Evangelicals endorse McCain
If an evangelical speaks during a non-election season, does he make a sound?
Now that John McCain and Barack Obama have advanced to the final round of America’s favorite popularity contest (well, maybe second favorite, after “American Idol”), the opinions of religious leaders suddenly matter. And this time around, the loyalties of the Bible-thumpers are precariously uncertain.
McCain can rest assured that news of conservative Christians’ rush to the Democratic party has been greatly exaggerated. Christianity Today reports that James Dobson’s refusal to endorse a candidate has not stopped a group of over 90 evangelical leaders from declaring their intention to vote for the Republican senator – predictably because of his stances on abortion and homosexuality (the group declined to release a statement on other hot-button issues, such as hope, change, and the audacity of hope for change). The belated and clammy handshake speaks volumes about the souring relationship between evangelical Christians and the Republican party. But the real story for evangelicals, who have always held only a tenuous influence over Republican politics, is that right now, the country is listening to us.
The question is, are we making the most of the opportunity?
Judging from readers’ comments on the Christianity Today article, I’m not so sure. And I don’t say that simply because the majority of the posters disagree with the endorsement. As a faithful CT reader, I’ve come to expect the self-flagellating, I’m-not-like-those-extremist-evangelicals contortions the magazine goes through to avoid being labeled right-wing, and I expect the same of its readers. What I hoped (even audaciously hoped) was that Christians might contribute a distinctive voice to the political arena. But in this case at least, the Christian commentary seldom rises above the din of tired talking points bouncing from wall to rubber wall of the coveted public square. If I want to hear shallow slogans about litmus-test voters, party-loyalty, class struggle, or the oil man’s illegal war, I’ll visit the DNC web site. The pro-McCain commentators had little more to offer, though I incline more toward their conclusion. But what troubled me most was the constant refrain that Christian leaders have no right to tell the people who to vote for.
The former talking points can be recognized by any thinking person as the stuff of propaganda – half-truths, exaggerated truths, and absolute lies at the level of celebrity gossip. For instance, if conservative Christians are the mindless minions of the Republican party, then how do we explain Dobson’s treason, or the reservations of the 90 evangelical leaders? And if the assertion is made that single-issue voting is inappropriate, it must be clearly shown how Obama’s support for the killing of babies, born and unborn, is outweighed by the evils of McCain.
But what about the audacity of Christian leaders who tell us how to vote? Who gave those Pharisaic hypocrites the right to have opinions?
After laboring for a seat at the table of public discourse, why are we pushing ourselves back out of it by silencing our leaders? Too often do well-intentioned Christians say that pastors have no business talking politics, as if the servants of the Kingdom of Heaven forfeit their citizenship in the kingdoms of the earth. Granted, when the Sunday morning service becomes a campaign rally, it may be time to find a new church. But isn’t it odd that we would deny our own respected leaders a privilege that all other Americans, good or bad, insightful or deranged, enjoy – namely, to speak on behalf of a favored political candidate? Such endorsements dare not carry the weight of Scripture; but if it is acceptable for rock stars and Hollywood celebrities to wield political influence, one wonders why a James Dobson or Brian McLaren would not be expected to do the same.
The separation of God and politics did not begin with Roe v. Wade, the sexual revolution, or even Darwin’s Origin of the Species, but in the teachings of a man born before the Declaration of Independence had been written. Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of theological liberalism and unpronounceable last names, defended Christianity to his peers by transforming it into a purely emotional experience with no basis in fact or reality. Schleiermacher succeeded in making religion palatable to people too sophisticated to believe in ancient superstitions, but could only do so by stripping it of content until nothing remained but impotent sentimentality. It was no wild leap of logic for the practitioners of this new kind of Christianity to bifurcate their lives, behaving as agnostics in the universities, and believers in the pews. Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” had been primarily institutional; liberalism’s wall was metaphysical, especially as developed later on by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
Our culture rarely speaks kindly of conservative Christianity, and with good reason: when we reassert God’s relevance, not just in politics, but in all areas of human life and thought, we are threatening the culture with a truth above its own. This election season, while the country remains interested enough to listen, the evangelical church has a golden opportunity – not to influence an election, but to demonstrate Christ’s relevance to the contemporary world. Let’s not squander it by echoing talking points, blaming Katrina on lesbians, or, worst of all, sitting idly by.
