I almost miss Lent…

As I mentioned before, part of my Lenten fast included abstaining from visiting political blog sites and listening to “talk radio”; both tend to be counter-productive to the heightened effort  of spiritual discipline leading up to Pascha.  I wasn’t oblivious to events in the wider world by any means, but it did, as always, provide the annual opportunity to reconsider the problem of how deeply we get enmeshed in the world with it’s various agendas, of how to live in the world without surrendering to it’s competing faith claims and ideological idolatries.

Which, when you get right down to it, is a challenge that doesn’t end with the end of Lent.  It is the ongoing challenge of the first Commandment- to keep first things first, have no other idols before Him, taking up one’s cross and following Him.

So, what greets me when I return to the mainstream news?  Among other things, Arlen Specter comes clean, makes an honest man of himself, and becomes a Democrat.  Eh. Fine.  Great.  Bravo.  No big deal.

But all the shameless, apparently unselfconscious, hypocritical pontificating from the Left and misguided “Moderates” in the Republican Party about what Republicans need to do is truly hurl-worthy.  Lord have mercy.

Please, help me understand… the key to the Democrats’ success was in their moderation? They’re recommending moderation because it worked so well for them?  Really?  Now THAT would be news… !

I believe one of the reasons the Republican Party establishment became fat and complacent was that the Democrats appeared to have effectively consigned themselves to permanent unelectability on the extreme left fringe of American politics- and no one in their Party establishment had any interest in moderation.  Quite the contrary, every election defeat was interpreted as evidence that they had been too moderate, and not ideologically pure enough.  Each time the country rejected a liberal candidate meant that what Democrats needed was someone even MORE liberal… obviously, right?   Right.

The Democrats’ conundrum became- any candidate radical enough to win the Party’s nomination was too extreme to win the general election, and any candidate moderate enough to win the general election would be unable to win the Party nomination.  As the Democrats’ party activists demanded more (not less) radical candidates each election cycle, the increasingly strenuous challenge became seeing whether the hapless candidate could run back to the center fast enough and credibly enough.

Obama was no exception, and despite the powerful factors in his favor, he still almost lost it.  In any event, the question remains- since when is taking strategy advice from your opponent, advice they themselves never follow, when has this ever beed a really good idea?

And come to think of it, isn’t “moderation” exactly the strategy that the Republican Party followed by nominating McCain?  The “wisdom” they showed in rejecting those right-wing extremist ideologues!  Oh, all the moderate independent  voters were just going to flock to that irresistibly moderate Maverick, weren’t they?  How’d that work out for you guys?

Lord, have mercy!

__________________________

I attended a men’s retreat during Lent, which featured as a guest speaker one of the former Campus Crusade evangelists who led their congregations into the Orthodox Church in 1987.  If there were a contest to nominate a “Billy Graham of the Orthodox Church”, I think this man would be on the short list of finalists.  [Aside: Is such a thing as a "Billy Graham of the Orthodox Church" even possible?  Interesting question].  So, as far as witnessing for the Faith, winning souls for Christ, and being a faithful priest before the altar of God, who am I to say anything?  Nobody.  I don’t personally care for his style, but as my wife says, “that’s why they make chocolate and vanilla!”

But I was bothered by what seemed to be a fatalistic attitude towards politics, combined with mocking those who took politics and the outcome of political contests more seriously than he thought necessary.  Who elected Obama as President?  God did!  Obviously, if God hadn’t wanted Obama to be President, Obama would not have won.  Now, he admitted that he had voted for McCain, and that he believes the country is in for hard times as a result of Obama’s election victory, but that must obviously be God’s will for us at this time, so who are we to complain? I would like to have asked him why he bothered voting at all if he honestly believes God decides the outcome.

I think that there are two separate but complimentary influences on his thinking, one Protestant and one Orthodox in origin.  The Protestant line of thinking combines elements of Pietism and Calvinism.  Pietism, as I understand it, is the belief that my only responsibility is to look after, guard and strengthen my personal relationship with God.  Calvinism reinforces this with the belief that God has already determined who the winners and losers are, so if you find yourself among the winners, then it’s hallelujah, thank you Lord, and too bad about the rest.  Therefore, whether one’s country and culture flourishes under the rule of God-fearing men, or decays under the rule of corrupt and venal men, it doesn’t really matter- just see to your own salvation and leave the rest to God.

The Orthodox contribution to this political fatalism springs from the geopolitical accident of the Orthodox Church’s historical experience.  Basically Orthodoxy has only ever existed under either supportive authoritarian societies (Byzantium, Tsarist Russia) or hostile authoritarian societies (Ottoman Empire, post-Ottoman Islamic societies, Communist Russia).  In either case, authoritarian and decidedly non-democratic societies.  There was no point to having a dissenting political opinion under such conditions- or, if you had one, you damn well kept it to yourself unless you were keen on becoming a martyr.

So, throughout the history of the Orhtodox Church, there has only ever been one political philosophy, whether under caliph, Tsar, or commisar- “You are the ordained of God!”.  Your place was to accept whatever suffering got dished out, and be satisfied that this was pleasing to God.

Obviously, this fatalism is foreign and inimical to a free society of free people, but the Church has not yet, to my knowledge, worked out an updated, coherent political philosophy appropriate to life in democratic societies.  I don’t know what it would look like, but I know that fatalism ain’t it.