Tuesday, March 14, 2006In the comments to a post at his Reformissionary site, Steve McCoy poses the following:
"To be honest, I think one could simply know Christ crucified and in that knowledge sustain quite a critique of any political ideology. It sounds like you would disagree."
I may in fact agree, if we mean that a believer could, with an understanding of the Gospel, critique human nature, understanding that man is a fallen, flawed creature prone to all sorts of mischief. I would suggest that a traditional understanding of orthodox Christianity would produce something of a reasonable critique of much politics. Having said that, I cannot help but think of all the political chaos that erupted throughout Europe during the Reformation, when men thought they and their Bibles could, with no help from their ancestors, order a just society. It did not work.
I will spend more time on this in the coming week, but this is why I am a political conservative in the spirit of Buckley, Kirk and Burke. Liberalism, at its core, suggests that human problems can be solved. Conservatism suggests the opposite, that sinful men cannot be good as a result of some government action, for the government in and of itself will thus be flawed. The goal of government, then, is to make every effort for men to live in virtue, while never coercing them. The job of government is to simply make it easier. Liberalism has stood in the way of action for decades.
My issues with Don Miller can be dealt with later, but I can assure you they are not as virulent as some of the more rabid TRs in the blogosphere. I would simply challenge Miller's approach to faith and politics, suggesting that his means of doing so are well-intended, but with poor consequences. I do not intend to make any pronouncements on the man's faith.