I think the difference between J4P and Becky’s point is not that she’s trying to pardon Bush’s hypocrisy but rather that there’s a continuum when it comes to following Jesus. Few of us are getting it totally right in every area of our lives, in terms of understanding what Jesus wants. But then even when we know what Jesus wants, we do an imperfect job figuring out how to put it into practice and actually doing it.

I think what Becky’s saying is, or at least what I would ask, is this:
J4P seems to assume a clear dichotomy: there’s Jesus’s-politics and not-Jesus’s-politics. Period. Take it all or take nothing.

The way I see it, there are Jesus’s-politics, not-Jesus’s-politics, and a plethora of options in the middle. The question is, is it worth compromising to take something in the middle?

The way I see it, yes. But intention comes into play. I think it would be wrong to compromise if my ultimate goal were compromise. In other words, a compromise of ideals, not just a temporary agreement to wait at an intermediate step in the pursuit of those ideals. I see Jesus’s politics as an asymptote, an ideal we can never fully reach anyway. The goal is to approach it. If we’re currently 100 yards away and we could be just 75, that sounds like great progress to me. As long as we’re still moving in the same direction with passion and integrity, I think we’re building the kingdom. (Though I also have respect for those that may feel the system has gotten to a point that they have to opt out entirely–it’s a legitimate consideration and respectable choice.)

I think it’s easy to say, “Ugh, well these two candidates are neither one completely on target,” but then we’d never get anything done politically. Of course much CAN and SHOULD be done outside of politics, as well. But I don’t think there’s a reason why politics shouldn’t be moving in a positive direction. And much of the time, injustices can only be fixed through the system because the system itself is causing the problem–or so I came to believe as an Af-Am minor–and I think that should give us pause before we do make the decision to abandon the political sphere.

I think that if we say Christians can’t be in politics, Christians can’t be in business either. And from there, we can probably find something wrong with just about every field. Nobody is perfect, no job is perfect. But there’s some legitimately good work that I think can happen within the system. We obviously should not compromise our ideals, but we may have to, temporarily compromise for the sake of pragmatism. A compromise may be part of what brings reality closer to the ideal itself.

And I say all that not with bitterness toward Chris and Shane but with great admiration for them.

Calling them judgers, or implying that they are conceited or biggoted towards those in governmental office does nothing to critique their actual point. We need to make a choice or assessment about their argument, and not bring the conversation down to a level of blame or personal attack.

What Haw and Claiborne are doing to people like George Bush, or other self-proclaimed (they are self-proclaimed aren’t they?) Christian leaders, is nothing more than showing the inherent contradiction in what they “proclaim” and what they do. Claiborne and Haw are not condemning every person in government offices to Hell. What they are condemning is the mindset that Christians can use the State to violently “rid the world of evil”. The problem with wanting to rid the world of “evil” is not that its prideful, its that it entails killing your enemies. And all that Claiborne and Haw are saying is that killing your enemies is pretty different from loving them.

And the state really can’t abide by this mandate. No one is going to get elected on the platform, “let’s hunt down Osama Bin-Laden, and publically pardon his crimes!” And yet this (or something like it) is the attitude I think Jesus dictates in the sermon on the mount. He would not make a good president of a country. But he did create a subversive kingdom that I don’t think – regardless of Winks – has anything to do with the powers of this world. In fact, “power” for Jesus is a pretty strange word.

I think these guys point out that which is a difficult truth for all of us: when we proclaim Christ, we eventually have to begin to look like him, act like he does, take his teachings seriously. When I proclaim Christ, but do things (like retaliate against my enemy in an escalation of violence) that contradicts that claim, my Christian brothers and sisters should be able to point out that contradiction.

So maybe Claiborne and Haw could be a bit more careful about their rhetoric. But they’re not the only ones. And I don’t see what they’re doing as judging. I think they’re trying to be responsible to our shared faith.