Upon his return from conversing with God upon the top of Sinai, Moses began the work of reclaiming straying Israel by demanding, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Upon their return from ecclesiastical conferences held at somewhat lower altitudes and with rather less distinguished guest speakers, thousands of American and European clergy men are now similarly trying to reclaim their wandering flocks by posing questions. But now instead of asking their parishioners if they will worship Yahweh or a golden calf, pastors are inquiring as to who will support the liberation struggle (i.e., terrorism) rather than capitalist racism who will champion peace ( i.e., disarmament) rather than nuclear buildup, and who will work for economic justice (i.e.,socialism) rather than free-market inequality. Certainly, no sensible person would deny churches or pious individuals the right to bring their convictions to bear on contemporary political issues. As Peter Hinchliff, a chaplain at Balliol College, argues in Holiness and Politics, Christians in democracies cannot conscionably ignore politics by merely “submitting to the powers that be.” As office holders and as voters, they must do their part to insure humane government. What is distressing about the current clerical emphasis on political commitment, however, is that it is often a substitute for, rather than an expression of, religious faith. The ministers chanting the political slogans and leading the demonstrations in Christ’s name do not seem particularly disturbed by the fact that few in the throng that they have joined believe in or obey Him. Something is gravely wrong when churches thus respond to widespread scriptural illiteracy, declining worship, and moral and social disintegration by calling primarily for more political involvement. The only possible result of such a strategy will be not holiness and politics but rather a radical and degraded politics instead of holiness.
To his credit Mr. Hinchliff recognizes utopianism as contrary to Christian doctrine, finds liberation theology unconvincing,and warns against allowing “the pursuit of a political programme…to become an absolute good.” Nonetheless, by refusing to take a firm stand on Christian doctrine, he renders this warning meaningless. What is absolute good to a chaplain who can passively observe that some theologians have “seriously questioned” the very notion of eternal salvation without unequivocally asserting his own position on the issue? Languidly acquiescing to “the process of modern secularization,” Mr. Hinchliff seems far more intent upon persuading Christians to enter politics than upon converting those in politics to Christianity. Though he dismisses as “too simple” the belief that rejection of traditional Christian doctrine leads to adoption of leftist ideology, his own sympathy with left-liberal dogmas appears to owe much to his theological nonchalance. While making it quite dear that he regards capitalist America as horrid, collectivist England as wonderful, African terrorist groups as worthy of church support, and Soviet Russia as perhaps not so bad as to be opposed with nuclear weaponry, he avoids taking sides on the most fundamental of creedal questions. When, in passing, he declares that he is “closer” to those who believe in eternity than to those who do not, the reader cannot but recall King Agrippa’s pathetic response to the Apostle Paul’stestimony: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Unless the scriptural account is in error, Paul was not particularly comforted by the prospect of an almost-Christian shaping politics on the highest earthly levels. (BC)
Leave a Reply