Perhaps we have Howard Dean to thank for articles like this, but for a long time I think that we Christians have needed to really explain ourselves and our political leanings. Dr. Dean is just the last straw for me.
I know, I am just a window cleaner who likes to be heard. I'm a middle aged man whose formal education ended with an unimpressive year at a junior college in upstate New York. And I'd agree that I have no business writing, say, "Christians and the Science of Astrophysics". But politics is the way that we the people govern ourselves here in America. All of us who have attained the age of majority, cared to register, and were smart enough not to get convicted of a felony in one of several states, have exactly one vote. That means that if you are a liberal with a PhD. living in Florida, I probably cancelled out your vote in the 2004 presidential election.
Because I am just an ordinary guy with a handle on his rights and the political process as well as a firm grip on his Bible, I think I can help non-Christians gain some understanding about how difficult it is to pry religion and politics apart. That is why I use the expression. "Religion of Politics". Politics can actually become a form of morality to which non-Christians can find themselves to be devoted followers. I mean, does it really require the name of an actual "god" to make something a religious observance? If Christians were simply sneakier, and purged all Bible references from their rhetoric, would that make their religion a non-factor? But you can give your Politics the weight of Religion and get away with it, all because there is no divine co-conspirator. Politics can become the Religion of America, the Established Church which makes moral pronouncements in the public square.
The Political Religionist seems to get a free pass on the "religion-in-politics" argument. Even though the PR insists that it is immoral to vote for the War in Iraq or against Gay Marriage, it is not a "religious" point of view. Yet, if a Christian insists that voting for partial birth abortion puts "blood on your hands", this is considered over-the-top religious fanaticism. Is this really fair? Aren't they both engaging in the rigors of debate? Yet, only the Christian's political speech can be kept out of public schools. Only a Christian organization will lose its tax exempt status for applying its morality to political speech.
Another way in which the PR has an advantage is that his or her Political Righteousness can cover a multitude of personal sins. To the PR, as long as a politician (a high priest of the PR faith) says the right things about the rights and dignity of women, he can abuse a woman physically, sexually, or emotionally and it will not be held against him. He can also rail against corporate profits, no matter how much stock he owns or how many corporations donated to his campaign. But a Christian caught with his pants down quickly finds himself without support and in danger of losing his office. The faithful PR can lie, cheat on his wife and watch his approval ratings rise with the number of notches on his bedpost. All that matters is that he follows the PR dogma, which changes with every generation.
Yes, things have changed a lot. Most of the feminists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Christian women. They had a working knowledge of the Bible, and they used it to bolster their case that women were not mere chattel or the possessions of men. Religion intruded on political debate, and that memory is selectively honored by today's gender-politics proponent. After all, the mothers of the revolution were also anti-abortion and said so. But a woman who raises this moral issue today is treated like an intruder on the democratic process. The cry for "separation of church and state" is really a cry for disenfranchising the church. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Can we imagine the civil rights movement without the involvement of religious people? Should Dr. King have been discredited because he was a minister? Was it right for him to "meddle" with politics? If the church had stayed home, we might still have Jim Crow.
If there is anything the church should have learned from the civil rights movement, it is that rights that are written down are no good if you do not insist on using them. People who do not like what you say will erect barriers, and try to intimidate you, but you must stay in the fight to be heard, or you will lose the right.
To my fellow Christians, however, I would also give a warning. With all rights come responsibilities. There are consequences for being a bad spokesman for your causes. You may actually drive people in the other direction! If people miss the valid point you are making because you are perceived to be mean-spirited or hateful, it is your own fault, and you do us more harm than good. If you make a point that is not valid, you harm your entire argument. So, it is most important that you do not let your politics become your religion. Let your religion be something that recommends you and gives you opinion weight. Learn to lose with patience and win graciously. And remember that you can be right on the issues and still be lost to God. He does not settle all His accounts on Election Day.
Don Marsh
Later, "How I Can Support the War and Sleep at Night"