Last week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced the "Pride Coalition." The coalition is a partnership with the "Log Cabin Republicans," an organization that describes itself as "LGBT conservatives and straight allies who support fairness, freedom, and equality for all."

Although many find the move disheartening, it will only shock those who haven't been paying attention. Al Mohler once described the relationship between Republicans and evangelicals as a "marriage of convenience," with marriage, in this case, being a particularly painful and ironic metaphor.

To be clear, the convenience in this marriage goes both ways. For many within the RNC, evangelicals are just one of several voting blocs, albeit an important one. For many evangelicals, the Grand Old Party (GOP) is simply a better fit than the alternative, given their stance on social issues like abortion, gender, and religious freedom.

Then there are those from both sides taken in by what quirky French theologian Jacques Ellul called "the political illusion." When all problems and all solutions are reduced to politics, all hope rests in gaining political power.

The challenge for Christians is always to keep straight what are the means and what are the ends. A decision to partner with an LGBTQ group only makes sense if the "end" is to regain political power. The same decision makes no sense if power is understood as the means, and something else, like limited government, is the end.

The problem with this coalition isn't that some in the LGBTQ camp support a political party of limited government. That's been true for a long time. In contemporary politics' pragmatic exercise, it never hurts to have unexpected allies vote for your candidate. However, welcoming voters to a political party is different than creating an alliance with a group that wishes to advance its goals within a political platform. This particular coalition signals a change in the GOP's platform and party positions, as well as broader changes in what it means to be "conservative."

A core element of the GOP platform has long been "family values." That's sardonic shorthand for an inconsistently expressed and lived-out set of political beliefs built around a traditional moral framework, especially the idea of the nuclear family being core and significant. The belief that marriage is between one man and one woman who get married and stay married is not a mere social construct but is actually essential for a healthy society and the wellbeing of the next generation. Therefore, it is the government's role to protect the family, not redefine it. The more the government protects the family, the more non-governmental entities can secure our future.

Any moral consensus around the nuclear family is only possible if it rests on grounds other than government. That requires grounding for truth outside the government. Today, however, our culture is what Os Guinness calls a "cut flower society." We still have the trappings of so-called "family values," seen in Hallmark movies, Veterans Day parades, and Little Leagues, but there is no real moral foundation for the family. The quest for freedom is devolving into the pursuit of radical autonomy, especially in sexual matters. And now we're back to the RNC's decision.

The GOP is mistaken to think that it is possible to be fiscally or politically conservative for long without being, on some level, culturally conservative first. You can't have limited government by embracing a redefinition of marriage and family, because the family is the only institution able to produce the kind of citizens able to govern themselves.

Whenever family fails, it compels the state to step in. The Founders, for all their flaws, understood that. John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."

Chuck Colson was fond of saying: "The Kingdom of God will never arrive on Air Force One." Meaning, in many ways, that Christians cannot be politically expedient. We vote how we must, and do what we can, to love our neighbors in political ways, but we must not put our hope in candidates or parties as if they're the ends and our support is the means. In a Christian view, political ends simply aren't ultimate ends.

Christians must maintain a clear-headed vision of the importance of social issues in the public arena. That means determining what is true theologically, first, and then letting political chips fall where they may. As my friend, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly put it, "We must, lovingly and winsomely, never stop contending for the things that matter to God." Family and marriage matter to God.

Jane Austen en son temps : Passion Jane Austen, la Régence anglaise sous les projecteurs

Le Cours de l'histoire

Obstacles historiques dans la romance Régence

The AI-powered Podcast Player