God. Real. Right.

Cal Thomas’ recent column, “Religious Right R.I.P.“, expresses a sentiment shared by many Christians following the election of Barak Obama. That’s unfortunate, because although there is a straightforwardly good point made in the column, it sidesteps and then misdirects the very issue I think most readers take from it. Indeed, the article replicates and thereby reveals what so many people have misunderstood about the movement generically identified as the religious right. Thomas speaks as if the purpose of the religious right is to bring about soul transformation through the power of government. There may be people in the movement who have held that view, but they have been misguided all along, have been in the vast minority, and do not at all represent the genuinely valuable purpose of the religious right.
But rather than establish and debate that purpose afresh here, suffice it to point out that Thomas’ claims are either devoid of significance or wrong.
Here’s how they could be devoid of significance, and why his point might be good: As Thomas argues, Christians ought to aim for an impact far greater than government can have. Believers have no reason to think that legislation and executive orders can change what only Jesus has the power to change–hearts and eternity. Duh. Who doesn’t know that much and hasn’t known it throughout the past thirty years of recognized religious-right activity. And that’s the point of Thomas’ article which is appealing to so many people. It is worth saying. It is worth remembering. But it addresses nothing of what makes the movement what it is.
Here’s how his claims could be wrong: Thomas’ point says absolutely nothing about whether and how Christians ought to be involved in politics. What are we going to do “now” (as if anything has changed because of one more election against the values that have unified “the cause”) any differently? Does the fact that we believe only Jesus can change hearts mean we will not bother to vote? Or, if we will still vote, does it mean we will not vote our values? Or if we will still vote values, that we will no longer publicly acknowledge that our values have led us to our vote? Or if we will say it publicly, will we cease to explain why Christian values actually are better values to hold? And if we are not going to exclude Christians and their values from the polling place or public discourse, then exactly how sedately or tolerantly do those values need to be expressed to fit with Thomas’ revelation of the religious right’s relegation to the grave?
The reality is that every issue important before the election is important still. Those issues are important at personal, familial, communitarian, societal, and political levels. Christianity informs a believer’s perspective on every one of those levels.
To choose the most significant moral issue of the past thirty-five years as an example, I hope there will be no unwanted pregnancies and that the ones there are will not end in the murder of an innocent child. I hope families will teach, love, and react in ways compatible with that goal. I hope communities will support and provide in that direction. I hope society will disavow the tolerance of those deaths. And I pray that it will be illegal to kill other human beings. Oh, and coincidentally, I can do something about all of those things, including the law. Then shouldn’t I?