This is not a post that talks about how Christians should or should not vote Republican. That might be an interesting and helpful topic, but, though it's been done poorly far more than it's been done well, that's not what we're doing in this post.
What I'd like to explore a bit here are some of the parallels that I see in trends that are occurring in both the world of Evangelicalism and the Republican party. Let me explain how my brain got to this funky place.
There are many areas of interest that I have followed for a long time: technology, sports, literature, movies, music, culture trends, etc.. Two arenas of activity that that I have tracked for quite some time, both in terms of contemporary development as well as historical trends, are the areas of Christianity and of Politics.
One of the most significant developments in recent years within America's political life has been the emergence of the Tea Party movement. Whether you love, hate or are indifferent towards the Tea Party there is no denying that its advent has really shaken up the US political scene. The rapid rise of the Tea Party has been a major disruptive force rocking the status quo in this country's politics, causing the establishment leaders on both sides to be somewhat flummoxed. Similar to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in the 1970s and the Rush Limbaugh show in the 1980s, The Tea Party is giving a voice and influence to conservative Republicans, who had, for some time, been feeling taken for granted by the party leaders.
I was just talking with a friend about this the other day and it dawned on me how many similarities there are between the Tea Party in the political realm and the Gospel-centered movement in Christianity. I won't go into great detail here to describe the Gospel-centered movement; suffice it to say that it is a sub-group within Evangelicalism that believes that many leaders, churches, denominations and other organizations that function under the rubric of Evangelicalism have let go of their commitment to the preaching, teaching and living of the Gospel and are instead embracing and advancing a worldly, person-centered philosophy and world-view.
So, on to the point of this post.
As I was talking to my friend about the Tea Party it occurred to me that a lot of the ways I was describing it could just have easily been used to talk about the Gospel-centered movement. Don't get me wrong: while I do consider myself to be both a Gospel-centered Christian as well as a Tea Party Republican, I am not inferring some fundamental connection between the two ("If you're a real Christian, you're also a Republican", or "If you're a Tea Partier, you must also be a Gospel-centered Christian").
For the sake of length I will attempt to be brief (too late), but here are some of the similarities that I perceive:
- Grass-roots origins
Neither of these movements came about as a result of high-level strategy meetings by key leaders in the parent group. Rather, they both sprang up organically of their own accord. It seems that the impetus (frustration, concern, discontent) behind these movements quietly built up over time as their members (I say 'members' even though there is usually no formal membership as there is no formal organization to belong to) became increasingly dissatisfied with the direction the parent organization was going but didn't know what to do about it.
There was/is no one leader or group that can be said to be spearheading these movements, no address or phone number to call to contact them and no formal structure or organization. Rather, there are many like-minded people and groups that are finding common cause through a set of shared core values. There are presumed leaders/spokesmen in both groups, but they speak representatively and not authoritatively.
- Raison d'être (Reasons for Existing)
As I alluded to above, the reason the Tea Party ad the Gospel-centered movement came about is because the conservative base in both organizations (Republican party and the Evangelical church) began increasingly to feel as though these groups were, for various reasons, filling up with people who really didn't share the values that the groups had originally formed around. As this happened and critical mass began to shift away from these values toward something more "moderate", understandably, the same kind of shift began to be seen in the leadership of these groups (one could easily make a chicken and egg type of argument and say that the shift in leadership happened first and the shift in membership followed, and vice versa, but that is not the focus of this post). Why exactly this happened is open for debate (I will postulate a theory later), but the fact that it happened is indisputable.
As more and more moderates joined these groups and took up leadership in them, increasingly they began to push and pull them away from the founding principles towards a more centrist set of actions and policies. Little by little the conservative members of these groups began wondering what was becoming of them? As Ronald Reagan famously said of his exodus from the Democratic party in 1962, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."
As this realization began to dawn on the conservative members of these groups they were left with the question: "O.k., What do I do about this?" As is often the case in these situations, the initial response of most of these people was not to abandon ship. Many of these folks began to seek ways to voice their concerns, restate their values, rally their supporters and take back the ground that had been surrendered in an attempt to pull their organizations back in the right direction. That is the role that the Tea Party is playing right now for the Republican Party and the Gospel-centered movement is playing in Evangelicalism.
- Other Similarities
There are many other similarities between the two groups:
- Both are attracting the best and brightest conservative leaders.
- Both groups are exerting a surprisingly strong influence on their respective cultures and arenas of activity.
- They are both holding large, well-attended rallies and conferences to which like-minded folks flock in great numbers to identify with the movements, hear from their leaders, be inspired by one another's passion and voice their solidarity.
- Both are making the moderate, in-name-only types very uncomfortable as the conservatives show by their passion and commitment how genuine and heartfelt their beliefs are, compared to those who are there by default or for convenience sake. Many of the moderates seem uncomfortable with the way these movements are revealing them to be moderate because part of the nature of these movements is to clearly define themselves by what they DO and DO NOT believe. The moderates have long enjoyed the luxury of hiding under the generic banner of their respective organizations, to be a member of which one need only subscribe (and often not even formally) to a very basic set of values. Many of these folks only held to some of the stated values of the group. The existence and work of these conservative movements has served to shine a light on those furtive members who heretofore had been able to slink around unnoticed, and that makes them very uncomfortable.
- As a result, there are already a good number of 'posers', 'hangers on', and 'ooh, ooh, me too'ers joining the ranks of these movements. There are a number of people who do not truly identify with the values of these groups, but are shrewd enough to sense the momentum shift that is happening and so have made the calculated decision to hook their wagons up to this horse.
-Those outside these groups publicly (have been forced to) acknowledge the significance and influence they possess. But privately they often scorn the members of these movements as simpletons, unrealistic, rigid, uncompromising stick-in-the-muds. They not only believe that these movements are wrong in what they assert, but they resent their ability to organize into a force that they must reckon with.
-Those who find themselves outside these movements, but inside their parent organizations, are maddened by the way the advent of these movements has weakened their brand (GOP, Evangelical) and their control over the power, resources and influence that those brands once possessed. More and more, people are coming to the conclusion that the label Republican or Evangelical hardly means anything. This is forcing members to further define themselves - something that those who are not in the conservative movement find undesirable as well as difficult. They use words mushy words like moderate, independent, progressive, and centrist. But when asked to define what they mean by those terms, they either are unable or unwilling to do so. They are frustrated that not only can they no longer take for granted those 'right-wingers' in their organization and expect them to follow their orders and do their bidding, but they are increasingly finding that they no longer have the ability to steer the ship and are finding themselves more frequently in the back seat, along for the ride."O.k." you're saying, "So What? What does this all mean?" Well, that is a HUGE subject that has largely yet to be decided. But I do think we can make a few observations.
- First, if you find yourself in one of these movements, this should be a very encouraging time, because the momentum is yours. The wind is in your sails right now. You are no longer only a fringe malcontent whose voice is not being valued or heard. What will become of your movement is yet to be seen, but you are no longer being taken for granted by the organization that you used to feel at home in but where, in recent years, you have felt ever more a stranger in your own home.
- Part of the point of this post is to note how similar the development of these two movements - from two very different arenas - is. What I think we can learn from this is that history has some cyclical tendencies to it. If you care to look, you will notice over and over in history, in almost every sphere there is a cyclical pattern that looks something like this: A) People are discontent with the way their group has strayed from its traditional roots and values; B) People get frustrated enough to start talking and debating and working against this shift; C) Those who find themselves in solidarity in their resistance to this drifting start to band together informally and then formally; D) Eventually there is either a cataclysmic break up over irreconcilable differences between the conservative resistance and the parent group, or the power and influence of the conservative group simply becomes so strong that it either retakes control of the parent organization (rare!) or peacefully steps away from it leaving it to die a slow death. This cycle of drift and recovery can be observed in nearly every sector of life from politics to business, religion to academia, and more.
- You may have already identified what phase each of the two groups we have been talking about are in this cycle: we are in phase C. The question before us is, what will phase D look like for these movements? Cataclysmic breakup (3rd political party / new conservative Gospel Coalition) or peaceful reclamation? Time will tell.
