Compromise or Contextualization
It’s been a month since Election Day. One of the things that struck me that day (and there were a few) was John McCain’s concession speech. It was gracious, well-written and probably the best speech he gave in two years of campaigning. It was also a far cry from his tone of the previous months, in which he questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism, his socialist policies, and his terrorist pals.
Throughout the primary and election campaigns, and this applies to Hillary Clinton as well, it was as if, for the two years of campaigning, a switch had been flipped that turned all presidential candidates into rivals, using whatever means necessary, throwing any accusation that might stick, to win the nomination. Then, after the primary and the election campaigns were over, the switch was flipped back, and peace was restored. And I suppose it has to be restored to some degree in order for people to work together.
But it seems a little disingenuous to me. Or at least a little strange. I’m inclined to think that the Senator McCain of the concession speech was the ‘real McCain.’ But I’d much rather not have to try to figure out who the ‘real’ politician is. I’d like to think that there’s a different way of doing politics, one that doesn’t involve doing what’s expected by tradition or the spectacle-seeking media.
It leads me to wonder how Christians in politics ought to operate, notwithstanding the preliminary question of whether or not Christians should be in politics in the first place. How far does Paul’s becoming “all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9) stretch in politics? How far, if at all, do we ‘play the game’ in order to get things done, in order to enact policies that help the poor or expand education? Where is the line between contextualization (which is what I’d describe Paul’s strategy as) and compromise, which would be selling out?
Speaking more generally, even in the church, there are those who seek to engage with culture by their way of doing church or by bringing Christ into the ‘secular’ work that they do, and it is not hard to find those who would accuse them of compromise, of not maintaining their Christian ideals. There are those who fear the slippery slope, whatever the issue or practice may be, that we are falling further and further away from the way things are supposed to be (which often bears a striking resemblance to the way things used to be).
So I suppose it’s a question that’s ongoing at all levels of Christian faith and practice. Anyone got any answers? Coz that would be great.
Tags: all things to all people, christians in politics, church and culture, compromise, contextualization, John McCain, Paul
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
December 10, 2008 at 5:25 pm
i think Christians who want to be in politics have to be smarter (or, i might prefer to say, be receiving A LOT of wisdom from God), than their colleagues, because trying to accomplish anything in the legislative/political realm without playing by the rules requires an extreme amount of creativity. i also think it involves a commitment to integrity and a trust that God will make your efforts successful in light of that.
As far as the line between contextualization and compromise, i’d say as long as your commitment is to honoring God more than keeping the job so you can “do kingdom work,” you’ll be ok. of course, there are quite a lot of people who refuse the tactics of this world and are, therefore, no longer allowed to play in the game. i guess as long as we remember that the Kingdom of God, and our witness to it, is bigger than the political playing field, we’ll be ok, no matter how long we stay in the game.