The Anti-Manichaeist

Both writers were featured in yesterday’s Prism E-pistle. But McClaren’s interview shed more light on changes needed in the “evangelical” world to improve our habits of political deliberation.

Sider put himself between a rock and a hard place by implicitly claiming that on the basis of the Bible’s normative framework and a factual understanding of the issues that it is possible to infer what should be the Christian positions on various election issues. As an editor of an evangelical magazine, this exposed him to potential attack from the supporters of the candidate he does not endorse. It also potentially loses him readers of his magazine. I don’t want to say he was being disingenuous about his own personal difficulty in deciding who to vote for in the coming election, but it is convenient for him that he concludes that he cannot give his readers a definite recommendation of who to vote for. I mean, we see how the credentials of Harold Stassen as a prolifer were attacked in response to his argument that the increase in poverty under the BushAdmin likely led to an increase in the number of abortions. Fortunately, Stassen is able to defend himself and his findings. But I have no doubt that he and other Fuller professors are receiving heat for being prophetically outspoken about things that are wrong about the BushAdmin. And so it seems that Sider, like Mark Noll, comes down with no definite answer for Evangelicals on the question of Who Would Jesus Vote for.

But do we really need to all agree on what the right answer is? McClaren’s alternative approach is to affirm the need for Christians to be salt and light in their respective parties. We need to exercise more leadership within our respective parties so as to pull the party towards wiser and better policy. We also need to be critical of our parties’ failures. I.e., we can be partisan but not overly partisan. In saying this, McClaren criticizes the effects of how many in the religious right do not have extensive habits of political deliberation. They are ceding their political leadership to people who need to be held more accountable. McClaren is also implicitly criticizing the naive view of single-issue voters that they can vote based on their apolitical issue and otherwise avoid involvement with political stuff.

The difference between the two writers really comes down to a difference in their methods. McClaren uses a more socratic method to challenges both Christian Republicans and Democrats about certain aspects of their parties platforms. And even more importantly, he points to the fact that how we deliberate on political issues is part of how we are salt and light in our world. McClaren makes the serious statement that

Whoever wins the election, the Christian community better sit up and do some serious thinking in the next couple years - thinking about our identity, our role as salt and light in the world.

He also makes a balanced criticism of how the Christian media is overly partisan in his remark about how, “radio preachers[James Dobson] can give good leadership on parenting and misguided leadership in engaging in culture wars.” All of this directs more attention to the process by which we draw on our faith and how we use our minds to take positions on right political conduct.

By contrast, Sider’s letter illustrates the need to consider more issues, but he invests too much in trying to stack up all the issues from a viewpoint that reflects the authoritative, normative framework of the Bible. But we are not God and we see but in part, as through a mirror darkly. Therefore, we must make political leaps of faith, though not without deliberation or reconsideration of past decisions made.
dlw

ps,I really liked a couple of the other quotes from other articles in yesterday’s Prism E-pistle. I liked Andy Crouch’s statement that,

Such is the state of our presidential politics: an evangelical president flummoxed at any suggestion of his own fallibility, and a Catholic candidate who sidesteps his church’s teaching authority. And in both our political parties, concern for justice often serves as cover for self-justification; righteousness curdles all too quickly into self-righteousness.

And I liked Jeremy Ritch’s observation that,

Among Christian youth, there is a new way of seeing the world. They seem determined to break stereotypes that Christians are homophobic, close-minded, and in league with the Religious Right. This generation is more interested in human rights issues, and in getting past Democrat and Republican politics. They seem to want change and are willing to stand up and be heard. As Christians, they are more interested in compassion and understanding than in dictating morality.

I can definitely relate to that viewpoint and it is heartening to hear that I am not alone in this regard.

dlw