The Christian Coalition may be on its last leg, the Moral Majority may have been neither, and the conservative culture warriors may be licking their wounds right now, but the Christian culture war is far from dead.
Somewhere between the forwarded e-mail smears about Obama being the Anti-christ and the watercooler smears about McCain being a jingoistic warmonger, the American Christian's capitulation to fear and to trust in "chariots and horses" (Ps. 20:7) knew no political party or social strata. The Christian culture war infiltrated both parties and both parties were more than willing to look to their candidate as a fulfillment of God's plan for our nation.
The aging fundamentalist rhetoric for the cause of conservatism lacked the power and persuasion of election's past, but it was there nonetheless. What seemed new this time around, however, is a younger evangelical fervor, a Christian kingdom hope that was placed squarely on the shoulders of the young Illinois senator, Barack Obama.
The religious bigotry and demonization of now President-elect Obama were (and are) evil, to be sure, but the Obama campaign's co-opting of biblical kingdom language surely didn't help. "We have a righteous wind at our backs," he proclaimed. "We are who we've been waiting for" is unfortunate (no matter who's saying it). Obama concluded his speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with this:
Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of Scripture, hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.
The hope that Scripture confesses is Jesus Christ and him alone. The hope that our new president is confessing here, however, is the potential of Americans and the potential of his own governance.
Obama did not invent this perversion of biblical language. Politicizing and nationalizing the kingdom of God is as ancient as Christ's proclamation of the countercultural kingdom itself. In the first century plenty of Jews expected a flag-waving messiah who would reestablish the nation of Israel as the preeminent empire on the earth, and they had only inherited this expectation from their patriarchs. The American flavor of this expectation has been employed since before the American Revolution.
But it is idolatry. Always has been, always will be.
Our hope is neither Republican nor Democrat, neither black nor white, neither liberal nor conservative, neither foreign security nor domestic tranquility. It is Jesus.
What is interesting in this last election cycle is the adoption of this idolatry by many younger evangelicals who hated it in the political stances of their parents and grandparents. After all the (well earned) criticism of years of conservative politicizing "Christian values" and trusting in "God's man in the White House," the critics have turned around and done the same thing. The issues are different -- the ethereal "social justice" replaces the illusory "Judeo-Christian morality" -- but the fundamental philosophy and theological bankruptcy are the same.
Let us not make this a young/old or liberal/conservative thing. It is a human thing, as all sin is. As all idolatrous hopes are.
Whether you are disappointed in the results of the recent election or elated by them, if you are a follower of Jesus, your allegiance is due Christ's kingdom, your hope is to be in his governance. The government shall be on his shoulders, the prophet tells us.
We only need one messiah.
We are citizens of heaven, and the duty of the Body of Christ is to testify in word and deed to this citizenship, not speak and act as if any politician or government is representative of our real citizenship. We may vote responsibly and wisely, and engage in the political process to the extent at which it is neither our hope nor our driving passion. But punching a ballot is not the fulfillment of righteousness or the hope that we confess.
If it is change you want, if it is the kingdom you hope to build, if it is God's will done on earth that you are after, the best way to do this is to believe the gospel, hope in its Author, and get your hands dirty loving your neighbor.
Jared Wilson is the pastor and co-founder of Element, a missional Christian community in
Nashville, Tennessee, and an award-winning writer whose articles, essays, and
short stories have appeared in numerous publications.
Jared's first book, The Unvarnished Jesus, releases Fall 2009 from Kregel.
A graduate of Middle Tennessee State University, he lives outside
Nashville with his wife and two daughters.
Encounter Jared's passion for the ongoing reformation of the evangelical church
almost daily at www.gospeldrivenchurch.com.
Now that's what I call common sense Christianity! This article mirrors some of the stuff I've previously written, but yours is much better. Great job, Jared!
Your discussion of our politics that is awash in bigotry covered with Biblical language makes me wonder how that is different from loving your neighbor with dirty hands. If American politics is a way of doing justice to our neighbor, maybe it's dirty but still a way of fulfilling Micah 6:8.
Perhaps politics can be misunderstood not only as salvation but it can also be misunderstood as merely secular. Doesn't law declare what's good and bad?
And perhaps that accounts for the passion in the "marriage" debates taking place. Some want "marriage" to be honored for everyone, and not have some "unions" tainted with the language of sin.
Beau, I'm not sure I understand your remarks, but I will just say that the main difference is that one route trusts the government to do the work of the kingdom while the other route realizes that the Bible designates the Church -- which is to say, the people who follow Jesus -- as the agent of kingdom work.
My quip about "dirty hands" was not meant negatively. I didn't mean "unclean hands." I just meant "working hands." I meant that a lot of people prefer the government to do their loving of neighbors for them. I was encouraging the Christians reading to take that responsibility upon themselves personally and their churches corporately.
Some say that both church and state, the sword, are ordained of God and both have work to do. So I agree that we can err and look for government to do what the we should do ourselves, but we can also err in our understanding of the purpose of government and forget that government is ordained of God.
We might fail to give due thanks for the government we have, and fail to preserve it. Perhaps Paul's admonition not to steal, but work and give can clarify my thought about the purpose of government and its blessing. Yes, we are to work and give. That's our job, and not the government. But also, theft is a crime. The sword is a terror to the thief. (Ro 13:3) And more, without a good government in which the sword is a terror to evil doers, in a tyranny, the slaves are not free to work as led of God, nor to give to others what they have. Under slavery, the slave who could read couldn't even "lawfully" give the knowledge of reading to another slave.
We do a good work for our neighbors when we're involved working in politics, being a terror to evil doers.
Perhaps I'm suggesting that "dirty hands" are not just working hands, but hands of clay working with other hands of clay doing justice.
And thanks for the response and opportunity to try to clarify my comment.
I am not an anarchist. I do believe in governmental oversight, although as a conservative of course I prefer a more Constitutionally defined oversight (which includes national defense and laws against crimes against persons).
I think I came closest to referencing this point near the end of my post where I advocated being politically engaged, just not obsessed.
I am only saying that the kingdom of God will not be spread by any government. This is not only supported by Scripture, it is testified to by all the failures in history of those who've given it a try.
I'm glad to hear that you're a conservative, but I'm not quite sure where to find that in the Bible. And maybe that's part of the question that remains after we agree that the irrationality of obsession doesn't spread the kingdom.
I guess I still wonder, how do you see the Bible addressing government? It seems to me that the Bible does address government. And you say to be "politically engaged." So is there a Biblical political engagement? And if the Bible does address government, do you think that portion of scripture is unrelated to the spread of the kingdom?
I'm glad to hear that you're a conservative, but I'm not quite sure where to find that in the Bible.
I'm detecting snark there. I wasn't mentioning conservatism as a biblical category, only using the political parlance to communicate my political frame of reference. I'm not interested in playing gotcha or back-and-forth.
But assuming you're remarking in good faith, I'd elaborate to say that I'm a conservative in my political engagement, which for me means: a) I do not look to the government as the solver of social and moral ills b) I favor personal responsibility over reliance on a "nanny state" c) I believe the unborn have the right to life d) I affirm the allowance of just war
As it happens, I think each of those points are biblical points, as well. So I guess that how's I find conservatism in the Bible.
How do you see the Bible addressing government?
I see the Bible not mandating government but allowing it. When it speaks to Jesus followers about political engagement, it encourages respect and obedience to government (insofar as it does not violate the law of God), and it gives government the "right" to tax us and to "wield the sword" in the execution of justice.
But the Bible does not mandate government -- or any particular kind of government -- as integral to how God's kingdom is spread. The first century Jews expected a political messiah, overthrowing the Romans and setting up a literal, physical "kingdom of God" on earth. That's now how Jesus taught or brought the kingdom.
So how does a Christian's political engagement fit in? I think John Piper's essay on voting as if you're not voting nails it pretty well. You can find it easily online.
And, of course, the Christian and his political engagement is sort of the entire point of my piece here.
Hey Jared, my apologies for the snarky conservatism-in-the-Bible comment.
I meant no offense but I because your post seemed to be about a Biblical understanding of politics rather than a conservative one, I wanted to focus on that aspect. So, thank you for taking the comment seriously and especially for the clarification about how you see the Bible addressing government.
I wasn't sure that you meant in your post to express the Biblical indifference toward government that you've now made more clear.
I don't mean to play gotcha either. I will simply remain skeptical that God merely allows the execution of justice. I didn't read the Piper essay as going quite that far. The imperfect justice of politics, he says, is a foreshadowing, which he also says of fellowship here with Christ. I think the better the foreshadowing, the better for all of us. So I quite agree with your main point, the better the foreshadowing done by the Church, the better for the gospel.
And hey, thanks for the time. God speed and good night. :)
Kudos to you both, Jared and Beau, for listening and reponding with grace. I have read too much online bantor that gets totally out of control. This can be a touchy topic, and we all come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives.
I think too many Christians live at the ends of the spectrum between being too proud of being born in America, and just sitting around whining and waiting for the end of the world. We do need to find a way to be engaged in the part of this world where God chose for us live. Christ didn't overthrow the Roman government for Israel's honor, but he also didn't sit around doing nothing.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
