Christians do need to listen to some of the criticism advance by Jay Bakker and Marc Brown. For instance, insisting on a party affiliation from the pulpit is not only obnoxious, it suggests a foolish understanding of the ideologies motivating either party. In addition, it is true that some Christians have not heeded the admonition in 1 Peter 3:15 to give an answer with gentleness and respect. The level of public discourse amongst Christians is often appalling. However, the trouble with advancing this criticism in public is that it creates the impression of a two-sided issue: our faith community vs. the rest of evangelicalism. There are numerous individuals within the Conservative Christian and Moral Majority communities that do not live up to the stereotype advanced by Bakker and Brown. The rest of evangelicalism is not monolithic. When it is treated in this way, it suggests to me that the critics have not spent a lot of time outside their faith community although they often protest to the contrary.

But aside from this, much of Bakker and Brown's critique issues from a vague and mistaken understanding of Christian teaching and history. They complain about Christians who do not practice the unconditional love that Christ taught; however, they don't stop for a moment to reflect on how modern thought has changed the meaning of 'love' in general and 'unconditional love' in particular. What is often meant by unconditional love—"come as you are, not as you should be"—fails to capture the full teaching of Christ. Christ did not teach "come as you are and stay that way"; He said "Go [you are free], and sin no more"; "if you love Me, keep my commandments"; and to some, He will say "depart from Me, I never knew you". His earthly ministry began with the statement "Repent!"

It is a blessing that His primary teaching is grace, unmerited favor from God, apart from our good works. However, to suggest that there is grace without the need for repentance is to rob grace of its graciousness. It creates what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace".

Bakker and Brown's criticism also impoverishes the history of Christian political thought. They breezily wonder whether the hateful rhetoric from some Christians began under Reagan or Constantine. Of course, the suggestion here is that Christian political involvement incites hate. Christ did not teach hatred, but the origin cannot be traced to Christians intruding into politics. Christ Himself was executed as a political dissident. In a short period of time, His followers were persecuted for political reasons. They would not profess that Caesar was Lord, implicitly—and later in Irenaeus explicitly—holding Caesar accountable to Christ as Lord. The Roman Empire did not persecute the early Church because they misunderstood the Christian message; the Empire understood it all too well. If Christ is Lord, then Caesar is not a god and, therefore, not the final arbiter of the law. From the Roman perspective, Christians had declared war on Rome. The irony, of course, is that they were declaring war through peaceful means.

If we recontextualize what the Patristic Fathers were saying about politics in the second century—well before Constantine was even born—I think most non-Christians would find what they said as offensive as what is said by the Moral Majority. For instance, Justin wrote his Apology "to the Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar"; hardly a private religious communication. In his letter to Diognetus, he argued that Christians are the soul of society. So, let's recontextualize this: imagine James Dobson telling President Bush and Senator Harry Reid that evangelicals are the soul of America.

Another example: in Book 5 of Against Heresies, Iranaeus of Lyons (fl. ca. 180) quotes Proverbs 21:1; 8:15 and Romans 13:1-6. He then goes on to say "magistrates have laws as a clothing of righteousness and shall not be called in question for their conduct whenever they act in a just and legitimate manner. But whatsoever they do to the subversion of justice, iniquitously, and illegally, and tyrannically, in these things shall they also perish, for the judgment of God comes equally upon all, and in no case is defective. Earthly rule, therefore, has been appointed by God for the benefit of the nations...so that under the fear of it men may not eat each other up like fishes; but that, by means of the establishment of laws, they may keep down the great wickedness of the nations. And in this way they are 'God's ministers'." Imagine any evangelical leader giving that speech before a congressional hearing today.

Christianity has been part political movement from its inauguration. It is a unique political movement in that it proceeds—when it is faithful to Christ—by peaceful means, but however peaceful these means may be, they are always going to be offensive to some. Christians must avoid hateful speech, but they cannot avoid being offensive.