Banner
Shorter Than a Yard PDF Print E-mail
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 22 February 2012 07:54

It was Sen. Eugene McCarthy who said that being a senator was a lot like being a football coach -- you had to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it was important.

I have written about the dangers of ideology in politics (which addresses the how more than the what), and thought I needed to say one additional thing about that. By ideologue, I do not mean someone who is zealous, or who is focused on what he is doing. I do not mean someone who sacrifices for a political cause -- I rather mean someone who sacrifices the wrong things.

In his great essay "Learning in War-Time," C.S. Lewis points out that certain duties are worth dying for, but not worth living for. The ideologue reasons from the end to the beginning, and says that anything that can claim our allegiance to the point of death must have the authority to fill every waking moment as well.

"It seems to me that all political duties (among which I include military duties) are of this kind [not worth living for: DW]. A man may have to die for our country, but no man must, in any exclusive sense, live for his country. He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God himself."

Our task in political engagement, like our tasks in every other area, is to be approved by God. But He does not use a simplistic measurement of electoral success. His calipers can measure things shorter than a yard. Achieving good you can point to in this life has something to do with it, but there are many other things going on as well.

What better way to conclude this particular point than by quoting Johnny Cash? Near the end of his life he reminded me, and more than a little bit, of Qohelet, the preacher of Ecclesiastes. His cover of Hurt says, "you can have it all, my empire of dirt." But that is -- in the mouth of Cash -- a perspective in the light of eternity, not relativistic nihilism. In When the Man Comes Around, he "Will you partake of that last offered cup? Or disappear into the potter's ground when the Man comes around?" Or, as in yet another great song, "you can run on for a long time."

Right now matters. Voting matters. Politics matter. Fighting for righteousness in the public square matters. But not in the way we sometimes assume. So don't sacrifice the wrong things.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
jeremiah black  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:41 am
As Christians, I think many of our problems in political discourse are similar to our problems in discussing theology- namely, we can list 50 beliefs that are important, but then we have absolutely no clue how to rank them in order of any meaningful importance. I've seen Reformed Christians direct more ire and venom towards a fellow Christian whose eschatology was a bit kooky than to an unbeliever who hadn't the foggiest about anything, as if they were both on the same spiritual plane with little meaningful difference between them.

By the same token, I've seen Christians spasm with pitchfork-waving yelps at a conservative politician who dared suggest that marijuana may have some limited legitimate uses beyond merely irresponsibly getting high (say Ron Paul) than at a fellow Republican who did his best to pile up 5 trillion in public debt, enrich himself to the tune of millions through questionable special interest lobbying, was in one ethics scandal after another, and doubled the size and authority of the federal government in a way that would make Friedrich Engels beam like a father watching his previously bench-warming son pitch a game 7 no hitter (say a Rick Santorum or a Mike Huckabee).

We have no sense of what's important in the civil government, what the purpose of civil government even is, what the purposes of the various contrasting offices within the government are, no sense on how to combat any social problem except through armed federal mandate or armed federal prohibition, and no sense of outrage over any sin that's not related to sex, drugs, or rock n roll. And even then, we'll let the sex slide if it's hetero, the drugs slide if they were made by reliable GOP donors like Glaxosmithkline, and the half-dressed rock n roll slide if it's distributed by Disney. We are, in a word, useless.

But that's ok because we can always blame liberals for the sorry state of the nation. Now, who's up for some Ann Coulter? I know I am!
Tim Enloe  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:04 am
I wouldn't necessarily say some of these things the way Jeremiah is, but I think he's onto something very important in these last several posts - namely the ideological idolatry of "being conservative" of which many Christians, notably many Reformeds, are guilty. I won't write my own paragraphs on it, because I largely agree with Jeremiah on the last few threads. I hope others will take seriously the need to think self-critically about "being conservative" as well.
Tammy Burns  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:43 am
I believe it was Adam Smith who said one of the purposes of government was to keep people from oppressing each other. The founders said the purpose of government was to help secure God given rights.

The general welfare clause seems to point to wanting good for everyone. This should be the Christians goal when deciding their politics.

The Bible says true religion cares about the widow and fatherless. I find it amazing this could actually be built into the type of economy a country has. Adam Smith said there was a time when widows with children were the most valuable wives. When the economy was in family businesses, the men wanted children to help with the business.

When most families had businesses, we had a strong middle class. There wasn't this fighting between labor and owners because the laborers were the owners. That's when we had a strong middle class. This favors families. When being in a family is where the economy is, we had less abortion, divorce, welfare, etc. The word economy means the way of the home.

When the states started favoring corporatism, the economy moved into the corporations. Then the money became concentrated and politicians with corporate backing, won the offices.

If we show people love by wanting good for them and their families they are most likely to want our religion. Love is our goal.
Devin Mork  - False Dillemma  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:54 pm
I believe you've been straddling an excluded middle. His name is Ben. He's the son of a pastor at a PCA church. He organizes a monthly theological discussion for the men for which he suggests reading from various systematic theologies.

Yet, among me and my friends, he's the guy who was the original, pariah Ron Paul supporter back in 2008. In high school, he was the stodgy, old-fashioned Calvinist who read Edwards and Stott for fun. He's the first in church to stand when the liturgy calls for it, and he consistently cites articles from the Westminster Confession in our discussions on Covenant Theology.

What do you do with that guy?
jeremiah black  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:34 pm
Buy him a beer
Phillip Harrison  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:02 pm
Maybe I'm missing something, I'm having a hard time connecting the responses so far to the post. I just thought it was a fantastic article on right priorities and perspective.
Devin Mork  - Blog Context  Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:29 pm
Phillip, over the last few posts, Pastor Wilson has been responding to the Ron Paul camp, particularly speaking against Paulbots. However, at the same time he has been promoting Rick Santorum. Well, after the debate tonight, Pastor Wilson has some 'splainin' to do.

And, jeremiah, he's not a fundy. He'd probably be the one to suggest we get some drinks in the first place.
Phillip Harrison  Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:53 am
Thanks Devin. I've not really gotten into those discussions, so I think I'll just take this one for what it says to me.
Matt Weber  Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:19 am
A lot of Wilson's posts are responses to something that is never articulated or linked to. It's almost as if he reads a bunch of things, tries to do some sort of gestalt analysis on it, and responds to that. The upside of this is that he doesn't have to write 15 posts responding to minute differences in what this or that person is saying. The downside is that you are sometimes left in the dark about what exactly he is aiming at.