So says the theologian D.G. Hart, whose book From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin:Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism is reviewed by Jordan Hylden in this month’s First Things. Money quote:
As Hart explains, evangelicals began in the nineteenth century as zealous reformers and social gospellers, and today they are only reverting to type. They believe in conversion, unexpected revival, and the timeless truth of the Bible. And so, more often than not, they tend to sit crossways to traditions and established institutions, to get impatient with gradualism and compromise, and to trouble the status quo with sweeping, radical reforms drawn directly from the pages of Scripture.
The lesson, at least as Hart (and Hylden) would have it, is that Evangelicals would be better off if they became more conservative in their outlook and started paying more attention to their own local parishes, schools, and neighborhoods than national politics. So far, so good. But then Hylden goes on to repeat Richard John Neuhaus's critique that "evangelicals had still not learned how to translate their biblically formed convictions into public political arguments." The point being, one is left to surmise, that they ought to do so because political arguments that effectively change American culture are worth making.
But I wonder. The way I read the New Testament, Jesus did not call us to reform society, whether through liberal or conservative means. He called us to start a new society, one that would not rely on the sword (or vote) for its survival, but on the promises of God. Jesus called this society the church. And if you read what the New Testament says about the church, it was anything but conservative. That’s why those who joined it and were faithful to its mission were persecuted and martyred.
But neither was the church “liberal” as we would understand that term today. Saint Paul had many negative things to say about the Greco-Roman world in which he lived. But his answer to those problems was not to petition the Emperor for reform. Or to convene a convention of likeminded folks to establish a new political order. Or to write long treatises addressed to the Pagan world showing exactly where their political and ethical thinking had gone awry in the hope that such educational efforts would eventually set them aright.
Paul's answer was at once more mundane and, history has shown, more effective. It was this:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 2:1-8; KJV)
This is something those of us who are trying to change the church's mind about homosexuality and same-sex marriage would do well to remember.
Comments