Glenn Reynolds’ father was a vocal member of the Religious Left during the Vietnam War era, which may have led the son to think that the right attitude is “Religioso, Ma Non Troppo”.
Are we in the midst of a religious revival that will change the face of America, and the world? Some people on the Right hope so, while many people on the Left fear so. I suspect, however, that the trend will be less dramatic than either the hopeful or the fearful believe.
There certainly are signs of a revival in religious interest. Not only is there some evidence in the polls (depending on which polls you read), but I’ve noticed an increase in religious talk in recent weeks, even from such normally secular rightists as Rush Limbaugh. It may well be that there’s something of a preference cascade going on, with events like the Terri Schiavo affair and the death of Pope John Paul II making religious people more willing to display their faith openly.
Neither in these paragraphs nor in the rest of his column does Professor Reynolds try very hard to separate Christian faith from conservative politics (though he has made it clear elsewhere that he knows that left-of-center Christians exist). The “religious revival” that he speaks of is best defined as an upsurge of Christian activism in the interests of conservatism, or perhaps of conservative activists’ invocation of Christianity, rather than a “Great Awakening” in the historical sense. As the Rev. Donald Sensing observes, this is not an era of enthusiastic mass conversions.
I think that most clergy like me had some high hopes that America would be religiously revived and for awhile after Jan. 1, 2000, we were encouraged because worship attendance did rise. Alas, it was temporary, just as the rise after 9/11 turned out to be.
So what would “a religious revival that will change the face of American and the world look like” if it didn’t involve a major increase in the number of believers? The idea is, I suppose, that the existing cadre of believers will stop holding a variety of opinions and coalesce behind a faith-inspired political agenda. This hope (or fear) extrapolates from the increased political activity of anti-modernist Protestants, a group that has historically tended to ignore “the world”. In the past several elections, more and more of them have come to the polls. Even the Amish, the ultimate world-contemners, voted in record numbers in 2004. Moreover, the church-going Protestant vote, which used to split about the same way as everybody else’s, has grown more solidly conservative Republican.
Hence, the essence of this sort of “religious revival” is that political conservatism is outcompeting liberalism for Christian votes. Does that reflect changes in Christianity – or in conservatism and liberalism? It’s conceivable that some development within the Church could affect the average Christian’s outlook on politics, but nothing of that sort has been visible for the past couple of centuries. Christianity is about the same as ever; the reshaping of its political preferences is a reaction to what is on offer from political parties and ideological movements.
There is also a second tendency at work: Just as Christians are drawn toward conservatism (at least when liberalism foams with suspicion of Christians’ beliefs and motives), conservatives are drawn toward Christianity. Ideally, no one should become a Christian for any reason other than faith in the truth of the Gospels and the Creeds. In practice, the emotional affinity between Christianity and contemporary conservatism is undeniable. Much of what the press sees as Christians flocking to conservatism is actually conservatives turning to Christ.
For some on the Left (and on the libertarian Right), these complementary movements add up to a dreadful prospect. Economic historian Robert William Fogel (a liberal, despite having been pilloried by his ideological soul mates for Time on the Cross) says, “We’re headed for another titanic battle between a religious populace and a secular elite, between the peoples’ elected representatives and the courts. What is past isn’t necessarily prologue, but it is comforting to note who won in the earlier confrontations.”
Note the hidden premise: that a democracy with “a religious populace” is dangerous and must be restrained by “a secular elite”. The candor is welcome. Perhaps it could be extended to renaming the “Democratic” Party to, say, the “Secular Party” or “Judiciary First”. They could take “Know-Everythings” as their sobriquet.
Which brings us back to Professor Reynolds’ “ma non troppo”. There is a point at which no one – certainly not any Christian conservative – can disagree if we are talking about religion in the political realm. A party platform derived from Scripture is ridiculous, both “too much” religion and a pseudo-religious distortion. Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, and He did not proclaim eternal verities about tax policy, welfare, education, foreign aid, etc. Indeed, it is the Left, not the Right, that most often pretends that there are “Biblical positions” on such issues.
Conservatives are are similarly unlikely to endorse ecclesiastical dominance over the state, if only because it would push the state sharply to the Left. If Christians who attend church regularly are a solidly Republican bloc, the clergy who minister to them are just as reliably Democratic. Everyone knows of congregations whose priest or pastor is decidedly more liberal than his flock. How often does one see the opposite?
Still, moderation is not to be practiced in all things. If there can be “too much” religion in politics, there cannot be too strong and abiding a faith in Christ. Were such a faith to touch tens of millions of hearts, it would be a good thing both for the individuals who turned to the Lord and to society as a whole. It would not, however, change the face of worldly politics to any remarkable extent.
Comments