The myth of evangelical political engagement

There is a great post on The Evangelical Outpost talking about "the myth of evangelical political engagement."

From the post.

Yesterday Phil Johnson, of the aptly named Pyromanics blog, threw gasoline on the flames of the debate about Christian involvement in politics with his provocatively titled post, "How Evangelicals Traded Their Spiritual Authority for a Mess of Political Pottage." Near the conclusion Phil writes:

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn't suggest that evangelicalism's recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it's a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I'm convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society's evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

I'm a fan of Phil's work so it's with some reticence that I criticize his argument. But it's worth debating because it contains a commonly held erroneous view. Aside from the false dilemma and the assumption that energy and resources that produced a failure would have been successful had they only been applied elsewhere, Phil's contention fails for the simple reason that his premise is based on a myth.

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

Comments

[eric schansberg]

I think Phil raises a provocative and important question, but I agree with Kurt-- at least in general. (I think the charge is accurate for some individuals and churches-- and this is usually a type of idolatry.)

I would argue that a far larger issue is the church's general failure at discipleship-- promoting, instead, some of the following: individual conversion, social change, the church as a haven/closet, and the church as what reduces in essence to a social club.

The opportunity costs of political activity are undeniable (and often ignored by politically active evangelicals). But comparing the two, as Kurt notes, is difficult.

I would also concur with Kurt that most evangelicals are not all that involved in politics. Sure, many of them are interested in an issue or two within the political realm. But like most non-evangelicals, they're busy mowing their lawns and raising their kids. We should abundantly thankful that we live in a country where that can be the norm. But the flip side of that: evangelicals, like most other people, rarely bother to form a coherent political philosophy or establish a set of consistent political practices.

[Kenn Gividen]

In earlier days I would have argued that God imparts gifts and callings, political activism being one.

[Don Sherfick]

Kenn said:

"In earlier days I would have argued that God imparts gifts and callings, political activism being one."

I'm a bit confused. Is this in contrast to what Kenn would argue now?