. One of the “students” in my class brought up a related point: That we in the Evangelical community are quick and proud to encourage our kids toward serving in “full-time ministry” (as if that is not a role we should _all_ be playing, but I digress) that engages mainly in preaching to the choir. “Why,” he asked, “aren’t we trying to encourage our kids to become politicians that can actually have a direct impact …” on the issues we’re talking about.
Good question …
Thanks for the post.
October 27th, 2009 | 1:45 pm | #17
“More evangelicals voted for the 5th place contestant on last year’s American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.”
This line alone goes a long way towards explaining the results of the last US election, the non-attendance at the MFL and the proliferation of baby killing in our churches. When the churches get their priorities straight, the people will follow or leave. It is the fear of the latter that that holds the clergy back from doing the right thing.
October 28th, 2009 | 2:12 pm | #18
This is so accurate it hurts (truth hurts). I call it partisan religion. Here in Napa we have witnessed a total absence of protestant leadership when it comes to defending the sanctity of life. In the current 40 Days for Life campaign it has been the Catholics who have spoken with action and conviction. I’ve tried calling pastors, but they don’t return calls. Letter’s also go unanswered. I can’t put my finger on why this is, but I wish we could change it. We all serve the same god, but you wouldn’t know it from the outside looking in.
Thanks, great post…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact