What would I do if tempted with political power or relevance? How would I respond? Could I speak truth to power? Could I be a prophetic voice even amidst unpopularity or even persecution?
It seems to be a trendy choice for younger or more "relevant" evangelical Christians to more closely align with the Democratic Party, if just in defiance of a traditional one-party (read: Republican) stance. For instance, Donald Miller gave the closing prayer for the Democratic Convention on Monday night. It seems like he prayed only what the DNC wanted to hear.
But I wonder if this reaction, intended for good, intended to show the breadth of a true Christian worldview, really does any good at all. It is true that Christianity cares about more than the unborn, but it does still care about all human life. It is true that Christians ought to care for the poor and care for the whole world. Regardless of how those positions align with what the government could do about these issues, the temptation for influence and relevance infects this interjection into the political process.
Henri Nouwen, in his deeply insightful book In the Name of Jesus, says that the three temptations of Christian leaders are for relevance, power, and the need to be spectacular. These temptations mirror the temptations of Christ (Luke 4 , Matthew 4). Could this apply to the political realm? Should the Christian leader try to avoid all political entanglements instead of trying to be an equal-opportunist?
I don't desire to wish away Christian influence in the public sphere. I think it is deeply necessary. But if one were to engage proper discernment, it is probably best for the soul of the Christian leader to avoid unnecessary entanglements, such as praying at a political convention.
Perhaps a good rule of thumb for political temptation in this regard is this: if it's covered by the media, especially by television media, flee at all costs.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
3 comments:
One of the most frustrating things for me is to watch Christians chase relevance. It seems to me that at the heart of the belief that we should be relevant to this culture is the belief that it is somehow our duty to win people over to Christ. Read: It is US doing the convincing. When of course, Christ said time and again how the world hates truth, hates him, and would hate us. In what magical world do we expect that we can preach real truth and have the unbelievers agree and love it too?
Is relevance worthwhile? Perhaps, but it should most certainly not be chased. And if it were forgotten about entirely, it would not be the worst of all things. Truth, above all else, is of utmost important when engaging the world. It is the Truth that sets us free, not inclusion in a big collective hug.
You're itching right where I'm scratching, Dave. There have been some interesting conversations along this line on Groothuis' blog lately; perhaps most insightful is a comment by dhyams on DG's "Shame on You" post (and I quote, at length):
If I tell someone I'm an evangelical, then, in all likelihood, the all-too-familiar labels of "homophobe," "evilgelical," "hate-monger," "fundy," etc. start to run through the person's mind--all before they even get to know me. However, if I tell them I'm an evangelical supporter of Obama, then I get the benefit of the doubt: "Hey, this guy might be thoughtful after all. Perhaps he is capable of taking nuanced positions. He may care for the environment. He may not actually be a racist. He doesn't hate women and want to burn homosexuals. He can actually read and write. Maybe he doesn't relish the thought of Iraqi children dying. Perhaps an evangelical can care for the poor. Hey, I might even be willing to talk religion with him."
See the enormous relational capital that can be gained by doing nothing more than distancing myself from Bush, the Republican Party, and James Dobson?!
That was an interesting and succinct post-quote, Ben. I find this same sentiment. I try and carry a nuanced view of politics, try and read as much as I can, etc. I'm still wondering myself how I view the role of the government through the lens of my Christian convictions.
For instance, is it really the govt.'s role to redistribute wealth on behalf of the poor for insurance, jobs, etc.? Is that just for the poor/middle class or unjust for the wealthy? I think the wealthy should give their money away in droves but don't necessarily agree that that's the government's job. Is that a nuanced view? Who knows, but I still care for the poor and outcast if I vote for McCain.
Post a Comment