This is the fourth time I've started a response to the Rosin/Kuo dialogue, and I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the fourth time I discard a response as well. An examination of the role of evangelicalism in American civic life inevitably unearths the fumbling, awkward transformation of my own religio-political philosophy and forces me to deal with the uncertainties that yet linger -- and what does a good evangelical fear more than uncertainty?

Yes, I am one of those dreaded beasts, Americus Evangelicus. Even more terrifying, I was raised in a rather fundamentalist flavor of Christianity, much like the students of Patrick Henry, and through my childhood and adolescence I took for granted an inseparable view of government and religion. Because of my simple and fervent faith and my early interest in political issues, I was convinced -- before reaching my teenage years, even -- that the dictates of social and economic conservativism could be found somewhere between the Sermon on the Mount and John's apocalyptic dream. (If not there, surely they were lodged somewhere in the Old Testament, then...) I lionized those Christian politicians who wore their faith on their sleeves. I lamented Big Government. I feared the U.N.

I traipsed off to college -- a public school, thank goodness -- still clutching tightly to that black-and-white vision of faith and politics. I never exactly renounced either, but somewhere between Reinhold Niebuhr and C.S. Lewis and Simone Weil and St. Augustine, my world shifted. While I would still be considered theologically and politically conservative (though my views on both have been liberalized), the two are now very much bifurcated, in a manner similar to Luther's conception of the Two Kingdoms: I am a citizen of heaven, and as such, I am personally called to live by standards of grace and righteousness; I am also a citizen of earth, which is governed by an independent dispensation of justice and law.

Why is this separation important? It's less because the U.S. is in danger of falling to theocracy or because the presence of religion in the public sphere will do serious damage to the country's liberty. No, a conflagration of the two will do massive and irreperable harm to Christianity itself. It takes very little knowledge of history to recognize the indirect correlation between the purity and sanctity and spiritual effectiveness of the church and its level of political power at any particular point in time. It takes very little knowledge of sociology to notice that this cause-effect relationship is still in play today. This is an old argument -- it was put forth by early American Baptists, ironically -- but it holds as true today as ever. C.S. Lewis once condemned the idea of "Christianity And...", meaning people whose faith was permanently attached to (and therefore subordinated by) a cause or an ideology. Christ called us to join his kingdom, not to install his kingdom on earth, and to attempt the latter is, in my humble opinion, actually quite idolatrous.

Most of my (still rather conservative) political beliefs, then, are justified quite independently of my faith. I support free markets not because they are Biblically mandated, but because I have read Friedman and Hayek. I supported the war in Iraq not because of any eschatalogical aspirations but because, well, I'm an easily duped idiot. My fellow Christians frequently accuse me of compartmentalization or of cognitive dissonance: If I am truly Christian, they contend, I cannot pick and choose which portions of my life are colored by my faith. To them, I respond that I don't. There are a few, fundamental issues that are inextricable from my faith-inspired moral compass, one of which is -- yes, predictably -- abortion. Yet my abhorrence of abortion is reflected less in monomaniacal pro-life voting (it is a position that carries a great deal of weight for me, though I'm far from a single-issue voter) and more in support of people and organizations and institutions that counsel young women to consider alternatives to abortion or, even better, preventatives to unwanted pregnancy. Politics stands downwind of culture. As evidenced so clearly in Iraq right now, society cannot be transformed by top-down approaches; we must start at the bottom and let it spread upward organically.

And this is perhaps the greatest bone I have to pick with those Christians who insist upon melding faith and politics. As Mr. Kuo intimated, it's just too easy. Power is naturally seductive, and using it for the ultimate betterment of society is both corruptive and, ultimately, ineffective. Much more difficult -- but much more Biblical -- is the commandment to love our neighbor and the commission to make disciples of the nations. Christ did not die for society or culture; he died for individuals such as you or I. And until we recognize this fundamental fact of the faith, we are doomed to be poor citizens of heaven and poor citizens of earth.

Great post.

Would you characterize your beliefs (as stated here) as to be outside of the evangelical mainstream? Outside of that of your local community? Or can we hope that views like yours are not a minority?

Thanks again for the thoughtful post. I am a "converted" evangelical, i.e. progressive in my political and religious thought. I agree with many of your points, but wanted to comment on the following statement: "Christ called us to join his kingdom, not to install his kingdom on earth, and to attempt the latter is, in my humble opinion, actually quite idolatrous." As a theological point, this is debated. It is entirely possible to read Jesus' words as statements about a Reign of God that was/is already hear: a way of living and being here on earth. Read as such, it seems that Jesus is calling his followers to establish or participate in the Reign here and now on earth. This is one of my major problems with evangelical theology; it is content to ignore suffering, injustice, and violence because the "real" way to help someone is to proselytize them so they "get to go to heaven." The sheep and goats passage in Matthew 25 seems to me to pretty clearly refute this understanding of Jesus' intent.

It seems that what the gospels say is that Christians are supposed to:

1. Tell the world that their true king is coming.

2. Tell them what His Kingdom will be like, so that they will join in expectation of His return when He will reign over the earth and displace the false rulers.

3. Take good care of the things He left them, like His reputation.

4. Model aspects of the Kingdom, understanding that his fellow followers, in particular, are protected and loved by Him and that they deserve good treatment by each other; and further, that He cares about everyone else as well.

This all seems pretty straightforward and coherent, in principle. Nobody is setting up the kingdom here in advance. However, the line between modeling it and setting it up can get thin, and the idea of creating an environment that is safe for people to wait in seems sensible, and finally, taking care of each other seems to include providing for physical, spiritual, emotional, psychological needs - the interpretation of those needs often precludes permissive societies which fail to protect people from each other or themselves... and so we get into the question of how much evil one should permit in a good society.

Of course, these problems don't come up when Christians are powerless - because they have an excuse for not preventing evil - they can't do anything. But then, when they have power, the problem becomes clear: remove freedom or permit evil? Some cowards suggest that the answer is to avoid power altogether - but frankly, the power to do good should never be turned away. Simply put, denying that one has the power, or failing to exercise it, is a failure to do good that one could do. It is easier than deciding what is good, perhaps... but not right.

Of course, easier to describe the problem than find an answer.

As a quick exercise in semantics, I really do think it is helpful to separate evangelicals from fundamentalists. While both are theologically conservative, only the latter is truly literal in its Biblical interpretation. (Many -- most? --evangelicals believe in evolution, for instance, while no true fundamentalist would.) The terms are grey and ever shifting, but it's really not fair to either camp to lump them all in a huge sectarian tent.

Among fundamentalists -- and I would count the students of Patrick Henry in this number -- there is little nuance in religio-political beliefs. But evangelicals are not so monolithic, and I even suspect the beginnings of a liberal (political) revolution may be in play. Though my study sample is obviously skewed, I participate in a region-wide forum of evangelical grad students of all denominational flavors, and within this group I have met everything from conservative Republicans to die-hard Democrats and even -- shock upon shock! -- a couple of quasi-socialists. This demographic is still largely Republican, of course, and I don't think that's going to change rapidly...but a backlash to the past decade of American politics seems to be afoot.

Now as to the two-spheres approach that I have adopted, I think that's far less common. Just as those conservative Christians have pegged their politics to their faith, the liberal ones seem to be following suit. Sometimes I think they are fearful to do otherwise.

I completely agree that evangelicals often neglect social justice, MattW, and have cited them (and myself) for this in the past. Since we seem to be of different theological stripes, defining terms like 'kingdom of God' would probably get unnecessarily messy, but I think that's the source of our disagreement. I believe in a spiritual 'kingdom of God,' while your conception is probably more physical. I do, however, firmly believe that part of a Christian's responsibility to 'love his neighbor' involves the sort of social ministry to which you refer.

I also believe (and this belies my political viewpoint, not my religious one) that this sort of ministry would be more effective at a grassroots level than at the entangled, bureaucratic level...reading through accounts of the early church's extraordinary, well, socialism, I can't help but chuckle at how wretched it would've turned out had they appealed to Rome to prop up their ministry.

Thanks for your reply, Chester. I think your characterization of the difference in our conception of the reign of God concept is fairly accurate, and (like many of my theological beliefs) mine is probably somewhat an adverse reaction to my evangelical upbringing. I think that Christian thought and philosophy as a whole is enriched by a plurality of viewpoints. For instance, though my own reign of God conception is rather material, I am deeply moved by Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, and others who are able to conceptualize a spiritual reign that also permeates creation.

I really like your comment about the tension between the community oriented focus of early Christian groups and the power politics of a modern secular society that is heavily Christian. However, (and we can reasonably disagree here), I think that one goal of a free society should be ensure the well-being its citizens and that the state should properly be involved in this project.

I hope to address your points from another perspective.

I'm a conservative Christian in the mode of Baptist and Evangelical (I've attended both) and would consider myself a fundamentalist based on the definition.

The difference was I was born not knowing God/Jesus. My family is largely nominal Christian. I went to public schools up to college. Only finding my spouse did I finally convert.

I was a secular Conservative (voted for Reagan) while being a non-Christian, but became a social Conservative when I became born again.

I believe separation is always here. It doesn't need to be protected. Separation is never in danger. I strongly believe it's the liberals who made it a bogeyman. Surely, liberals have an opposing viewpoint of politics and demonizing Christians is another method of winning the debate.

As with hurting Christianity, gee. Christianity should never be considered a popularity contest. From my studies of the Bible, clearly it is unpopular. Even in a majority Christian nation like the USA, it is extremely unpopular when practiced.

My feeling is be the contrarian of popular trends. Do the Christian thing. Speak the truth. Can speaking the truth hurt Christianity?

As for politics, I prefer legislation that helps people. Even if people don't want to be helped, helping with good common sense and family values as preached by Jesus is better than passively surrendering to societies' ills.

I do believe in the bottom up approach, but that should not be the only method.

Politics will always be here. Why are people so exercised about Christian participation in a democratic process? As a citizen, its the most ridiculous request of them all. I live in America and I have the vote. I have the right to use my religion to inform myself of the country governance.

Idol worship is bad. However, it is increasing tiring to defend Christians of what they are not doing. At this point, it really is projection of biases.

I think you misinterpret me -- I do not advocate the separation of faith and politics to "popularize" of Christianity. Attempts to alter the faith in order to make it palatable to society fail miserably, usually mangling it beyond all recognition and making it an object of derision to everyone. That said, there is something very necessary about keeping Christianity stripped of the superfluous social, cultural, and political mores with which we would weigh it down. This isn't because we want to make Christianity the most popular kid in school; it's because these things can become, well, stumbling blocks (to borrow a phrase from Paul) to those who might otherwise come to faith.

Nine times out of ten that I make this argument to a Christian audience, it's completely misunderstood. I'm accused of heresy and compromise and lots of other things that, at one point or another, would've resulted in my quick and fiery death. But I'll keep bleating anyway. And I'll certainly keep reading the thoughtful narratives of Christians like Kuo who, while imperfect in thought and argument, provide an important counterweight to those Christians whose faiths are perhaps too much rooted in prevailing Americanist thought and philosophy. Remember, it was G.K. Chesterton -- a brilliant and committed Christian, though neither a good evangelical nor a good conservative -- who argued for the "democracy of the dead," or the concept that we must firmly root our theologies and philosophies and politics in an historical context. For who are we, as 21st-century American Christian conservatives, to believe that Truth is our exclusive domain? To do so would be to ignore centuries of alternative religio-political thought, some of which, I daresay, was created by people far more brilliant and far closer to God than we ourselves.

You're definitely not making any sense. If I interpreted what you wrote with a reply that sounds similar to the other responses you received, then you're at fault for not being clear.

The subtlety that you advocate doesn't exist. You live in your own world.

Let me try another approach, then. You say we must "do the Christian thing," and that you prefer legislation which "helps people." Now, I'm no post-modernist; I believe in the existence of absolutes and in capital-t Truth. But I certainly do not believe that every political question necessarily comes with one firm, cut-and-dry Right Answer. Sometimes they do. But more often, we must choose the solution that is pragmatic or satisficing or even simply the least of all arrayed evils. And two people -- two very good Christians, even -- can legitimately differ on what is most pragmatic or satisficing or otherwise appropriate for society to do.

I believe that you can make arguments for a completely free-market economy based on Scriptural passages. I also believe that you can make a case for a socialist economy based on the Bible. The same goes for campaign finance reform, the death penalty, a welfare state, seat-belt laws, free trade agreements, pacifism, et al. The Bible is not a social contract; it is not intended to act as a constitution or as the basis for civil law (outside of the covenant with Israel). Does it give us guidance for our individual lives? Of course. Are there generalizations we can make about its call to individual morality to society at large? Absolutely. But must we make those generalizations carefully and cautiously and with reference to the majority-rule form of governance under which we find ourselves? By all means.

It's interesting to note that the early church lived under Roman rule, in places and times surely as corrupt as our own. Yet those early Christians saw their primary duty as spreading the message and love of Christ -- harsh though those things can sometimes be -- and not to morally renew society through news laws and legislation. I don't say this to absolve today's Christians from all responsibility toward civic morality. I say it as a reprioritizing call-to-arms.

Yes, appealing to Rome to prop up the ministry wouldn't have worked, because the Christians shared _among themselves_ based on their obedience to standards of behavior (like not gossiping), values, and participation in community. The was not nationalistic socialism - Rome already had that for its citizens, who got bread and circuses to keep them pliant. This was not nationalistic 'social justice,' which amounts to ... bread and circuses. It was more than faith based. It was community based and mandated certain behaviors.

How do you deal with this reality when you apply your early church ecclesiology to politics? Do you restrain your socialism to within the church or do you think that mandatory income redistribution, to provide bread and circuses nationally, was the model of Peter and Paul?

I'm hardly a socialist; as noted in previous posts, my personal politics tend very much toward the conservative side. Particularly on economic matters -- I'm a free-marketer, a Hayekian, a capitalist pig, whatever you want to call it. I'm skeptical of the efficacy of government-based welfare programs, hence my remark that the church-based, grassroots ministry of the early Christians would've been seriously diminished by bureaucratic interference.

Neither do I consider myself a "church socialist," in the sense that you seem to refer. An earlier post had faulted evangelicals for lack of social ministries -- we can often be so concerned with the hereafter that we neglect the here-and-now -- and I largely conceded that point. I don't think that the modern American church should or could seek to establish a system similar to the one described in Acts, but I do think that its engagement in ministries to address the physical and financial needs of the poor and needy very often lacks vitality. "Pure and undefiled religion is this: to care for widows and orphans in their distress..." I have no statistics on the level of personal giving (whether it be direct tithes to the church or donations to charities and social ministries) among American evangelicals. While it's probably reasonably high in a comparative sense, I'm willing to venture that it's much lower than we -- we, who are instructed to share generously and freely and to store up our treasure in heaven -- ought to be giving. Paul declares that "they'll know we are Christians by our love," and by that he means, in part, the demonstrated love of giving and sharing of incomes. Does American society know that evangelicals are Christians because of their love? Or just because of their noisy engagement in the political sphere?

And as always, I'm indicting myself, too. Though I do tithe, uh, religiously, my charitable donations beyond that aren't nearly what they could or should be. A few less trips to Starbucks or a bit of self-denial at Target could easily translate into lined coffers for Habitat for Humanity or Bread for the World or my local soup kitchen. But I digress; this is a subject eminently suitable for a sermon, much less so for a thread topic.

Do you really believe in free markets? I truly doubt if you or I could survive in a free market, we would be trounced by power, capital and greed just like the good old days. I strongly urge you to spend some time on Faith Based, its a board that you may like and your post is so well written and rational that it would be great to have an intelligent Christian do battle over there with the rest of us heathens.

Chester: Your different approach doesn't even remotely sound like your previous argument. I'll address your new approach.

Yes, it is possible for Christians to approach a subject from two (or more) different ways either Conservative, Liberal, (or Libertarian).

I agree the Bible does not address many points you mention and cannot be used. The exception is how you address individual responsibility to be moral and ethical.

Its funny how the Presidential Candidates (Democrat and Republican) are pandering to Christians, but are sorely lacking in morality when governing the nation as current office-holders. Their Christian pandering doesn't extend to their Christian conduct in office.

Sometimes, it isn't often about the laws, but the legislators themselves. Their bad conduct is bad governance.

What of Christians? They should still fight for what they believe and elect whom that believe are morally correct. Otherwise, you get what you deserve.