As the elections draw closer I think a lot of Christians are occupied as I am with trying to sift the chaff out of the wheat, trying to take the political leanings, outside opinions and personal biases from whatever discernment and moral judgment their Maker has graced them with. This is an exercise that goes largely unnoticed by non-religious or a-religious types, who assume that if you’re a church-going Christian, you surely just open up the Bible at random, select a passage and interpret it however you want.

If only life were as simple for us as their stereotypes imply. Anyway, here’s a very good compare-and-contrast job about conservatism and Christian conservatism — they don’t always overlap, and when the Christian element is hard to find, what’s a voter to do? The article is by David Larison, HERE.

Some of the “money quotes”:

• Responding to the idea that Christian conservatives (CCs, to save me keystrokes) must be reactionary by definition:
  

  Religious conservatives will always, always, always give the inherited practice the benefit of the doubt, and more than a benefit of the doubt, but they do not endorse things simply because they developed over time and people seem to like them. Carthaginians thought the odd human sacrifice was efficacious, and had a longstanding custom to this effect. That alone does not vindicate a practice.

• On the times that CCs aren’t social conformists, and why:
  

  People in this country seem to prefer not to get married, as one of the stories in today’s Times tells us. If left unchecked or unchallenged, this habit could become a well-established one and would then become a new norm for Brooks’ supposed “social traditionalists.” To be a “traditionalist” in this way is simply to ride along with the river god during the flood, occasionally pointing out the flood damage along the way as if you were a tourist, “Oh, look, there’s the dissolution of marriage! Next stop, infanticide!”

  On the other hand, God has decreed certain things meritorious and desirable that human sentiments, left to their own fallen devices, would not embrace.

• And here he gets to the meat of what I would hope Christian conservatism would always be about, a combination of two of the strongest aids in making sane judgments in an insane world (boldfaced by me):
  

  Experience, in its proper place and understood correctly, is invaluable and central to any conservative’s view of moral questions. Brooks here plays on a powerful, legitimate strain in the conservative tradition that tells us to look to prescription and the argument from circumstance. This is the tradition of Kirk and Bradford. … But they both affirmed the existence of a transcendent moral order. Indeed, Kirk, following Voegelin, recognised the commitment to a transcendent order as one of the essential features of the conservative mind. It was what separated conservatives from every kind of materialist.

Altogether, this author hearkens back to a classic conservatism that I wish was more in force right now. (In much the same way, I can imagine that if my sympathies ran more liberal, I would long for a classic liberalism that wasn’t afraid to embrace a Christian worldview in its pursuit of societal good.) If people that are conservative-averse feel that they haven’t seen a strain that looked this principled any time recently, I might have to agree. I suppose that’s when the decisions get difficult. Is there the slightest chance that the GOP would react intelligently to getting tossed out on their rears by offended conservatives? More to the point, is there any chance at all thaat a GOP defeat wouldn’t be perceived by a breathless MSM as a resounding victory for exactly the kind of detestable liberalism that is so fashionable right now?

The former seems unlikely, but the latter seems inevitable. Hard being a CC sometimes.