abstract: Conservatism is not Christian; that is, it is not submissive to Jesus Christ and does not take the Bible as its standard of social and political ethics.

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

Introduction

Many Christian commentators and leaders are hailing the 2004 elections and the re-election of George Bush as wonderful events, and indications of the rising clout of evangelical Christians in the political sphere. The general consensus seems to be that the entrance of conservative and evangelical Christians into the political and cultural sphere that began in earnest back in the 1970s is now bearing significant electoral fruit. Accordingly, the call to the ranks by "religious right" leaders is to press on in the grand cause of "moral values" for we are on the rise. Let us pressure the Republicans who control the White House and the Congress to enact legislation that reflects our "values" because we the values-voters are the ones who put them over the top in this election.1

Although there are some things to be thankful for in this election, forgive me, if I do not share the enthusiasm of the religious-right-traditional-values faction over the 2004 elections and the triumph of the Republicans. Those who believe that it is a matter of rejoicing for Christians when a few crumbs fall to them from humanism's table may find satisfaction in the 2004 elections, but for those who believe that Jesus Christ is the King of nations and that His Law-Word is the absolute standard of social and political ethics this election is not an occasion for rejoicing. Rather, it is a time for sober biblical analysis of the state of our nation and the church's perception of Christian political activity. In making this analysis, I would propose the following three questions.

1. What is the significance of our national embrace of political polytheism?

For generations there has been a steady retreat in America from the explicitly Christian foundation that was laid in the colonial period. We began with an explicit confession of the lordship of Jesus Christ, slipped to an implicit recognition of the superiority of the Christian religion, and have now fallen to an outright polytheism that does nothing more than acknowledge Jesus as one of the gods in the pantheon of American civil religion. The campaign and election of 2004 did nothing to reverse this downward trend into national polytheism, but rather emphasized it and affirmed it.

Sadly, a chief figure in the promotion of this polytheistic national religion has been none other than our president, George W. Bush, but he has certainly not been alone. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all have joined hands to dishonor the King of kings and Lord of lords by reducing Him to a status in America inferior to that enjoyed by the idol-goddess Diana in Ephesus. In Ephesus, this dead idol attained to the acclamation of "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," and the citizens were incensed that her temple "should be despised and her magnificence should be destroyed" (Acts 19:27-28). But in America, the risen Lord Christ is not publicly acclaimed as the "prince of the rulers of the earth" (Rev. 1:5) or as "the governor among the nations" (Ps. 22:28) --which in truth He is--by any of our political leaders or by the two major political parties; nor are any of these too concerned that His church or His magnificence is being despised.

Some may counter by saying, "But look how much President Bush and other politicians referred to 'God' and 'religious values' in their speeches and literature in the 2004 campaign." There is no doubt that there are many references to "God" in contemporary political speech, but this is little more than an indication of American polytheism; it is not an indication of reverence for the one true God. If there was a desire to honor the one true God, He would be defined as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" so as to distinguish Him from the gods of the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, and New Agers. One thing is sure, the name of Jesus Christ is politically incorrect, and is not used by our political leaders except in demeaning or hostile ways. Furthermore, the idea of "religious values" is meaningless in and of itself. The issue is whose "religious values"; after all, jihad is one of the "religious values" of Islam.

The record of the Bible is that God judges nations for their refusal to honor Him as the true God and keep His law (cf. Gen. 18:25; Ps. 2:1-5; 9:5-8, 15-20; Jonah 1:2; 3:4; Rom. 1:18-32). If this was true in the era preceding the coming of Christ, how much more is it true today when the message of Jesus Christ's salvation and kingship is going forth into all nations (Acts 14:15-16; 17:30). And how guilty a nation must be that has had the witness of the Bible to the truth of Christ's kingdom for 300 years, yea, a nation that was founded in political covenants that expressed submission to the God and Father of Jesus Christ, if it refuses to act on that witness and honor Jesus Christ and submit to His authority. Jesus Christ was exalted to His present position at the right hand of God at His ascension and was invested with all authority in heaven and earth (Ps. 110:1-2; Dan. 7:13-14; Acts 2:32-36). Because of His enthronement, all nations are called to submit to His reign, and all magistrates are to publicly "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2:6-12; Phil. 2:9-11). The "wages" (Rom. 6:23) for a nation that refuses to do so will be the visitation of God's wrath, and that nation will perish and be turned into "hell" (Ps. 2:12; 9:17). What is the price of national polytheism and idolatry? The price is the curse and wrath of God.

In view of this, the election of George W. Bush takes on a different perspective. President Bush has gone out of his way to promote false religion, particularly, the religion of Islam. It is common knowledge that Bush has celebrated Ramadan with Muslim clerics at the White House, praised the Qur'an and the Muslim religion, and stated that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.

But someone may say, "You don't understand, he has to talk and act that way if we are going to win the war on terror." But by no means does he have to speak that way. He can defend the "civil rights" of Muslims in America without praising their false religion. He can lead in "the war against terror" without giving offense to Jesus Christ. Since the ultimate well-being of the nation is in the hands of Christ, can we prosper without giving Him due honor and glory?

Another may say, "Yes, but you don't see that if you are going to be elected to political office in the United States, you must play down your Christianity and speak the language of religious and political pluralism." That does seem to be the case. But if this is so, how then is the election of George W. Bush and his polytheistic Republican comrades an indication of Christian influence in America, or a reason for Christians to be encouraged? What the election of 2004 shows is not an advance of biblical Christianity but the current state of its humiliation. If one must assume the position of a political polytheist and only use innocuous, vague "God" language to get elected, how great is the Christian cultural influence?

It is also distressing that the religious right has been virtually silent in calling their "Christian president" to account for his promotion of polytheism and for his praise of Islam. In spite of President Bush's blasphemy and endorsement of the worship of false gods, nothing more than a whimper of protest has been heard from our evangelical leaders. Instead, this deep religious flaw has been overlooked, and the president was enthusiastically endorsed for re-election by Christian leaders because of the perception that morally he is a decent man and that politically he is pro-life, pro-family, and a conservative. I guess the Second Table of the Law is more important than the First Table of the Law to evangelicals when judging the Christian character of a man. It is no wonder that our president and our evangelical leaders did not support Judge Roy Moore in his battle to keep the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

2. What is conservatism?

A recurring refrain is that the election of 2004 marks a great victory for "conservatives." Since most politically active Christians identify themselves as "conservatives" the deduction seems to be this: since Christians are conservatives, and since this election was a victory for conservatives, this election was a victory for Christians. But is it as simple as that? Is conservatism Christian? Should Christians make the conservative agenda their agenda?

The answer to such questions is clear to all who take the time to study conservatism and compare it to the Bible. Political conservatism is not Christian.2 There may be elements in conservatism that reflect Christian principles, but the reason for such is due to the nature of conservatism as a political philosophy that seeks to conserve the wisdom of the past and apply it to the problems of today. The key elements of conservative politics are history, experience, convention, custom, and tradition. Since Christianity played such an important role in earlier Western history, the political conventions of the West have been influenced by it. But conservatism also incorporates the "wisdom" of pagan Greek philosophy, the political and social conventions of the pagan Roman empire, and the humanism and rationalism of the Enlightenment, to name only a few of its non-Christian elements. This strange brew is conservatism, and it is always changing.

Conservatism is not based in fixed principles3 but in reason and experience--the experience of autonomous man as he seeks to give meaning to his world, to law, to human "rights," and to politics apart from the meaning given to these by God in Scripture. Since man learns through experience, conservatives believe in change, but they believe that "change must always be incremental and evolutionary and generated from the self-conscious and historical traditions of a given people."4 Conservatism is a political philosophy in process that is being shaped by the environment in which it now finds itself. Conservatism is being carried along in the river of human reason and experience as much as liberalism is. The only difference is that conservatives want the boat to move slower. This is why yesterday's liberal is today's conservative, and why today's liberal will be tomorrow's conservative. Pat Buchanan has complained that the conservatism of today is not the conservatism that he grew up with. Surprise, Pat, but that is the nature of conservatism.

In conservatism today, there are two contending factions, the paleoconservatives (or the "real conservatives") and the neoconservatives. The paleo's are angry because the neo's, as the paleo's put it, have hijacked the conservative movement. No, as change is the nature of conservatism, the neo's have not hijacked it, they have only exceeded the speed limit for change set by the paleo's. The re-election of George W. Bush is a victory for neoconservatism. Bush rejects old-time conservatism for, as the president puts it, "compassionate conservatism;" which being translated means less Bible-based government, less constitutional government, larger government, more government social programs and spending, and using the military to invade other countries to spread democracy.

The paleoconservatives have been angry with "compassionate conservative" President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress. In a scathing article entitled, "Righteous Anger: The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush," Doug Bandow gave the following analysis of the Republicans:

James Traub contends, "Today's Republican Party is arguably the most extreme--the furthest from the center--of any governing majority in the nation's history." This is the Republican Party that has embraced as its own every liberal initiative, from Lyndon Johnson's Medicare to Jimmy Carter's Department of Education to Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps. This is the Republican Party preparing to enact a Medicare drug benefit that would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years. This is the Republican Party that is increasing federal education spending as if doing so had something to do with the quality of local schools. This is the Republican Party that is increasing spending faster than during the Clinton years. Right-wing extremists? For the Left, liberal means centrist, and moderate conservative approaches fascist. Really conservative is off the spectrum.5

Bandow goes on to sharply criticize President Bush as follows:

First, George W. Bush, despite laudable personal and family characteristics, is remarkably incurious and ill read....

Second, despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive....

Third, President George W. Bush has made Woodrow Wilson the guiding spirit of Republican foreign policy. A candidate who criticized nation building is now pursuing global social engineering.... [T]he president apparently believes he may attack any nation to advance human rights.6

Bandow wonders why the Left hates Bush. He says:

Liberals should identify with the Bush record. He is increasing the size and power of the U.S. Government both at home and abroad. He has expanded social engineering from America to the entire globe. He is lavish with dollars on both domestic and foreign programs.7

Bandow concludes his conservative indictment of George W. Bush by stating: "Whether or not he is a real conservative, he is no friend of limited, constitutional government. And for that the American people should be very, very angry."8 Yet in spite of this conservative "Righteous Anger," the publisher of Bandow's article, Pat Buchanan, in typical conservative fashion, turned around and endorsed President Bush for re-election in 2004. Why? Because Bush was better than Kerry; sigh, so much for principle.

As Christians rejoice in the election of 2004 because it was a victory for "conservatives," perhaps they ought to pause and reflect on what they understand by "conservative" before continuing their celebration. Doug Bandow is a Christian and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Bandow, as we saw, argued that it is questionable to say that the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are conservative; he suggested that they are the most politically liberal governing majority in American history. But Bandow is questioning the conservative qualifications of Bush and the Republicans only because he himself doesn't understand the nature of conservatism. Certainly the Republican leadership is "conservative" because it is not as liberal as John Kerry and the Democratic Party--and that is all it takes today to be a conservative.

Brian Abshire captures the essence of why conservatism is a recipe for disaster as far as Christians are concerned when he writes:

Political conservatives will always take the back seat in the bus because they are an intellectual rear-guard action to the dominant forces of social change. The humanists will push so far until people react, and then the conservatives will win an election or two. But conservatives will slowly adapt to and adopt the new ideals. And the nation will get weaker and sicker and more chaotic and then more tyrannical.9

Conservatism is not Christian; that is, it is not submissive to Jesus Christ and does not take the Bible as its standard of social and political ethics.10 The sooner Christians realize this and disassociate themselves from the conservative agenda and pursue an explicitly Christian political vision, the better.

3. What is political compromise?

In this election, a few more knowledgeable Christians understood that George W. Bush and the Republicans fell short when measured by biblical standards. However, they argued that Christians should vote for Bush anyway because he was the best available candidate who could defeat the liberal John Kerry. These Christian political pundits lecture that in a constitutional democracy like ours we do not have the option of electing the best candidate or of enacting righteous laws; we only have the right to vote for the best candidate who has a chance of winning and of supporting laws that have a chance of passage. In real-world politics, we are informed, compromise is the name of the game. By compromise, they do not mean the surrender of principle, only that Christians need to realize that they must make concessions to their political opponents if they are to see an "incremental" advance of their cause--we cannot seize the goal all at once. Compromise, in their view, means that even though Christians do not get it all, they get some, and their opponents have to yield some ground.

Because this counsel seems to have the appearance of wisdom, it is widely embraced by Christians. But such a view of political compromise is simplistic. It is rarely the case in politics, where competing principles are at stake, that compromise yields an even split. What usually happens is one side or the other is forced to surrender its principle.11 Let's take a hypothetical example involving taxation. One side in a political debate believes that an income tax is unconstitutional and says there will be no income tax. The other side believes that it is constitutional and advocates a 15% income tax. After long discussion and negotiations, a compromise is reached: the citizens will only be taxed at a rate of 7% on their income. This seems to satisfy the demands of compromise: one side said no tax, and the other side wanted a 15% tax, but each gave up their demands; none got what they wanted, and a compromise was reached. But note what really happened: the victory was entirely that of the advocates of the income tax because their principle was established and the other side's was surrendered. The pro-income tax people did not get the rate of taxation they wanted, but they established their principle, and it will only be a matter of time until they get the rate they want.

This is what actually happens in political compromise when competing worldviews and standards of law and ethics clash. The liberals understand this. But conservatives and their Christian supporters do not. A contemporary example is the debate over "gay marriage." Christians and conservatives are excited that ballot questions in eleven states rejected gay marriage, and that the re-elected president has pledged to push for a constitutional amendment that establishes marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This all seems good. But all is not well. First, it is somewhat doubtful that the Constitution will be amended (a long and difficult process) to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Second, an emerging compromise is that even though homosexuals should not be given marital status, they should be able to join in "civil unions."12 President Bush and many of his fellow Republicans appear to support this compromise. But this compromise is a complete victory of principle for the gay rights advocates. In accepting such a compromise, the biblical principle that homosexual activity is a moral abomination and should be proscribed by the state has been abandoned. Instead, the principle that homosexual unions are lawful and under the protection of the state has been established. Once this is established, it will only be a matter of time until they get all that they seek.

This insight into the true nature of political compromise reveals the bankruptcy of the "pro-life" compromise position that allows for abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape, incest, or when a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. This position has given up the principle that all human life is entitled to protection by the state, and advocates the contrary, "pro-choice" principle that some life is worthy of protection and some is not. According to this compromise position, when an abortion may be permissible is open to debate, but what is not open to debate is the fact that some abortions are acceptable. Tragically, this compromise position is the one advocated by President Bush and most of his "pro-life" Republican cohorts. Those Christians who see Bush as a champion of life, should be sobered by this analysis, and see that he has accepted and advocates the "pro-choice" principle; his only difference from men like John Kerry is that he believes that "choice" in abortion is limited to only a few circumstances.

Another example of the surrender of principle in the pursuit of political compromise was seen in this election when Reformed Christian leaders exhorted the faithful to support George W. Bush, even though they could not demonstrate (or they did not try to demonstrate) that he met the biblical qualifications for a civil magistrate (Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1:13; 16:18-20; 2 Sam. 23:3). By explicitly, or implicitly, teaching that Christians were not bound to the standards of God's revealed law when they went to the 2004 polls, these men effectively surrendered the principle that the law of God is the moral standard for the political sphere. If voters are not bound to follow the directions of Scripture when they vote, then it can hardly be argued that magistrates are bound to the laws of Scripture when they legislate. If human reason suffices in the voting booth, then it suffices in the legislature and on the bench. By rejecting the binding authority of biblical law over the voter, the principle of the authority of biblical law over the civil sphere has been denied.

The problem that affects many Christians is that the "incrementalism" they advocate in the political sphere is often nothing more than an incrementalism of retreat; though due to their skewed understanding of political compromise, they do not see it that way. May God open their eyes.

Conclusion

This analysis of the 2004 elections indicates that the political philosophy and practice of the great majority of Christians is unbiblical, shallow, and harmful to the honor of Christ and the authority of His Word.

Christians largely ignored the appalling practices of our president to promote false religion and a national civil religion that is polytheistic through the authority of his office. Instead of rebuke and calls to repentance, religious right leaders praised the president, claimed him as one of their own, and called on Christians to support his re-election.13 In so doing, Christians denied, at least in practice, that Psalm 2 (and other similar Scriptures) has relevance for America today--a deadly delusion.

This election also has shown that Christians have chosen to follow the political philosophy of conservatism, rather than one that is explicitly Christian.14 Evangelicals, Reformed and otherwise, seem to be unaware of the true nature of conservatism and the philosophical foundations that support it. Even though conservatism contains some elements derived from a Christian worldview, it is based on the autonomy of human reason and rejects the authority of the Lord Christ and the Bible over it. Modern conservatism has moved beyond the restraints of the Christian context that it once operated in, and today is an open enemy of the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ--for which rights Christians have given their lives in the past.

Finally, this election has revealed a fatal weakness of conservatives and Christians: they do not understand the nature of political compromise when competing, antithetical principles are at stake. In such situations, one side must yield its principles; it can be no other way. In contemporary politics, it is the conservatives and Christians who almost always give up their principles in their compromises with the Left.15 Christians have been led astray by leaders who tell them to compromise in the interests of an incremental advance of their cause. Compromise where no biblical principle or standard is at stake is often necessary in politics. But compromise, when biblical principles or standards are at stake, is to go against Christ (Luke 11:23) and is an incremental step on the path to "hell" (Ps. 9:17).

The purpose of this election analysis is not simply to expose the darkness, but to lead fellow Christians out of the darkness, and to exhort them to seek the light. That light is found in Jesus Christ and the Bible.

The Bible reveals a long-suffering God who delights in those that humbly seek Him in confession, repentance, and new obedience. The keys to national renewal are revealed in such passages as 2 Chronicles 7:14, and are illustrated in the intercessory prayer of Daniel (Dan. 9:3-19), and in the repentance of Israel in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh. 8-9).

The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ is the center of all things and not the state. Whenever Christ's lordship over all things is not recognized in a society, as we see in America today, the state inevitably rises to supreme prominence as the expression of law and order on earth. Christians must reject messianic politics, and emphasize the lordship of Christ and the institutions of the family and the church. Cultural factors drive politics, but, ultimately, culture itself is determined by the condition of the family and the church. Furthermore, the condition of the family and the church is decided by submission to Christ and faithfulness to His Word. Cultural reform, and, thus, political reform, usually comes from the bottom up.

The Bible reveals what Christians need to know to honor Christ in the political sphere. We do not need to rely on conservatism to understand politics, law, or the will of the Lord for our nation. We have the truth, not due to any superior qualities of our own, but solely due to the grace of God in Christ and the revelation of the truth in the Bible. Let us diligently seek to understand that truth, to obey it, and to point others to it.

The Bible also reveals, that in spite of the dire straits our nation is in, we need not despair. Hope is ours through Jesus Christ. He has already won the decisive battle of history, and He will make His enemies His footstool (Ps. 110:1-2). We are engaged in His service at this time in history, not to advance our own agenda, not to be comfortable, and certainly not to engage in mere partisan politics, but, rather, to lead men to the Savior and to proclaim and defend His Crown Rights over all men and all their institutions and governments.

William Einwechter is the vice president of the NRA and the editor of its publications. He serves as a teaching elder at Immanuel Free Reformed Church in Ephrata, Pennsylvania.

Endnotes

1. The initial commentary that evangelicals and "values" voters were the key to Bush's re-election is being challenged by those taking a closer look at the data. See, for example, "The 'values vote' myth" by David Brooks of the New York Times (November 6, 2004).

2. For a defense of this statement and a general critique of the non-biblical nature of conservatism see, The Future of the Conservative Movement, ed. Andrew Sandlin (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Foundation, 1998).

3. Although conservatives claim to adhere to fixed principles such as liberty, the rule of law, private property, and so on, the problem is that the meaning of these principles, not being tied to the unchanging Word of God, is continually being redefined to reflect the spirit of the age.

4. Paul Henry, "Conservatism, Political," in Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1973), p. 131.

5. Doug Bandow, "Righteous Anger: The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush," The American Conservative (December 1, 2003) at http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/cover.html.

6. Ibid. .

7. Ibid. .

8. Ibid. .

9. For a further discussion of this contention see, William O. Einwechter, Conservative or Christian? The Christian Statesman, vol. 147, no. 2 (March-April 2004), pp. 11-15. "Conservative or Christian?" also appears in The Future of the Conservative Movement, pp. 1-5.

10. Brian Abshire, "Conservative Theology and Conservative Politics," in The Future of the Conservative Movement, p. 11.

11. This writer is indebted to Clarence Carson for this insight into the nature of political compromise. See Clarence B. Carson, The Fateful Turn: From Individualism to Collectivism 1880-1960 (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1963), pp. 148-149.

12. See "On marriage battlefield, civil unions offer middle ground" (USATODAY.com). The article concludes: "Gay rights opponents say civil unions amount to marriage without the name. Gay rights advocates say they compromise rights and may not be upheld in other states. Both claims have a degree of truth. But civil unions nevertheless serve as sensible middle ground. They protect gay couples' rights without pushing the country faster than it is ready to go."

13. Christians did have another political option in this election, though most evangelical leaders and organizations sought to cover up this alternative, reject it, or ridicule it. Christians could have supported the Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka, a man of God who approaches politics from a distinctly Christian and constitutional perspective.

14. For a presentation and defense of such a perspective see, Explicitly Christian Politics: The Vision of the National Reform Association, ed. William O. Einwechter (Pittsburgh, PA: The Christian Statesman Press, 1997).

15. That conservatives compromise their principles is no surprise, and, in fact, is to be expected because they have no ultimate standard beyond human reason. But for Christians to give up their principles that are rooted in the transcendent, unalterable Word of God is a tragedy indeed.

back to top