Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Perhaps we all have, in some way, fallen short of the mark in our public engagement by permitting our convictions to race ahead of our thinking. By failing to grasp both the nature and the limits of politics, Christian activists were more easily beguiled by its promise. Disillusion was the inevitable consequence of wishful and naive presumption. Our inability to persuade our fellow citizens through compelling argument in the marketplace of ideas led to our reliance upon coercion and threats—weak instruments that cannot last. Don Eberly is right: concentrating on the politicians while ignoring the culture—and the public sentiment it shapes—is myopic and futile.

Kudos to all those who argue that we not quit the field but stay engaged. Our failure to do so a half-century ago abetted the cultural crisis.

Still, we must not only understand but embrace pluralism and diversity. We must come to see that, as Jefferson put it, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle." Finally, we must encourage our children to enter politics as a noble and worthwhile vocation.

Jack Wyman
East Haddam, Conn.

Cal Thomas writes about iniquity in government. Yet, he believes Christian men and women of valor should re treat from the political battlefield and flee into spiritual noncombat zones. But this would suit Satan, who excels in ruling governments. America needs more warriors like James Dobson and fewer people blowing the bugle to retreat in the war for the nation's soul.

Gordon L. Cameron
Camano Island, Wash.

Since Pentecost, have Christians even a "moral majority"? If some of today's Religious Right are upset because everything doesn't go their way, may be they should take their marbles (what's left of them) and go home.

I do appreciate Chuck Colson for his humility and his refusal to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Eileen Scorsese
Slidell, La.

Is the radical Christian Right about to abandon its public crusade to take over U.S. politics from the school board to the Presidency? Please, in the name of entertainment: No!

Robert Price
Leetsdale, Pa.

* It is curious to me that Falwell, J. Dobson, and, to a lesser degree, Colson characterize Thomas's and E. Dobson's critique as calling for a "retreat" from political involvement. This is not true. Thomas and E. Dobson call for a shift of emphasis and tactics, not an abandonment of political involvement.

I was raised in an evangelical tradition that emphasized the importance of political involvement and active citizenship deriving from our mandate to be salt and light to a fallen world. However, in earlier years, there was a healthy acknowledgment that faithful believers could legitimately differ politically as to how various social problems should be addressed. What has changed since the advent of the "Religious Right" is that the gospel has been equated with conservative Republican political philosophy. It is disconcerting when the same individuals who condemn Bill Clinton's moral failure hail Oliver North as a hero and invite him as a radio talk-show guest. Is it that sexual sin and Clinton's lying is inexcusable, but North's lying and destroying evidence is permissible? Or is it that North simply has the right politics? Does the end justify the means? Likewise, it is disconcerting when Christian political conservatives proclaim the importance of character in leadership (and rightly so) but in the next breath patronizingly dismiss former president Jimmy Carter's principled stance on human rights as politically naive.

next page... |  1 of 5

October 25 1999, Vol. 43, No. 12