Politics first, Jesus second

Thanks to Ali Baba for tipping Global Review off to Dr. Charles Marsh's opinion article in the Boston Globe. Marsh is an evangelical who unabashedly uses the language of salvation in a liberal newsrag. He also unabashedly bashes the Christian Right's jingoism. Global Review wholeheartedly agrees with his premise:

Conservative evangelical elites, in exchange for political access and power, have ransacked the faith and trivialized its convictions.

His downfall, however, is in the last paragraph, which gainsays his thesis. He concludes:

But if Franklin Graham speaks truthfully of the Christian faith and its mission in the world -- as many evangelicals seem to believe -- then we should have none of it. Rather, we should join the ranks of righteous unbelievers and big-hearted humanists who rage against cruelty and oppression with the intensity of people who live fully in this world. I am certain that it would be better for Christians to stand in solidarity with compassionate atheists and agnostics, firmly resolved against injustice and cruelty, than to sing "Amazing Grace" with the heroic masses who cannot tell the difference between the cross and the flag.

This after (rightly) telling American Christians that we should have listened to the world Christian community on the Iraq War.

Why is this downfall so stark? Because he commits the very crime he is ostensibly writing against. A political position on a subjective issue (in this case, whether the Iraq War was just and wise) is non-essential. He very eloquently argues:

The gospel has been humiliated because too many American Christians have decided that there are more important things to talk about. We would rather talk about our country, our values, our troops, and our way of life; and although we might think we are paying tribute to God when we speak of these other things, we are only flattering ourselves.

So his correct conclusion should be to urge Christians to put their political leanings second, and focus on the truly spiritual things to which we are called. Instead, he merely sets himself up as the opposite-but-equal to his brothers and sisters whom he denigrates as "heroic masses". They support the war, denying their brethren; he opposes the war, denying his brethren.

No wonder the Boston Globe published the article; behind all the Christian language, the bedrock message is that agreeing with Dr. Marsh on politics is more important than believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.