Meditation on Christianity and Politics: Part I

I started to get uneasy way back in 2004, when Pres. Bush pulled out 80% of evangelical Christian votes (Pew Research). I began to wonder what role Christians should have in politics. Should Christians become Presidents? Can Christians stay Christians if they do become presidents? Ask Pat Robertson these questions and he may just order your assassination and then bench press your lifeless body. But, more apropos to the those of us without the millions of dollars required to become a president: to what extent, if any, should Christians get involved in politics? Once again, conventional (dare I say "fundamental") wisdom on the subject is a clear and resounding yes, not only should Christians become deeply involved in politics, but it is a biblical mandate to do so. Conventional wisdom is also that Christians should be primarily concerned with two issues: abortion and gay right/gay marriage. Despite all of this wisdom, I couldn't but help feel uneasy about this whole faith and politics thing back in 2004, and now, in 2008, I wouldn't say that I am uneasy so much as frightened and deeply disturbed. As so many Christians are realizing, faith + politics is not such a simple equation. It is certainly more complex than faith + politics = anti-abortion.

To follow that rabbit into its hole for just a minute: two things are becoming increasingly clear to the pro-life movement: 1. There is more to being pro-life than being anti-abortion. A consistent witness for life is the only way forward. 2. Politics, especially presidential politics has some severe limitations on what it can do in the realm of abortion, anyway. Obviously, there is more to be done than appointing a few supreme court justices, who, no matter how anti-abortion they may be, will never change the hearts and minds of the American people (oh yeah, that's God's job, sorry Alito).

I certainly have not formulated complete and compelling answer to question of the role Christians should play in politics, but I do think that I can make some tentative remarks intended to be used as thinking points on which to build more concrete arguments in the future, and like all buildings and arguments, if the foundation is faulty then...

1. Jesus did not come to earth the first time to become a political figure, and lead a political or military revolution against the Roman Government. Many people expected Him to, and many people were disillusioned when it became clear that He would not, but Jesus had no intentions of becoming a political or military leader.

2. Jesus did intend to lead not only a spiritual revolution (the way to get to heaven), but an ethical and moral revolution; one that turned out to be in complete and total opposition to not only the mindset and worldview of the Romans, but also of the Jewish ruling class. In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus makes it explicitly clear that He was on earth to do certain things prophesied by the prophet Joel: preach the good new to the poor, release captives, heal the blind, and free the oppressed. If you can convince yourself in the light of Jesus' actions (healing the physically blind, feeding the physically hungry etc.) and His teachings (THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT) that he was talking about some transcendental, vague, and mystical release, blindness, oppression from the bonds of sin, etc. then so be it. But I am not convinced. I believe that Christ's mission on earth involved more than spiritual salvation. I believe He came to save people on earth from their tangible, physical problems, as well as give a transcendent, ultimate solution (i.e. eternal salvation).

I believe that Jesus' teachings were absolutely revolutionary--they turned the world upside down. "The last shall be first and the first last." "Love your enemies." "If someone sues you for your tunic, give him your cloak as well." "Blessed are the poor (in Luke's version there is no "in spirit" and in the context ["woe to the rich"] He is very much speaking in material economic terms)" Jesus was talking about his political and social here and now, and, I am convinced, His teachings resound in our political and social here and now. Jesus was an ethical and moral revolutionary; He was profoundly on the side of the poor and the oppressed. Furthermore, He has called His disciples to follow in the footsteps of His radical love for everyone.

What, if anything, does that have to do with the contemporary political scene and Christianity's role in it? I'm not sure, but I continue my list of thinking points, nonetheless.

3. We need to broaden the definition of "moral majority" to include the moral issues Jesus was actually concerned with: poverty, loving enemies (water-boarding is an ancient Assyrian way of expressing affection, didn't you know?), etc.

2. Maybe (this is a tentative maybe) instead of being a part of the political system (in the same way that Jesus refused to be directly involved in the political corruption of his day), we should be the type of prophetic voices against injustice that Jesus was.

What would it look like if, instead of "the base of the Republican party," instead of talking points for pundits, instead of sheep easily manipulated by candidates who go to church and pray when it is politically convenient to do so, instead of just being "another pawn in their game," if Christians were that voice crying out in the wilderness, if we took a stand against injustice of all sorts that went beyond mere politics. The problem with that picture, I dare say, is that in order to do so it would not really require a change in presidents or candidates or congressmen, it would require a change in us; in our lifestyles, and our testimony.