Thomas, syndicated by Tribune, has long been a mouthpiece for conservative Christians. I was first exposed to him when he was a substitute for Pat Buchanan on the original Crossfire back in the mid-1980's on CNN. Thomas' column begins with a question rooted in the fallacious, simplistic logic favored by fundamentalists (among the most "rationalistic" faiths there are because of their insistence on syllogisms for proving their points):
If God was on the side of conservative Christians and conservative Christians are on the side of the Republican Party, shouldn't Republicans have done better in the recent election?
While not heartening, Thomas faces the implications of the question (although not, alas, the correctness of the question or its formulation):
[D]efeat offers conservative Christians a good opportunity to take stock. They should ask themselves whether their short list of moral issues and family values has any hope of being imposed on Washington . . . .
After noting the corrupting influence of politics on religion, citing the example of Don Sherwood of PA who received high marks from Focus on the Family even after it was known he had a mistress whom he had choked, Thomas asks a question that, considering the source, should cause any reader to at least pause for a moment:
Wouldn't it do more for the family to strengthen heterosexual marriage before telling others how to live their lives? Why have we seen so many politicians and some clery who talk about family values turn out to be the worst practitioners of them?(italics added)
Thomas then considers a question that has been posed often and loudly to the Christian Right for over 20 years. That it should suddenly become a matter of urgent consideration shows just how corrupted by proximity to power the Christian Right became:
Isn't [God's way] helping the poor. . . ? Isn't it feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison and caring for widows and orphans? Would such behavior, rather than partisan politics, recommend their faith more highly . . .?
This stunning - and, seemingly, stunned - discovery that the message of Jesus might entail more than holding up posters with pictures of aborted fetuses and demonizing same-sex couples, while late in coming, shows that, in fact, many conservative Christians might be awakening from their slumber
I had decided then that I would follow Thomas' evolving view of religion, politics, culture, and see where it led him. Today, courtesy of Faith in Public Life.org, comes this piece by Thomas, in which he considers the closing of D. James Kennedy's Center for Reclaiming America in Coral Gables, FL and the Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington, DC. While the reasons for the closing of these are unclear, part of it is related to Kennedy's declining health after a heart attack last year. For Thomas, however, there are deeper issues to ponder as an elder statesman and his institutions pass from the scene. They are not unimportant, nor are Thomas' ponderings of them, weighted as they are from his own perspective, unwise or misguided:
Brian Fisher, executive vice president of Coral Ridge Ministries, told the Miami Herald, "We believe that by streamlining the operations we will be able to return to our core focus." One hopes that will be preaching the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ, unencumbered by the allures of the political kingdoms of this world, because that is where the greatest power lies to transform lives and ultimately nations. It does not lie in the Republican Party, with which Kennedy's organization was almost exclusively associated.
Politics is about compromise. The message of the church is about Truth. One has to look no further than the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons -- who long ago gave up speaking of another kingdom and another King (if they ever did) in favor of faith in the Democratic Party -- to see how quickly the church and its primary message can be blurred when it enters into a shotgun marriage with politics. Jim Naugle, the mayor of Ft. Lauderdale, told the Herald that the last election persuaded candidates to package themselves "in the middle, rather than to the right."
Nearly 30 years after religious conservatives decided to re-enter the political arena -- after abandoning it as "dirty" and leading to compromise -- what do they have to show for it? The country remains sharply divided and the reconciling message they used to preach has been obscured by the crass pursuit of the golden ring of political power. In the end, they got neither the power, nor the Kingdom; only the glory and even that is now fading, as these older leaders pass from the scene.
This is not to say there is no role for conservative Christians in the civic life of their nation. There is. But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about -- abortion, same-sex marriage and cultural rot -- are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul. Some evangelicals wish to broaden the political agenda beyond these issues to poverty, social justice and the environment. Politics can never completely cure the ills of any of these, but the message Christians bring about salvation and redemption can. Besides, they can never "convert" people to their point of view.
Too many conservative Christians have focused on the "seen" rather than the "unseen," thinking appearances at the White House, or on "Meet the Press," is evidence that they are making a difference. And too much attention has been paid to individual personalities, rather than to the One these preachers had originally been called to exalt.(emphases added)
While I am not suggesting that conservative Christians are going away completely, nor do I think they should, I do think that this is indicative of a decline of the influence of the Christian Right, something of which I have been speaking and writing for some time. I think that Thomas' analysis, while skewed to the right, is also fundamentally correct; too infatuated with power, they sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, and received nothing in return. Now aging, fading, bereft of success, influence, or the possibility for a future role as the nation shifts its ideological and social perspective, the Christian Right has realized it must either change or die. It is changing, and the decline of hot-button cultural issues and the rise of broader social concerns - poverty, the environment, the genocide in Darfur are three areas I can pluck out of the top of my head - are indicative of a realization that there is a role for dedicated Christians, even conservative Christians in our social and political struggles. The broadening of the areas of concern, however, are leaving people like Kennedy, and Thomas, increasingly isolated.
As it has existed as a powerful force in the country for the past generation, I do believe the Christian Right is dying. As it will continue to exist as a changed force for social and civil justice in the future, however, there is much room for hope, and even for work between evangelical, conservative, and mainline Christian groups. That this changes the equations of power, especially the kinds of equations that have Jerry Falwell bragging about helping to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Pat Robertson actually running for President in 1988, is all to the good.
This is something, again, that requires more scrutiny, examination, and careful consideration.
