abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Thomas Atwood

Tom Atwood is executive director of Policy Review, the quarterly magazine of The Heritage Foundation. Formerly controller of Pat Robertson's presidential campaign exploratory committee, he is now a district chairman in the Fairfax County, Va., Republican Party.

The primary consideration should be effectiveness: Will conservative Christians become more effective in advancing our agenda by forming a third party or not? First, thanks to the prudence and perseverance of dedicated Christian activists who have heard and responded to the biblical call to responsible citizenship, we are beginning to make significant inroads into the Republican Party, from the grassroots up. And the "pro-family" banner is providing opportunities for effective, lasting, and broad coalition-building, unlike any we saw under the banner of the Christian Right's "moral crusade" for political power.

Second, we learned in the 1980s not to overestimate our political strength; by ourselves we are a substantial minority who cannot win consistently any time in the foreseeable future. In order to win we must build coalitions with non-believers; we must patiently demonstrate the common sense and fairness of our ideas to average Americans. The formation of a third party at this time would only serve to isolate conservative Christians once again, just when there are hopeful signs that we are beginning to overcome the negative stereotype we have been saddled with since the emergence of the Christian Right.

The formation of an explicitly "Christian" political party would be particularly problematic, both for reasons of strategy and principle. It would be high presumption for a party to call itself "The Christian" party considering the fact that believers are no more monolithic in our views on political issues than any other constituency. The fact that a particular candidate or activist is saved by grace is no guarantee that he or she will advocate the most prudent or even the most principled policy on any given issue. Our brethren are all over the map, even on issues where you would think there was consensus, such as abortion and sex ed in public schools, let alone issues such as war and peace, crime and punishment, and welfare statism.

Overuse of the Christian label can also politicize our Christian message--i.e., the gospel. Believers with politically opposite views claim to represent the Christian position, thus confusing and compromising the effectiveness of our evangelism. It distracts from the primary and more important purposes of the Christian message which are personal and spiritual, not social and political.

The Christian label will also alienate some potential coalition partners who may share portions of our political agenda, but not our religious worldview. Do we really want to put ourselves in the situation of having to convert our audiences to Christianity before we can persuade them of our political arguments?

If we were in the position of categorical rejection by an apostate society, then, certainly, yes, we should form a third party and we should call it Christian. But we aren't. In my tentative judgment, under the circumstances, activism in the existing political parties provides the best opportunities to achieve political results that will honor God's created moral order and provide for that tranquility and civic order which allow for the promotion of the gospel message. But you had better ask me again in another 3-5 years, if you don't mind.

back to top