If God is on the side of conservative Christians and conservative Christians
are on the side of the Republican Party, shouldn't Republicans have done
better in the recent election? It's difficult to keep a coalition together -
Christian or not - if 12 percent of your base votes for Democrats.
But defeat offers conservative Christians a good opportunity to take stock.
They should ask themselves whether their short list of "moral issues" and
"family values" has any hope of being imposed on Washington, as culture
continues to resist the approach many of them have taken. Could conservative
Christians withstand another approach, one that reflects a more biblical
strategy?
Jim Wallis thinks so. He's the editor of the left-of-center evangelical
magazine, "Sojourners." On his "Hearts and Minds" blog on election night,
Wallis headlined his essay "A Defeat for the Religious Right and Secular
Left." Wallis wrote, "A significant number of candidates elected are social
conservatives on issues of life and family, economic populists, and
committed to a new direction in Iraq. This is the way forward: a grand new
alliance between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, one
that can end partisan gridlock and involves working together for real
solutions to pressing problems."
Wallis argues that election results showed him that "moderate and even some
conservative Christians - especially evangelicals and Catholics - want a
moral agenda that is broader than only abortion and same-sex marriage." Exit
polls showed a shift of 6 percent to 16 percent fewer evangelicals and
Catholics supporting Republican candidates than in the 2004 election.
One does not have to agree with all of Wallis' agenda - and I don't,
especially on Iraq - to consider his arguments. Politics often dulls the
senses to morality and "values." That's because of an unholy alliance
between people of faith and politicians that often ends in compromise on the
part of the faithful and the cynical harvesting of their votes with little
offered in return. So, when someone like Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) is
exposed for cheating on his wife and allegedly abusing his mistress, Cynthia
Ore, he still gets an 85 percent approval rating from the Focus on the
Family Action organization. The delicious irony here is that he might have
earned a 100 percent rating had he voted for the Marriage Protection
amendment, which he supported. Sherwood lost his seat to a Democrat.
One might reasonably argue that a very good way to protect marriage is to
remain faithful to one's spouse, but in politics that sort of behavior won't
raise money for the interest groups or votes for the Republicans. In this
case, "family values" wasn't about Sherwood's personal example, but his
record of keeping homosexuals from marrying. Wouldn't it do more for the
family to strengthen heterosexual marriage before telling others how to live
their lives? Why have we seen so many politicians (and some clergy) who talk
about "family values" turn out to be the worst practitioners of them?
Jim Wallis also writes that voters recognized that while the economy may be
good and the stock market sets records, "there are still too many being left
out, especially working families. It is significant that in all six states
where an initiative to raise the minimum wage was on the ballot, it passed,
in most cases by overwhelming margins."
President Bush has indicated that he might agree with the incoming
Democratic congressional majority to raise the minimum wage as an act of
compromise and to demonstrate his willingness to work with Democrats.
Conservative Christians are fond of quoting God: "For my thoughts are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord" (Isaiah
55:8). Could it be that the way of politics is man's way and, thus, not
God's way?
What is God's way? Isn't it helping the poor through transformation and
assisting them to do for themselves? Isn't it feeding the hungry, clothing
the naked, visiting those in prison and caring for widows and orphans? Would
such behavior, rather than partisan politics, recommend their faith more
highly to those who do not currently share it, or who do share it, but apply
it differently?
With a change in focus, more people might want to hear why conservative
Christians are faithful and, having heard, perhaps embrace that
faithfulness. The culture might then reflect real "family values" from the
bottom up, possibly even touching politicians in Washington. |