1. Rod’s piece here shows many of the confusions both Christians and Conservatives have about the nature of politics and the Christian faith. It was also bad form to quote Charles Haywood of @TheWorthyHouse to tee off on him without naming him. Let’s dive in with a thread. 🧵
2. Part of Rod’s problem is that he muddles up too easily the personal, the ecclesiastical, the institutional, and the political. Because of the charged nature of racism and the dishonest hypocrisy that surrounds the issue, it is best to examine this in terms of general morality
3. Personal morality, that is the code by which I live my life and judge the goodness or evil of things I see in society is one aspect. I can find something immoral and reprehensible. I can even speak “as” a Christian but not necessarily “for” the church.
4. Then there is level of the school which must balance its commitment to its core beliefs, the wellbeing of its members and people it deals with as well as the reputation of the institution. Sometimes one is not free to speak. Sometimes one must protect the institution.
5. Other times it is vital to allow the institution’s reputation to be damaged to deal with evils within the organization openly and honestly. Sometimes the institution must distance itself from its own staff, firing them. “This is not what we stand for.”
6. The Christian church is a very specific institution with a very specific mission. It has institutional concerns like all institutions. But the church also has a very specific Christian witness. It is called to speak prophetically to society.
7. The power of the church can be is that of the institution maintains its integrity in truth, seeing its role as separate from the political it can speak into situations that may be politically charged but do so with an independent non-political voice. It speaks prophetically.
8. This is the “power” of the church, is to be the spiritual and moral voice in society, the conscience of society. The church is governed by its own necessity. It has its own unique role and power in society. If it becomes politically involved, picking a side, it loses this.
9. On many ways our churches have divided themselves and taken sides politically and this thus empties the church of its power.
When I read Rod, I sense the heart of Christian and church man who wants to speak in the political realm but do so with moral high ground…
When I read Rod, I sense the heart of Christian and church man who wants to speak in the political realm but do so with moral high ground…
10. …of the Church while doing politics. The problem is that it is impossible to do politics in a Christian manner or do politics as a churchman. Politics is driven by its own necessity. Those necessities respect that politics is its own thing with its own rules.
11. Those rules must grapple with the ugly realities of dealing with power in a sinful world. As notable a Christian thinker as Jacques Ellul has argued that an ethical, moral or religious politics is simply not possible. apokekrummenain.substack.com
12. Why is this the case? Why can you not have a Christian or moral politics? Because politics is its own realm, it is governed by its own exigencies: the acquisition and wielding of power. It is a Machiavellian reality.
13. Those that try to do moral Or Christian politics with either be ineffective or hypocritical or both. This is the current state of the right today. This is why the left runs circles around the right. They weaponize the accusations of hypocrisy and cow the right into silence.
14. The left understands that for a party to be dynamic and vibrant, that often the powerful ideas come from its radicals, however distasteful those radicals are. So they protect them and shield them because by the autonomous rules of politics, this makes sense.
15. As a Christian, as a Christian organization or as the church, it ruins their Christian witness to defend the wicked or the vile. But politically, you often need those wicked or vile people. And you need to protect them.
16. Sure there will be times when you need to cut someone loose and sacrifice them, but these must be political decisions, made as political calculations.
17. What does this mean practically? Well it means that of you are really intent on having a truly “honest conversation” on race, you likely will not be able to do so within the boundaries and limits of racial morality, especially that set by the broad left wing.
18. You will need to listen to and keep around people who, by the standards of current discourse set those who hold the dominant position in shaping the discourse, are considered racist, some reprehensibly so.
19. The current regime is not going to be broken and defeated by polite discourse. And Charles Haywood @TheWorthyHouse is correct, for the right to win political power it is going to have not be afraid to protect its radicals. “No enemies to the right” understands the moment.
20. “No enemies to the right” also understands the nature of the political. So while it may make sense to condemn racism personally, as a Christian, and as a Christian organization, it makes no sense politically. It might, but that would be a different autonomous question.
21. Is this an ugly, frightening and even reprehensible politics? Yes. Does this imperil your soul? Yes. Should a Christian think long and hard before entering politics, knowing the corrupting influence it will have? Yes.
22. But the alternative is to leave the political to the truly evil and amoral. So someone must step up and do what is necessary politically for the good of the nation, the hard thing, that puts their very souls at risk.
23. This is why the Benedict Option and Live Not By Lies miss the mark. They are calls to Christians, for a Christian response that ultimately leads to martyrdom. This is admirable, but it is ultimately, not a true political vision.
24. A political vision sees the time, the moment, the threat and is willing to acknowledge that hard things need to be done, and it may be a time for reprehensible allies. But these will be political decisions made autonomously according to the exigencies of the political.
Loading suggestions...