I know it’s hard. We are filled with volatile emotions especially when we see injustice or feel wronged in some way. When we see unfairness or inconsistency, we can become very agitated.
Yet, shouldn’t Christians be Christians above all else regardless of our circumstances or how we initially feel about something? When it comes to how we talk about politics for example, aren’t we obligated to sound different from the world in terms of our rhetoric, our tone, and our position all at the same time? If we do not sound different from the world then we are nothing more than “me-too-ers.”
Examples abound (even in my own life) but here’s one that struck me recently from a Christian leader commenting on Newt Gingrich’s debate response to a question about accusations from one of his former wives:
The American people are angry. We are tired of being lied to by the left and by their mouthpieces in most of the mainstream media. We are done with politicians who refuse to boldly speak the truth and then back it up with some genuine passion. We are through with small ideas and a middle of the road mentality that beats a hasty retreat every time one of the elite, ruling class says, “boo.” I was present at the Fox News Republican debate in Myrtle Beach the Monday night before the South Carolina primary. I knew the election was turning when the crowd erupted with emotion at Gingrich’s impassioned exchange with Juan Williams. In a moment, Gingrich captured the rage of decent Americans who have had about all of the left wing grandstanding and moderate soft talk we can stand. He stood up and spoke out with clarity, not compromise, and just about every person in the house stood up with him.
The rhetoric from this Christian is strong and resonates with a lot of people. I understand. But what we have here is moral outrage from a Christian over a question about Newt Gingrich’s moral character. Does the outrage not seem misplaced? Are we saying with Mr. Gingrich that he has the moral high-ground? And what of the tone; are we really promoting “the rage of decent Americans?” Are we connecting decency with Mr. Gingrich’s past?
Who wins or who loses is not the issue; one’s political persuasion is not the issue; the media’s manipulation or bias is not the issue. The issue is Christian commitment. Are we more committed to representing Christ or our political leanings? Is God’s Kingdom ultimate or the satisfaction of our flesh?
Certainly we must be redemptive toward Speaker Gingrich – even as we must be redemptive toward President Clinton. The point here is not whether one or both has truly repented. We’re simply arguing for redemptive consistence. But, we must also be morally consistent. Non-Christians assuredly see our inconsistency if we treat one candidate different than another by virtue of their party affiliation. They see our inconsistency when we overlook egregious sin and applaud the political tactic of moral outrage to silence a questioner or critic. The issue is one of allegiance and representation. We owe our allegiance to Christ, not a political party. And we represent Him. If we are to represent Him well, we must surely speak the truth and we must unquestionably do so in the right way.
Yes, our twin goals are redemptive and moral consistency – both of which are very difficult to accomplish. But, we must if we are to be good ambassadors of Christ. And of further practical relevance for our own souls is this probing question: where do we find the most peace and hope – in the right man in office or in Christ? Our focus and the way we respond is a good indicator. There is only one kingdom that will last forever. How passionate are we about advancing that one?
Paul J. Dean
