and you . . . ‘ ” So Our Lord and the welfarernstate are on the same side. Funny, Irndon’t recall Him telling the Roman authoritiesrnto extend the grain dole tornJudea, or Zacheus to go and eoUeet morerntaxes to make it possible.rnToday, the soeial democracy gospelrnis not only the mainstream opinionrnamong the ecclesiastical elites. It is thernprevailing orthodoxy of virtually everyrnorganized religious body in the UnitedrnStates. This represents a repudiationrnof history. For example, the Catholicrntradition is steeped in the defense of privaternproperty, localism, and, with thernneo-Scholastics, antisocialist economicrnthought. But today, American bishopsrnhold press conferences to denounce anyrncuts in welfare. God, they assure us, opposesrnthe balanced budget, and the pressrnpacks the room to take down every word.rnThe bishops—unaware or indifferentrnto their use by a secular elite that despisesrnChristianity—love the attention.rnThey also like the fact that political campaigningrngives them an excuse not to dornwhat they are supposed to do.rnWhile the bishops are politicking, virtuallyrnevery parish in the country is sinkingrndeeper into the mire of modernism,rnwith liberal liturgies, rampaging feminism,rnawful music, and doctrinal confusionrnand ignorance. Even blasphemy isrnno longer rare. Yet the far-flung politicalrnactivities of the leaders only seem torngrow, and the problem is not limited tornthe left. The right is in danger from thernsame model of political activism, as itrnneglects the faith itself. In some religiousrninstitutions, the leaders understandrnthe priority that the City of Godrnmust take over the City of Man. In others,rnhowever—and I am thinking now ofrnthe Christian Coalition, the establishedrnpro-life organizations, and the U.S. BishopsrnConference—they do not. For thesernleaders, the faith has become a means tornan essentially secular project, involvingrnheavy doses of political and doctrinalrncompromise.rnBefore the Christian right decides tornreplace the Apostles Creed with thernContract with the American Family, itrnshould consider the associated dangers.rnOnce the social gospel became a tenet ofrnmainline Christianity, the entire body ofrndoctrine began to fall apart, and the consequencesrnwere destructive for bothrnProtestants and Catholics. Christiansrncame to believe that their first job wasrnpublic policy. They looked toward thernstate and incorporated specific politicalrndoctrines into their body of belief.rnConsider the entanglement of Christiansrnin civil rights. The primary concernrnof the founders and funders of the civilrnrights movement was not faith or justice,rnbut envy and egalitarianism. Yet theyrnknew that their best hope was to cloakrnhatred and raw state power in religion,rnand hope that Christians could not tellrnthe difference.rnFor too many it worked, and StanleyrnLevison is the reason. As David Garrowrnreports, Levison was Martin LutherrnKing’s control. He wrote King’s booksrnand speeches and managed his finances,rneven paying his personal bills (whichrnKing could not be trusted to do). YetrnLevison was also a communist, a probablernagent of the KGB, and a rich benefactorrnof communist causes. He was alsornextremely smart.rnReligious imagery was the mainstay ofrnLevison’s vocabulary, and he was a masterrnof quoting Scripture to make politicalrnpoints. As a result, many noncommunistrnfollowers of King did not know what wasrnbehind this apparent man of God.rnThe social gospel movement, culminatingrnin the civil rights movement,rnsucceeded, of course, causing Christiansrnto incorporate Levisonianism as a keyrnmoral teaching. The Catholic bishops—rnwho otherwise have almost junkedrnthe sacrament of penance—now tellrnCatholics to confess the sin of racism,rnwhatever that may be. The Evangelicalrngroup Promise Keepers lists love of allrnraces among its six rules for living.rnMeanwhile, leaders of the Christianrnright will talk on television and radio forrnhours about the destructive effect of welfare,rnabortion, etc. But they do not seemrnto understand the corruptions associatedrnwith the City of Man, nor the danger ofrnneglecting the core concerns of the faith.rnThe entry of orthodox Christians intornthe public square may, for the most part,rnhave been good for the country; but itrnmay not have been good for Christianity.rnA fine example of the problem is a recentrnissue of the American FMerprise magazine.rnIt features short profiles and interviewsrnwith some 60 different religiousrnconservatives. There are good peoplernhere, and perhaps the trouble with therninterviews can be blamed on the editorsrnor the forum. Every person had provocativernstatements to make about publicrnpolicy or the charitable missions he is undertakingrnto make up for the failures ofrnthe welfare state. But what is strangelyrnunderplayed, or lacking entirely, is thernfaith. There’s virtually no talk of salvation,rngrace, sacraments, or sin. Moreover,rnthere’s no discussion about therndisastrous state of the church today,rntheologically, liturgically, and musically.rnApparently, things like the salvation ofrnindividual souls are concerns for Neanderthals.rnModerns, to be in vogue withrnthe media elite, are supposed to be morernpublic-spirited than that. They are firstrnto take positions on the welfare state,rnvouchers, abortion rights, the deathrnpenalty, the balanced budget, the familyrncap, etc.rnBut this is a trap. Religious leaders canrnand should speak on matters of politics,rnbut filling the public square with collaredrnpolicy wonks is not the reason thernchurch was established. The clergy’s preeminentrnjob is to tend to the privaternspace of the church, where the sacramentsrnare administered and the soulrncared for. And it is this space that is beingrnneglected, with disastrous results.rnWhat led to Christian conservativesrngetting stuck in this trap? Many havernLincoln envy and King envy. Those politicalrnfigures used religion to advance arnsocial cause, and became national iconsrnin the process. Why can’t the religiousrnright achieve the same status with otherrnsocial issues? Thus Ralph Reed comparesrnhimself to abolitionists or civilrnrights protesters and thinks he is confoundingrnhis critics. In fact, he is onlyrnstrengthening the social gospel andrnthereby corrupting the faith.rnPolitical work is necessary, but itrncan never replace the intellectual andrnspiritual efforts that sustain a robustrnfaith, a virtuous clergy, a beautiful liturgy,rngreat music, or any of the other markingsrnof the Christian faith of old. And Irndo not care how many ten-point plansrnthe Christian Coalition passes at itsrnboard meetings. They can never substituternfor an orthodox view of the Trinity.rnYet Christianity is now thoroughlyrnpoliticized. The bishops and Mr. Reedrnhave no trouble speaking about the importancernof pro-family legislation, orrnthe glories of religious pluralism, butrnthey are shy about such basics as thernChristian teaching on salvation.rnThe longer the process of politicizationrncontinues, the thinner the faith gets.rnPolitical ambition causes people to waterrndown their beliefs for the sake of gainingrnfavor. The hazard is especially prevalentrnin a society with competing religions.rnThe first stage of the sellout comes withrnthe exaltation of political pluralismrn38/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn