These ruminations have been triggered by my (among other things) keeping what can only be charitably called a loose eye on the upcoming Republican and Democratic primaries. As I’ve watched the candidates, I’ve noticed people on both sides of the aisle who have no trouble invoking religious language to explain why voting for them is a good idea.

One of the best observations I’ve heard on the so-called “culture war” (a term which is hereafter used without the finger quotes) is one by Peter Kreeft in his little book called “How to Win The Culture War.” The observation goes something like this:

If we’re going to use the metaphor of the war, let’s not forget who the actual enemy on the other side is. It’s not the people who are, for whatever reason, angry at the church or fighting against Christianity. If anything, if we’re going to keep using the war metaphor, those people are hostages of the real enemy.

Wars are not won by shooting at the hostages being held by the other side.

With that in mind, I’d like to throw out a few observations about the culture wars in an attempt to bring some sort of a Christian perspective to it. What seems like a Christian perspective to me, anyway. What I think isn’t exactly the end of the discussion. In any case, here we go:

We’re called to proclaim truth, which by its very nature, divides. There’s no avoiding that, it’s just the nature of the universe. But the converse isn’t true - just because something divides doesn’t mean it’s true, or even all that important. Before jumping into an issue, it seems that it’s important to figure out if identifying it with the church as a whole is worth the price in division that the church will inevitably pay. It’s the social issues - not the ultimate questions about the nature of the universe - that are the source of most of the rage in politics today.

That’s probably not clear, so let’s come up with an example: obviously, something like the divinity of Christ falls into the category of stuff that is worth fighting for. It’s extremely important and the church has an understandable interest in what the answer is, and it’s worth expending energy - lots of energy - over this. But what about other issues that have been identified with the Christian right - say, impeaching President Clinton?

I’m not saying that the man didn’t commit pejury, but one has to wonder: how many people were so turned off by the way the religious right handled the situation that they’re not going to give Christianity another chance? Was it worth it?

That is to say: if Christians can’t act like Christians in the political arena, it might not be such a bad idea for them to not get involved in the political arena in the first place - not because the political arena isn’t important, but because their reputation there can mess up something even more important. This isn’t to say that there isn’t a need for Christians in politics - obviously, there is, but they need to be Christians who happen to be politicians, not politicians that happen to be Christians.

One of the public figures who currently has the least grasp of this concept is Ann Coulter, as illustrated from these quotes from the wikipedia page about her:

“I’m a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.”

“… Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy — you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism.”

I suspect that Ann is making a few mistakes here, not the least of which is to be proud of her mean-spiritedness, while claiming to follow someone who died for the very people that she’s dumping on. You probably picked up on that already, so we’ll leave that one alone for now, though, and look at the mistake that’s the underlying assumption - I’m guessing that Ann probably thinks that Christian nations are created by Christian laws, when, in fact, it works the other way around.

In other words, the religious right has historically not been able to realize the limits of legislation. The establishment of a Christian social order does not save people.

What is the church to do? Let’s take abortion, for example: if I have a friend that has gotten an abortion, the best reaction isn’t to start a protest at the clinic where she got the procedure done. My primary concern is for my friend - doing what I can to heal her hurt, be a comfort, and communicate the love of Christ.

Again, this isn’t to say that bringing a Christian perspective to the abortion debate isn’t important - clearly, there is a place for harsh words. However, if we’re following the example of Jesus, here, there isn’t a lot of “go and sin no more” commands until after love for that individual has already been demonstrated. The bottom line is that legislation doesn’t do a good job of communicating love to individuals, which (after all) seems to be the primary job of the church.

That is to say: as Christians fight the so-called culture war, the motivation for doing it can only be out of love for people. Fighting it for other reasons - fear, the desire for political power, the desire to legislate the second coming of Jesus - is not going to work, in addition to being, well, wrong.

Or, here’s another way of putting it: when you get right down to it, being a culture warrior means that you’re loving people and living the kind of life that other people want to emulate.

——–

As with just about everything that I write, I’m writing it down because I’m just thinking through it, and am enthusiastic about getting feedback to further develop these ideas. I’m not writing this because I’ve got everything figured out. If I’m way off base here, or these ideas need improvement, let me know!

__________________________
- garrett (golfsierra.org/blog)