It's true that culture is upstream of politics. But that fact should be supplemented by the more important fact that religion is upstream of culture (e.g., religion is more important; religion has more potential to be influential; religion has been more influential in some significant contexts). Yet, on television, Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere, people give far more attention to political issues and non-religious cultural issues than they do to religious ones. That includes the large majority of Evangelicals.
//Yet, on television, Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere, people give far more attention to political issues and non-religious cultural issues than they do to religious ones. That includes the large majority of Evangelicals.//
ReplyDeleteBecause politics has become a religion substitute for many non-Christians as has been pointed out by others [e.g. Catholic new commentator Michael Knowles]. It gives them an eschatology, a utopian/heavenly hope on earth, a hamartiology [being politically correct is the new standard for righteousness], gives one a sense of self-righteousness by virtue signaling, of doing good, of being correct in worldview, gives them a system of penance and indulgences, gods of self and government etc.
Should Christians be involved in politics? Definitely, but not at the expense of sharing the Gospel. As a provisional postmillennialist I think we ought to strive to transform and reconstruct this world by making it more Christian. That includes the means of politics. But the main way has always been by evangelism, apologetics, signs & wonders and discipleship.
I watch youtube channels of people who were previously Democrats, but left (Tim Pool, Karlyn Borysenko). I see that as a sliver of good news, that people can actually get out of that, but then Tim starts committing the naturalistic fallacy to try and argue for why creating things is better than destroying things, or Karlyn starts talking about "spiritual" stuff, then I remember that in the grand scheme of things, not much has changed.
DeleteBesides your point, which I agree with, I also think one of the many reasons talking religion would get further is we wouldn't clumsily let others assume things their views don't actually allow for. During David Wood's debate with Apostate Prophet, AP's opening statement was that there is no objective morality, we just decide based on preference and utility. Imagine if you discussed, say, abortion with someone like AP without that discussion on morality. He could mindlessly repeat the same talking points (my body my rights, fundamental human right, it's wrong to oppose for men to oppose...) and you wouldn't have the additional knowledge to stop him by saying, "but you've already told me things like rights are decided on by individuals, so you can't possibly now be claiming there is some right that isn't based on personal preference that I'm wrong for not adhering to."
ReplyDeleteGiven the prominence of the concept of rights coming from God in the history of the United States, such as in the Declaration of Independence, it's especially appalling when that sort of religious issue is neglected, including by political conservatives.
DeleteI suspect its either 1) ignorance or 2) a desire to play by one's opponent's rules/being neutral. But that's yielding the field to your opponent, who doesn't have to explain what he means by right, value, human value, duty, etc. An argument that winds up sounding like, "our view is right because we determine for ourselves what is right and we like our view." doesn't pack much of a punch.
DeleteI've expanded on some of the themes in this thread here.
ReplyDelete