Christians should talk about politics. The prejudice many Christians have against political disagreement and debate isn’t healthy.
Honesty requires laying all political tactics aside. Telling Christians they shouldn’t “talk about politics” is itself a political tactic and a political statement. We must make that clear to ourselves. Every political tactic, such as this one, has some truth to it. Men who spend their time “preaching to the choir” become tiresome. Hectoring is tasteless. Purity tests are selfish and destroy communions. Men often become overbearing in political and religious matters. Political discussions (and religious discussions) are too often lacking in civility. Finally, there is a tendency toward pessimism, which should be guarded against.
Set boundaries for how political disagreement and debate proceed. Boorish men should not use political discussions as an excuse to demand loyalty or similar things. On the other hand, passive-aggressive men should debate ideas they don’t like, rather than attack those ideas indirectly by criticizing “political discussions” as such. We must train ourselves to be worthy of our freedom of speech, our religious duties, and our human passions. There is no one “above it all.” As Aristotle discerned, we are political animals.
Abraham Lincoln provides a good example from American history. One of Lincoln’s major accomplishments was overcoming false pretenses surrounding slavery. He persuaded Americans that a “declared indifference” was a political tactic, not a genuine position. “All Americans” had an opinion about slavery, whether they liked to talk about it or not, whether they wanted to face it or not. On such questions, there is no “safe” option: we must get things right or get them wrong. Lincoln said to Alexander Stephens: “You think slavery is right … while we think it is wrong. That, I suppose, is the rub.”
Lincoln said that people who declared their indifference to slavery should be suspected of a “covert zeal” for it. That was a rather crass political maneuver. I do not claim that people telling Christians to stop talking about abortion, homosexuality, the First Amendment, affirmative action, DEI, transgenderism, and much else are covertly leftist. They may be covertly leftist, and their declared indifference—their being “above it all”—might result from a desire to see the leftist decline become so entrenched as to be irreversible. However, it is nobler and safer to think more charitably and suppose that those decrying political discussions are disgusted with boorishness more than with politics itself, that they mistake the latter for the former, or that they are unable or unwilling to tell their fellows they are being boors.
I claim that everyone has an opinion about all political matters, whether they realize it or not. Pick any one of the issues listed above. Not even a man living under a rock can avoid having an opinion about these things. The man living under a rock will, indeed, not have opinions about whether the Redskins or the Cowboys are the better team or whether Trump won the 2020 election. But he will have a sense of himself—a sense of how he should and shouldn’t act, of what he can and cannot expect from others, and similar things. If asked about abortion, he would have an opinion about it. If asked about DEI, he would have an opinion about it. Politicians are not warlocks conjuring these issues ex nihilo; these political issues all stem from different interpretations of human nature. Europeans from the old world were not having national debates about transing kids, but you can be sure they had opinions about it.
You have opinions about issues you haven’t yet heard expressed. You hold these opinions because you have a sense of self. Everyone has this, and so everyone cares about politics. When we argue about political issues, we are always arguing about deeper questions. The answers we fashion for political issues are applications of our general beliefs to particular problems of the day, and arguing about these particular problems helps us understand our general beliefs better. Indeed, many people’s beliefs change over time because they lose heart in the face of particular questions.
Young conservative people often get hung up on a current issue, whether it be about sex, race, or class. Going left or right on a single important issue will typically determine the rest because the issue demands a fundamental orientation. If a young conservative is convinced that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality or that racial reparations are right and just, he will likely shed his conservative principles for leftist activism.
The most thoughtful young egalitarians realize that Christianity is incompatible with egalitarianism and may abandon their faith altogether. Similarly, young liberal or libertarian men can become conservative in their beliefs because their disgust with feminism leads to a change in everything else. Christianity does not accommodate all political opinions. It is not a religion compatible with every political order. Christians will be persecuted by communists; they cannot be communists. Churches should not countenance communist political opinions.
Of course, this does not mean a church must proscribe every opinion that is communistic or leads men in that direction. But it does mean Christians must uphold Christian political opinions and try to guide others away from political opinions that are antithetical to the Christian faith. If you prefer not to say, “Christian political opinions,” you can say “political opinions acceptable to Christians,” e.g., traditional marriage is an institution of reason that is acceptable to Christians. Christians are required to uphold these opinions against irrational and anti-Christian political opinions.
Be that as it may, those who say we shouldn’t talk about politics have a point that shouldn’t be ignored. Boorishness and vulgarity are too common. Political discourse is interesting when it helps us understand ourselves better, but it can also be uninteresting and soul-deadening. If it were possible to avoid the negative effects of political discourse by banning it, there might be something to be said for such a ban. As it is, you cannot forbid men from holding general beliefs arising from their sense of self. Everyone has these beliefs, and so everyone has political opinions. It is wiser and nobler to educate and cultivate men than to merely try to prevent them from causing disharmony.
Anglicans avoid politics more than other sects, and this has played a role in the dynamism of the ACNA. Many people who wish to worship and contribute to our churches do not think deeply about religious or political issues. The goal is to be dynamic, to invite these people into our churches, while avoiding the kind of decline we are accustomed to seeing in America’s denominations. We want dynamic churches that do not embrace contemporary egalitarian principles, which lead intelligent young people away from the faith. Anglicans should consider managing political and religious discussions as they have managed other matters: by formalizing them. Formal Anglican structures help bring in people of all backgrounds and opinions while shaping them to the Anglican way. Formalization would also encourage open discussion while curbing common vulgar and angry tendencies. The only way out is through, but there are better and worse ways through. The Anglican way has worked well so far.
Image Credit: Unsplash.
