2 of 6

Christian activist Gary Bauer takes issue with the "bizarre theological concept that we are promised persecution and thus should not resist it." To him this is a "strange" notion because "you can believe that we are going to be persecuted and still believe that good and decent people should still stand in defense of those being persecuted. Charles Colson also disputes the theological justification for acquiescence. Believers are called to protect fellow members of the "body of Christ," and justice demands that the vulnerable be defended, whatever their faith. The fact that Colson had to assert this theological insight frequently in his lectures and writings testifies to the salience of the other impulse.

A related obstacle to political activation is, in spite of formidable efforts by "Christian Right" leaders, a general reticence in the evangelical camp about engaging in "grubby" political controversy, out of fear that it is too worldly. Prominent evangelical figures, such as Cal Thomas, express the nagging suspicion that the blandishments of power will corrupt the faithful and detract them from the central task of saving souls.

One intimation of this tendency came out in deep disputes over the timing of an event called the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church. The most visible effort by the evangelical community to raise awareness in the pews about persecution abroad, the Day of Prayer seemed ideally suited to providing grassroots support for the policy initiatives of movement activists. But leaders of the Day of Prayer resisted any discussion of political aims in the packets sent to participating churches. Not only that, they decided to schedule the event in mid-November of each year, ensuring that biennial elections would not contaminate worship activities. For strategists this was a huge squandered opportunity because an event before elections would capture huge publicity as presidential and congressional candidates competed to demonstrate commitment to the cause. But to those who believe deeply in the power of prayer, such strategic calculations threaten to sully worshipful endeavors around the nation. Whatever one's view about this controversy, it illustrates a resistance to maximizing strategic clout among pietists whose kingdom is not of this world.

Spirited disagreements also exist among evangelicals about how best to approach international engagement. One view, reminiscent of "Fortress America;" would eschew international entanglements entirely in the interest of maintaining national sovereignty. Driven by fear of the "new world order," this more "paranoid" branch often suspects that international engagement will end up ceding American sovereignty to the United Nations and, ultimately, to a world government inevitably hostile to Christianity. Several notable Christian Right leaders, such as Phyllis Schaffly, withheld support for the International Religious Freedom Act precisely because it invoked United Nations covenants.

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

September (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48