7 of 7

Then, however, she thinks pragmatically as a politician, trying to broker the best arrangement for all concerned, to maximize shalom in the particular circumstances she confronts. And as she looks at the options available to her, she might well decide not to seek the imposition of traditional Christian teaching about marriage on a fractious population because she concludes that there is no way to achieve that total result.

She might also, however, ask the third, intermediate question as to whether it is best, all things considered (including the face that Christians want to present to the general public on behalf of the gospel), for Christians to push for their own view of marriage. Might the values of the kingdom of God be advanced better by Christians compromising on that question at least somewhat, while preserving state support for such values as covenantal faithfulness between people, mutual support, and so on? Or will the gospel go forth better and more shalom be made even if Christians are widely seen as homophobic and imperialistic, rather than accommodating and tolerant of some things they clearly don't like?

Thus, the Christian politician might vote for the state to call same-sex unions "marriages," while preserving the rights of religious groups to reserve their own marriage ceremonies only for those unions they can conscientiously bless. Or she might want to take the word "marriage" out of the state's vocabulary entirely and endorse "civil unions" or "registered domestic partnerships" instead. Or she might well decide instead that traditional Christian teaching about marriage is exactly what is needed in her society, and so she votes that way.

The crucial thing to note is that she might well have done her job properly to come out in support of any of those three alternative policies. She has voted according to what she felt was the way to secure the most shalom for her constituencies and for her country, and according to what she thinks will best advance the redemptive plan of God.

It is encouraging, then, to consider these recent books as marking a significant advance for evangelical political thinking beyond the easy categories of "all or nothing" and "red or blue." They also advance toward a more realistic appraisal of what can and cannot be done through electoral politics and major institutions in general. They share a broad agenda and many common principles, even as their specific recommendations spread out over a policy spectrum. And they show that faithfulness and effectiveness can be held together as Christian ideals.

It's a new political season in America, and also a new era for evangelical political thought and engagement. This Canadian looks forward to seeing what happens next.

John G. Stackhouse Jr. is the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. His most recent book is Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World (Oxford University Press).

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Books discussed in this article:

The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church
Gregory A. Boyd | Zonervan | 2006

The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center
David P. Gushee | Baylor University Press | 2008

Personal Faith, Public Policy
Harry R. Jackson Jr. and Tony Perkins | Frontline | 2008

How Would Jesus Vote? A Christian Perspective on the Issues
D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe | Waterbrook | 2008

The Divided States of America?
Richard Land | Thomas Nelson | 2007

Healing for a Broken World: Christian Perspectives on Public Policy
Steve Monsma | Crossway | 2008

The Scandal of Evangelical Politics
Ron Sider | Baker | 2008

For more politics coverage, see Christianity Today's campaign 2008 section and the politics blog.

first page |  7 of 7

share this page

November 2008, Vol. 52, No. 11