The ebb, Part II

When last we met, I shared that I believe the increased irreligion in America can be attributed to our untethering ourselves from the Bible. One of the creepiest and most honest commentaries on the atrophy of religion in America comes from Cathy Lynn Grossman, a USA Today columnist. After pondering the comments of the ARIS study that highlit the spiritual slide, she noted:

"The researchers described Americans as preferring their religion without particulars. No requirements for moral action. No restraints on personal pleasures. Few communal obligations."

I noted (here) that Michael Spencer also believes that this that spiritual erosion within evangelical America stems from their increased distaste for orthodoxy. He believes it will only get worse, that evangelicalism will fade into the night, but he suggests another major reason with which I disagree.

Point #2 (his first): Political involvement has harmed the evangelical church. Many Christians believe that political involvement soils the gospel message. Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and Christian, agrees. In a 2008 column, Thomas asserts:

"Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

"The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?"

Thomas, a man passionate and outspoken about politics, believes that the only way to bring about real change is through the heart and not through law. And he's right.

But law is not for the compliant and obedient. Law is not for the righteous. Law is for the lawless. If our laws are not lawful in themselves, then we begin to call good that which is actually corrupt. For this reason, I believe Christians must not mute their voices in the political arena. Track with me a moment.

The chief discussion bandied about following the whuppin' the Dems gave the Reps in November went like this, "What does the Republican part have to do to regain ... (fill in the blank)?" The House. The Senate. The White House. Etc. Talking heads argued for returning to Reagan. Some spoke of distancing themselves from the Religious Right. Others thought fiscal conservatism would have won the day.

But notice, the chief end argued was a return to power. This is the thing that sticks in Cal's craw. This is the thing that has caused many a Christian to compromise his convictions.

Here's the deal: It doesn't matter if Republicans regain the White House in my lifetime. I don't care if they never see a majority in the House or the Senate. What matters is God's honor. If his principles are forsaken, it matters not who wins because we will be traveling a path destined for failure (despite possible short-term successes).

It gets down to rule of law, a concept B. Obama speaks of with great reverence (as he does most things), but something for which he appears to have no understanding. Is there an immutable bedrock upon which law is founded and against which all other law must be judged? The Founders seemed to think so. You've heard it before, "We are endowed by Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

The Founders had no reticence acknowledging God as the source of human right. To them, it was fundamental and foundational to our nation's establishment. Law makes a moral judgment. It's intent, according to Fredric Bastiat, is to bring to bear the collective force of society for the protection of the God-given rights of the citizen.

Here is the beauty of the America built by the brilliant boys of the late 18th century. While founded upon God's principles, the godless could still abide within that nation, reap the benefits of that nation, and yet never once bow the knee to the God honored by its law. Godly principles do not mandate worship of God. At the same time, adherence to God's directives, since, by the way, he's the guy who created us and knows best how we work, brings about blessed civilization.

The greatest nations regarding prosperity and freedom that the world has ever known, the United States and Israel, were those which founded their civilization upon such principles.

Why on earth should the Christian be silent in the political realm when he is permitted to have a voice? Who to speak out on behalf of the innocent (abortion, embryonic stem cell research)? Who to stand against the erosion of the created social structure (homosexual marriage)? Who will indict the government for coercive stealing (illegal plunder through taxation and social programs)? Who has the moral authority but the one who stands on the unwavering unchanging principles of God, principles that flow from God's very nature?

What makes a principle repugnant simply because someone avers that it comes from God? The Christian did not received a vision in the night. He is anchored in the most extraordinary book in history.

So it doesn't matter if such principles win a majority. They are right and must be advocated. Pragmatism and utilitarianism lead to compromise to bring about the "best" end, but the God who created us is as concerned about the means as he is about the end.

If the Church is an embarrassment to both political parties, so be it. It must not stand by as the churches did while human beings were bought and sold in the marketplace. It must not fiddle while people groups are imprisoned, butchered, and burned for simply being from a particular heritage.

The Church must stand. The Church must speak. Come what may.