1) Christians should be politically active
2) Christians should avoid being one-issue voters

I tend to agree. I can’t understand Christians who vote solely on abortion (Oh no, I can’t support candidate X for sheriff because he’s pro-choice! The horror! I know he has no power to affect abortion in this country, but what if the liberals ram through a Constitutional amendment that gives my small town’s sheriff the responsibility for rewriting the nation’s abortion laws?) Sure, abortion is a big issue, but it’s not the only issue, and for some things (like sheriff, railroad commissioner, judges in civil courts) it’s completely irrelevant.

And yet, I’ve decided to become a one-issue voter in the presidential election this coming November. I’ll only vote for a candidate who promises to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

I would argue that government has no moral authority to decide whether or not two people can be married, be they heterosexual or homosexual. This is a matter that should be decided by religious institutions, and religious institutions alone.

And just because something is good for society doesn’t mean that the government ought to promote it. If every American read a chapter from the Bible every day, society would probably be better off, but I don’t think anyone of us want a federal law mandating such behavior.

Well, divorce should be made more difficult, but not illegal. After all, the evidence supports that divorce is HEALTHIER for some families than living together in strife.

Is government-recognized gay marriage a moral question? Earlier you mentioned that a traditional family is better for kids, which is a utilitarian argument, not a moral one. Of course both morality and utility are part of the equation here, but I wonder which one is of primary importance in the way you shape your political views. I’m just curious to understand your thinking, I’m not trying to use the Socratic method.

Yeah, I see your point. I would turn it around, though. Marriage should be made more difficult. We wouldn’t have so many divorces if we had a way to prevent foolish marriages. People who aren’t mature enough to marry shouldn’t get married.

Darius, concerning whether one chooses to remain neutral, I feel that is a personal decision. If I effectively remain neutral by deciding not to sign a petition to force a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages some “misguided” lady brought to my church (as I have done), that doesn’t mean I am promoting gay marriage. It may mean that I think its a diversion tactic by the Republicans, in which case I refuse to be duped. Or I may feel that the promotion of such petitions has no place in the worship service. Or I might feel that Congress has more important things to concern themselves with, and therefore I refuse to participate.

The thing that concerns me with the Christian Conservative movement is that it confuses Christianity with Conservatism (or more recently, Neoconservatism) and vice-versa. It makes issues black and white when they rarely are. The implication is that if you don’t vote one way or the other that you are not a Christian. It fails to take into account that Christians might differ in their political views while still retaining core spiritual values.

As for my reasoning on government-endorsed gay marriage… I think it’s both: a moral AND utilitarian argument. Which one takes precedence? I would probably say the moral argument, since that will never change and scientific studies can change with the wind. Promotion of gay marriage involves the endorsement of abhorrent, unnatural behavior, behavior that has been considered vulgar throughout history except by the most “enlightened” societies.

This is true, that is a danger. However, what you fail to recognize is that USUALLY those who land on the other side of the political spectrum as Christian Conservatives are also very weak in their theology. A great example of this is Jim Wallis, who promotes a Social Justice Theology. He is going to be speaking this weekend up here in Minnesota at a Progressive Christians Conference which is basically a group of Christians who believe in Pluralism (their websites say this explicitly). I can tell you pretty confidently that Jim Wallis is not a Christian if he believes (and he likely does from everything I’ve seen of the man) in religious pluralism.

I would say that where you’re more correct is in regards to Christians who vote for politically liberal ideals out of ignorance or because it feels good. I don’t believe someone like Jim Wallis (or most politically-active Christian Liberals) fit in that category, however.

What evidence do you have to support this idea? It is quite presumptive. This idea presumes the degree that one’s theology should affect his politics, and still fails to take into account other possible factors. If what you have said is true, you could also say that Blacks Christians generally have a weak theological basis since they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Its too easy for someone to then say, “If they were real Christians, they would have voted for George Bush. He’s the one going after the evildoers.”

I see your point. But I would just change my wording and argue that the government has no moral authority to “approve” one type of marriage over another.

It seems that you and I disagree over whether the wrongness of homosexuality is known through special or general revelation. I think it’s known only through special revelation, although I’m not convinced of this. I think most people naturally find the thought of homosexuality “gross,” but I don’t think they find it morally wrong. And the two concepts, of course, are different.

You make a good point. I’d say that political conservatives tend to have a more dispensationalist theology than non-conservatives. And I certainly wouldn’t call dispensationalism good theology.

I assume you’re also a proponent of legalizing official polygamy.

Yes, I guess we do disagree over how “obvious” the immorality of homosexuality is to the general populace. I think people naturally find it wrong and the only way that people think it is morally okay is due to a warping of their personal and/or societal mores (which has happened throughout history). But you’re probably right, it’s a bit of a gray area. When it comes to gray areas, I opt for conservatism over social experimentation.

You think that Dispensationalist Theology is more prevalent among Christian conservatives (who are largely Reformed in their theology)? I would say the opposite, Christian Conservatives are more likely to follow a Covenant theology, at least in my experience. Perhaps I misunderstand, please define what you mean by dispensationalist theology.

That’s a great way to put it. I agree with you, Don. The wrongness of homosexuality is only known through special revelation.

That’s the way I feel too. I used to be somewhat of a Christian conservative. But only because I thought you had to be. Plus its just so much easier to go with the grain. This is partly because of laziness and partly because of pride. Here is some advice for politically minded Christians:

19Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

20For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
(James 1:19, 20)

If you are set to defend a position before you consider the other side, you are not fit to respond - especially if you are prone to respond in anger. Why? Because when the desired end of the debate is to be right at all cost, you fall into self-deception. You will get to a point where you defend the status quo position without really being persuaded that you are speaking truth. If you engage in this type of debate, not only will you look like an idiot, but you will be personally frustrated and confused. Always be willing to admit you are wrong.

I have watched Christian leaders bypass perfectly legitimate opportunities to apologize in favor of trying to make people believe they didn’t say what they plainly did say. They have been corrupted by political “spin”, which is just another word for deception. When we confuse what is acceptable Christian behavior with what is allowed in the political arena, we end up with a very poor representation of Jesus.

What I’m saying is that some things are revealed in general revelation and others in special revelation. If everything was revealed in general revelation we wouldn’t need special revelation.

Question–Am I wrong in thinking the heyday of the religious right has already come and gone?

In some ways I’m one of those practicing “political abstinence,” as you call it. (I do vote, and I have a fairly well-thought out basis for why I vote the way I do, and even though my voting record pretty much matches the religious right, my reasoning wouldn’t match theirs.)

Don said, “Christians are called to help others. (I’m not going to reference any biblical verses here because support for this point can be found on pretty much every page of the Bible.) And given that governments can be instruments for doing both good and evil, it follows that Christians are obligated to be politically involved and thus help their governments do good and prevent them from doing evil.”

I don’t think I agree with your rationale here. Yes, Christians are indeed called to help others, both those in the faith and especially those of the faith. But I don’t think it therefore follows that the good we do needs to be in any way connected with politics. I don’t fulfill by Christian responsibility to do good by being involved in politics.

Don said, “The second mistake of the Religious Right has been its determination to force unbelievers to live by distinctly Christian values.”
I too see a problem with this, but my problem is a religious one; unbelievers who live in a “distinctly Christian” way somehow think they are therefore Christians, muddying the waters when it comes to talking with them about sin and the need for salvation. In other words, people who are forced by someone–be it parent, employer, or government–to follow certain “christian” rules mistakenly think that they actually are Christians.

Better yet would be chemical castration of all males until they are mature enough to marry. Think of the problems that would solve.

“The wrongness of homosexuality is only known through special revelation.”
If you’re going down that path, then you have to accept a lot of other statistically abnormal forms of sexuality–polygamy, pedophilia, etc, etc. Special revelation has nothing to do with the fact that many cultures don’t approve of homosexuality. The Religious Right weren’t the first people in the history of the universe to think that monogamous sex that makes babies is both morally right and beneficial to society.

Yeah. There’s an awful lot of polygamy in the Old Testament. Monogamy isn’t uncommon in history, but neither is polygamy. General revelation isn’t doing a great job of pointing to monogamous heterosexual marriage as the only possible moral option. Fortunately the Bible (the New Testament in particular) spells it out for us.

that has been tried, it was called communism. didn’t work out. i hope that comment was tongue in cheek.

every christian, should be active in politics if they so desire. what is totally unacceptable, at least to me, is when religious leaders involve themselves in an official capacity as opposed to personal. if any church wants to be politically active then it must give up tax exempt status first. the law is clear. what kind of message is sent by a church that flaunts the law to accomplish its own political goals? the ends justifies the means type of thinking seems to permeate the religious right as well as our current administration. it’s like being pregnant, either you stand on your principles or you don’t.

I have to agree. The key phrase here is “if they so desire.” I think some Christian leaders are making political involvement obligatory by implication. We cannot use Christ’s community as a platform for political proselytizing.

“Don said, ‘Christians are called to help others…And given that governments can be instruments for doing both good and evil, it follows that Christians are obligated to be politically involved and thus help their governments do good and prevent them from doing evil.’

“I don’t think I agree with your rationale here. Yes, Christians are indeed called to help others, both those in the faith and especially those of the faith. But I don’t think it therefore follows that the good we do needs to be in any way connected with politics. I don’t fulfill by Christian responsibility to do good by being involved in politics.”

You’re absolutely right, thainamu. I should have worded this differently, perhaps: “…it follows that being politically involved is one way Christians can go about helping others,” or something like that.