Confessions of a chastened evangelical (April, 2005)

Wow. Jay at his very best. As the Companion's cover reads, "Does God Have a Political Agenda?" (and Jim Wallis says, in essence, yes), I appreciate Jay's words of caution.

Some highlights for me:

• "In Cross-Shattered Christ, Stanley Hauerwas argues that 'Christians are forbidden from ever assuming they possess rather than are possessed by the God they worship.'"
  
• "If nothing else, our being sinners should give us pause... Our understanding is limited, our vision is blurry, and we lack the capacity to see the big picture as God sees it."
  
• "I have told people that after all of my columns they should read, 'But I could be wrong.' Why? Because I am a broken and sinful finite being, ignorant in many ways and in need of God's grace and forgiveness--and so are you." [In fact, Jay told me this same thing when I told him about this blog. And he's right, we're all in the same boat: broken, sinful, finite, ignorant, so often kicking against the goads.]
  
• "...can Christians, evangelical or otherwise, ever look at the world the same way after the twentieth century?"
  

Taking a closer look at a couple things...

One of the speakers was a prominent evangelical who announced to the startled audience that with the election of George W. Bush evangclicals had "won the culture war." Most of us thought this declaration was at least premature and perhaps even heretical.

I agree with Jay: that remark is way off, even though I consider Bush's re-election a very positive event. But it makes me think: what would it really look like to "win" the "culture war?" I start to think in terms of the divorce rate sharply declining, Hollywood portraying Christians in a positive light, secular universities welcoming ideological diversity. What do you think?

From time to time I meet Christians with quite the combative attitude. (Perhaps you perceive me this way.) They think in terms of the Old Testament: God's will was law. They paint America's foundation in the same light, a religious utopia unblemished until the secular humanist came along.

I don't see it that way. I see the New Testament Church, a tiny minority, persecuted (1 Pet. 1:6) and seemingly without a voice in a hostile culture, but still subverting the culture for Christ.

Perhaps we should be cautious about assuming that we North American evangelicals have all the answers to the world's problems: political, spiritual, and social. We are called to humility, trust, penitence, and grace--not smug certitude. As Hauerwas writes, "to be made part of God's love strips us of all our presumed certainties."

Well put. But even shunning "smug certitude," we're confronted with decisions. Indecision has consequences, too. May we consider each decision soberly, listen carefully, and choose wisely.

The dictionary defines triumphalism as "the doctrine, attitude, or belief that one religious creed is superior to all others." While I reject the arrogance and over-confidence implied in this definition, I have to say that I'm a Christian because I do believe the Christian "religious creed is superior to all others."

The linking of the fortunes of the church with the fortunes of a political party has been a mistake made over and over in the history of the church. Possession of political power has never enabled the church to make anyone holy.

I agree. But I'd say that Stalin's persecution of the church remains a hindrance to the gospel to this day. How do we address that?

Update: Since the Sojourners' Jim Wallis was quoted at length in this month's Companion (and in last month's Markings), you might be interested in this perspective on him by the Weekly Standard: God's Democrat.