Question of Christian Political Engagement

In unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity . . . and Why It Matters, authors David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons address what they consider to be Christianity's "image problem" both in the eyes of outsiders and the eyes of Christians themselves. Chapter 7 of the book, entitled "Too Political," discusses the intersection of Christianity and politics and analyzes how the conservative-evangelical political movement has shaped public perceptions of Christians and their religious beliefs and practices. Kinnaman and Lyons show how many negative stereotypes that outsiders hold about Christians and that members of different Christian sects hold about one another are based on the rhetoric of a subset of evangelical Christians who have been aggressively politically active. Because the conservative Christian wing of the Republican Party espouses a rigidly defined set of values, outsiders often have the impression that Christians share very specific views from which they never deviate and that all Christians, by definition, adhere to these same political beliefs. In fact, according to the authors, young people perceive Christian as having a political agenda and the primary mission of Christianity as pushing for the implementation of certain right-wing, conservative public policies, including bans on homosexual marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. Identifying himself as a Christian, Kinnaman observes with some consternation that "they [outsiders] think of us as motivated primarily by political goals and as promoting a right-wing agenda." Kinnaman notes that when young Americans were asked in a survey to identify famous Christians, political leaders, such as George W. Bush, ranked higher even than Jesus, whose teachings are putatively the core principles around which Christian doctrine is structured. Even more alarming, young Christians themselves have begun to equate Christianity with political action and rhetoric. According to Kinnaman, "outsiders recognize Christians in politics more readily than in any other sector," and "even young churchgoers are more likely to recognize famous Christians involved in politics than other arenas" such as music and entertainment.

This equation of Christianity with the political rhetoric and beliefs of a narrow segment of the Christian community, the conservative Christian right, leads to misconceptions of what it means to be Christian and what Christians are like as individuals. It also serves to alienate outsiders, especially young people, who might otherwise be receptive to learning about Christ's teachings and even to drive away those who grew up in the church but eventually find it too restrictive and judgmental. According to the authors, outsiders in general and young people in particular see the intrusion of Christianity into the political sphere as a "problem."

Upon reading the authors' characterization of the harsh and rigid political doctrine that Christian political activists advocate in the public square, I immediately understood why young people, both Christians and outsiders, would be repelled by the notion of Christianity. Even though the dominant Christian voices in politics represent only a sub-set of the Christian population as a whole, they constitute the primary contact with and experience of Christianity for many in the younger generation. Outsiders therefore extrapolate from what they see and hear in media coverage of politics to Christianity as a whole and unknowingly adopt an incomplete and inaccurate notion of Christian attitudes. The media, which sensationalizes Christianity, as well as everything else, by presenting it in the most bizarre and outrageous light possible, also bears some responsibility for instilling these skewed perceptions of Christians in the minds of young people. When young people watch or read the news, they are treated to stories about politicians who hear the voice of God telling them to run for office and leaders who believe that tragedies like Hurricane Katrina and the AIDS virus are divine punishments for sin. Christians are rarely portrayed simply as individuals trying to show compassion and respect others and live lives in harmony with the teachings of Christ.

If all young people know of Christianity is what they see in the news and the political arena, then it is no wonder that they have a narrow and distorted view of what Christians believe and how they live. Christian political activists may seem so uncompromising and strident in their opinions that young people will assume that they are trying to impose their beliefs on others or even take over the political system and transform it according to their value system. No one likes to be told what to believe and how to behave, and this is especially true of young people. Young people are engaged in the process of forming their own identities. Outsiders are trying to determine what it is exactly that they believe, and Christian teenagers and young adults need room to figure out what living a Christian life means to them. However, the bombastic political rhetoric of the religious right seems to admit no possibility of disagreement, discussion, or reservation. Young people who are both exploring their own identity and seeking a community in which they can find acceptance are bound to perceive Christianity as an restrictive and intolerant institution and feel excluded from and repelled by it.

The conservative right viewpoint that is most often associated in outsiders' minds with Christianity does not represent the spectrum of beliefs, questions, and disagreements that characterize real-life Christians. It seems as though the focus on Christianity as a political movement emphasizes only one particular Christian viewpoint and only one aspect of Christian life. As the authors point out, even though it seems from what we read and hear in the news that Christians share a static, unitary viewpoint, Christians actually disagree not only in their takes on political issues but also with respect to the role of Christianity in politics and how individual Christians should fulfill that role. Indeed, there are "liberal" Christians as well as "conservative" ones, and both factions have been known to criticize one another bitterly For instance, "liberal" Christians have criticized fundamentalists for interpreting the Bible too literally, while "conservative" Christians have criticized what they consider the "sexual permissiveness" of some denominations, such as the Episcopalians and Methodists, who are known to be more tolerant of homosexuality and other sexual practices that conservatives view as sinful and deviant.

Ultimately, the relationship of Christianity to politics and the application of Christ's teachings to political issues are much more complicated than media stereotypes convey. Unless Christians make an effort to communicate that complexity in their public representations of their commitment to their beliefs and in their political engagement, outsiders will continue to misunderstand, fear, and scorn them.

In addition, although political engagement can and should be an important part of Christian practice, Christians should carry their beliefs into other areas of life as well. As Kinnaman notes, as Christians, "[o]ur lives should reflect Jesus, which includes not just how we vote, but every element of our political engagement." In addition, it is important to note that Christianity encompasses a variety of viewpoints and individual Christians have discovered and are in the process of exploring a myriad of ways in which to express the values that they have derived from Christ's life and teachings. Ultimately, the focus on Christian politics is overly narrow because it conveys the impression to outsiders and to young people that Christianity is only a matter of beliefs. However, it is important to remember that being a practicing Christian can and should be much more than simply parroting an accepted set of doctrines in a public or political arena. Being a Christian involves not just declaring and advocating certain beliefs but also in behaving consistently with those beliefs and taking action in a way that fulfills the teachings of Christ. If behavior and action is not integrated with belief, then Christians become susceptible to charges of hypocrisy and outsiders will view them as "judgmental" and "self-righteous."

Kinnaman and Lyons feel it is important for Christians to be aware of and confront the ways in which their political engagement may influence the perceptions of both outsiders and young Christians concerning Christianity itself. However, although they argue that the current expression of Christian politics is alienating and intolerant, they still believe that political engagement is an indispensable part of being a Christian and living a life true to Christ. The authors simply advocate a rethinking of how to express one's Christianity on the political stage. Above all, Christian political engagement should accurately represent Christ to outsiders and other Christians and be consistent with his teachings. For instance, as James Reichley points out in the book Faith in Politics, there is a great difference between civil disobedience and using violence, such as bombing of abortion clinics, to express one's views. While one may be carried out consistent with the tenets of Christianity, violence cannot be, even when it is performed in service of a political belief that Christ himself would presumably hold. Accordingly, it is vital that Christians show respect and compassion for those who disagree with them, even as they advocate for views they believe in passionately.

I was largely persuaded by the authors' argument that the current mode of Christian political engagement has created a "bad reputation" for Christianity and that Christians must strive to conform their political speech and actions more closely to the ideals of Christ. I felt that it was unfortunate, even sad, that some young Christians and outsiders, who would be more receptive to Christianity if they had a fuller understanding of it, turn away from the church because of their perceptions that Christians are narrow-minded, judgmental, hypocritical, and intolerant. After reading this chapter, I felt motivated to become more politically involved so that I could counteract some of the negative stereotypes of Christian political engagement and carry out the principles set forth by Christ in a public way that would attract, rather than repel, outsiders.

However, I did have some quibbles with the way that Kinnaman and Lyons set up their analysis of Christianity and the prevailing misconceptions of it. First, I found their discussion too heavily biased towards Evangelical Christians. The authors identified four different groups: evangelicals, non-evangelical born-again Christians, other self-identified Christians, and outsiders. Even though evangelicals constitute only a small portion of the Christian population as a whole, the authors' method of identifying the various Christian and non-Christian groups suggests that evangelicals are the "real" Christians and that other Christian groups are defined solely with respect to the degree to which they are like or unlike evangelicals. "Born-again" Christians, while not evangelicals, seem, in this classification, to be elevated above other Christians because, by virtue of being "born-again," they are more similar to evangelicals than, for example, Episcopalians and Catholics. The use of the term "self-identified Christians" suggests, probably without the authors' intent, that non-evangelicals and non-born-agains are not "real" Christians because they lack the requisite zeal and merely call themselves Christians. In addition, the use of the term "outsiders" to refer to non-Christians seems problematic. The whole point of this chapter on Christianity and politics is to reveal how certain modes of Christian political engagement have alienated young people and non-Christians. Labeling these individuals who feel alienated from Christianity as "outsiders" seems to reinforce the sense that they are separate from and inferior to Christians. Although the authors have clearly tried to use descriptive and non-offensive terminology, the label "outsiders" has a pejorative connotation that may serve to undermine their message, at least to a certain extent. In addition, although the authors address in a cursory manner the misconceptions that Christians have of non-Christians or "outsiders," they do not explore what could be a very fruitful aspect of their subject matter: how Christians' stereotypes of non-Christians shape their political rhetoric and reinforce the misunderstandings between Christians and non-Christians.

In addition, I was surprised at how closely the authors equated "biblical thinking" with authentic Christian belief and action. Although fundamentalists take the Bible as unvarnished truth and evangelicals interpret scriptures with varying degrees of strictness, Christians express a wide range of attitudes and beliefs regarding how, and how literally, the Bible should be read. I was also disturbed by how the authors opposed "biblical thinking" to "majority rule." Kinnaman states that non-Christians generally believe that the "will of the people" should be the guiding principle for political decisions and public policy rather than the Bible. He argues that "[t]his preference for majority rule stems from not knowing the Bible's content, questioning its truth, and preferring feeling and expediency to absolutes." Although I would certainly agree with Kinnaman regarding the importance of the Bible as the foundational text of Christianity, I take issue with the suggestion that any political viewpoint that is not Bible-based is by necessity a "preference for majority rule" that indicates a degree of ignorance and laziness. To the contrary, it seems to me that simply relying on the text of the Bible without making an effort to connect it to the outside world is a sign of intellectual laziness. It should be remembered that the Gospels contain Christ's teachings, but that Christ did not teach his disciples by writing his beliefs on paper or by giving them "important texts" to read. Rather, he exemplified his beliefs through his actions, and as any student knows, it is easier to learn by example and demonstration than by reading and studying alone.

In making this stark distinction between those who base their beliefs and actions on the Bible and those who do not, the authors appear to discount the importance of thinking for one's self. They apparently assume that it is impossible to come to the same understanding as Christians without first reading the Bible. However, it seems to me that Christians can help guide non-Christians to the teachings contained in the Bible by first exemplifying them in their own behavior and actions. The authors suggest that Christ-like behaviors and beliefs can only be achieved by first accepting the Bible and using it as a blueprint. However, if Christians succeed at presenting a Christ-like example, then they may inspire others to follow their lead and from there lead them to a study of the scriptures. Ultimately, if Christians do their job well enough, they will convince people that they too should follow the example of Christ. In that case, a political world view based on the "will of the people" would not differ substantially from one that is Biblically-based.