Political analysts and social scientists are paying great attention to socially active Christians today, trying to define the elusive evangelical. This is also going on among Christians, who are searching for a coherent public philosophy to guide their activity in all arenas of public debate. With this search in mind, Christian leaders from across the political spectrum met last month at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to exchange ideas. They agreed that American evangelicals have arrived at a necessary point of reassessment.
Ed Dobson, editor in chief of Jerry Falwell’s Fundamentalist Journal, pictured his wing of the fundamentalist movement as an 18-wheeler approaching a curve, unsure how to slow down. Dobson quipped, “Brakes are not built into fundamentalism.”
Dobson said Falwell’s decision to back away from active political engagement (CT, Oct. 17, 1986, p. 45), clearly signals the need for re-evaluation. “Our foremost priority is to develop a public philosophy to govern our entry into politics,” Dobson said. “Jerry Falwell is the one who politicized fundamentalism. He may now be the one to depoliticize it.”
James Skillen, executive director of the Washington, D.C.—based Association for Public Justice (APJ), noted that in the past several years, Christians have experienced a change of heart toward politics. But, Skillen said, they need to go one step further. “Politics is not something done in a moment of passion with simple moral zealousness,” he said. “Politics is more like raising a family, or running a business, or stewarding a farm. It requires lifelong commitment, patience, steadiness, and great attention to detail day after day.”
A Historical Perspective
How Christians should participate in politics is an especially critical question as more and more politicians appeal for the support of religious conservatives. At the conference, historian George Marsden discussed the diversity among evangelicals; he presented a brief historical outline of the movement’s political involvement, or the lack thereof.
Prior to the 1920s, Marsden said, evangelicals did not separate revivalism and social activity. He cited such issues as prohibition and slavery as examples. But gradually this linkage came apart. What Marsden calls a “great reversal” occurred in the 1920s, when evangelicals dramatically curtailed their interest in social concerns. Marsden described this in theological terms as a shift from Calvinism to pietism, brought on by a strong reaction against the modernist social gospel.
The difficulty evangelicals have today in reconciling their competing views, according to Marsden, can be traced to the movement’s arrested personality development. Essentially, the movement split, with one main branch finding its expression in Carl McIntire, and the other in Billy Graham. Marsden said evangelical Christianity would be better off if its internal diversities would be recognized and assimilated.
Anticipating 1988
Pat Robertson’s likely presidential bid has infused discussions of Christians in politics with a new dimension of enthusiasm and concern. R. Philip Loy, political scientist from Taylor University, said Robertson must be taken seriously as a candidate. He predicted Robertson will have a noticeable impact on Democrats, stating that Democrats “are beginning to get the picture that they need to take evangelical and fundamentalist voters seriously.”
The difficulties of developing a cohesive conservative political philosophy are evident in the Robertson candidacy, according to Michael Cromartie, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. “Pat Robertson seems literally from week to week to change his views on the issue of democratic pluralism,” Cromartie said. He suggested Robertson is “constructing his political philosophy … [on church-and-state issues] as he goes along.”
Cromartie pointed out that an internal debate in the Robertson camp between “theocratic Christian Reconstructionists” and mainstream “cultural conservatives” could have lasting consequences. Who prevails in that debate, Cromartie said, “will determine ultimately whether the Robertson campaign will split the Republican party and to what degree there will be a split in the Christian New Right coalition.”
Guidelines For Political Action
Stephen Monsma, a former Calvin College professor who has run for political office, outlined what Christians have to offer American politics. In theory, Monsma said, Christians are committed to principles, and they are willing to “encourage within the political system a re-examination of beliefs which should not remain unarticulated.”
He continued, “Evangelical political involvement has the potential to move the political system away from the normal political pattern of brokering the self-interests of powerful persons and groups into a renewed concern for the public interest.”
Monsma added, however, that these positive elements of political motivation and mobilization do not always shape Christian social engagement. He recommended that Christian leaders take time out to “develop a knowledgeable, thoughtful approach.” Without this, he said, “evangelicals will be coopted by existing political personalities and movements.
Monsma’s cautions have been played out to some extent in Falwell’s Moral Majority experiment. In explaining Falwell’s decision to avoid partisan politics, Dobson said, “We got so involved, we lost our perspective, lost our sense of the kingdom of God.
“Now we are at the point of searching for balance. What Jerry Falwell did was very important and very necessary for mobilizing Christians for the past seven years. Should he do the same for the next seven? I don’t think so.” Dobson cited Falwell’s initiatives to provide adoption and crisis pregnancy services as examples of what he means by “balance.”
The APJ’s Skillen said Christians need more than a redrafted action plan. He called for a “new public philosophy on the basis of which [Christians] can argue and act.” He said such a philosophy should include the following affirmations:
- Human political efforts cannot take heaven by storm or bring God’s kingdom to earth.
- The political community is a public-legal trust that should make room for all citizens and their private associations and institutions.
- The Christian public philosophy is not neutral, so it must contend with other views in society to gain influence. For this to happen, citizens must engage in dialogue, debate, and organizing activities that afford all others the same rights.
Said Skillen, “Actions which aim to mobilize one group against others, without intending to produce mutual understanding, are destructive.”
By Beth Spring in Grand Rapids.
