Well, I hope all of you conservative Christians, like me, are suitably chastened.  Mr. Kevin Phillips, who has been posing as a conservative and a Republican for nearly forty years, has finally unleashed the heavy weaponry against us.  He has called our bluff.  He has called us "theocrats," and, he argues that our theocratic tendencies are meshing with the debt industry and the oil industry to bring about the downfall of our civilization.  Well, at least we have set our goals high.  Phillips' argument, in the Washington Post, begins thusly:

"Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews."

Let's be clear, then.  We are approaching theocracy if the White House adopts agendas animated by a biblical worldview and if many Republicans are convinced that government should be guided by religion.  (The first two we can ignore.  Has Bush ever claimed to speak for God?  Or, what Republican has claimed that it is the Party of true believers?)  Here, Mr. Phillips shows his ignorance of religion and of the biblical worldview.  Any truly devout believer holds that religion to be relevant to all of life, including government and public policy.  If we adhered to a faith that had nothing to say about those matters, we would have private faith, and we would be required to compartmentalize our lives.  This is an insult to religion, not just conservative Christians.

Ultimately, Phillips' charge of theocracy is tired.  While it displays my "fuddy-duddy"ness, I am of the opinion that words matter.  Theocracy, by any reasonable defintion, involves church officials, usually ministers or priests, exercising direct political authority.  If it means what Phillips implies, a religiously animated public policy, than, by all means, we are a theocracy, just as the Dutch were, the Spaniards, and, heaven forbid, we have been for quite some time.  After all, religion has animated many of America's great social movements--abolitionism and civil rights included.

Phillips does trot out one additional argument against conservative Christians, but it is, alas, nothing new.  He argues that American foreign policy has shifted since 9/11 due, not to the war on terrorism, which he blithely ignores, but to the threat posed to "Big Oil," and also because it fits so nicely with our "end-times theology."  So, our pre-millennial views of the end of history are driving the White House, it seems, to seek to dominate the Middle East for those evil Oil barons and to initiate the eschaton.  We are, through our actions, then, hastening Christ's return by deposing Saddam, and by rooting out al qaeda operatives in Baghdad and elsewhere.  My, we are very clever.  (Not to mention that under this scenario, we might be the Anti-Christ?)

The cold reality is that facts can easily explain what is happening in America (Those facts, though, are not nearly as titillating as Mr. Phillips' conspiracy theories, and pesky facts would not help him sell his recent book, American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.)  America was attacked by ruthless terrorists in 2001.  Since then, our President, who had previously shown little interest in foreign affairs, has been obsessed by defeating world-wide terrorism.  Ultimately, he has chosen, when in doubt, to use force when there is a possibility that a government might aid terrorists by providing them with WMDs.  Unfortunately for Mr. Phillips, a preponderance of those governments are in the Middle East, and, yes, some of them have access to oil.  In reality, America would be crippled by a massive reduction in our oil supply.  The economic turmoil would be extreme, and while I do not think it motivates our actions, it is a reasonable consideration when examining the geo-political situation.

The notion that eschatology drives Bush is almost as silly as the notion that it drives American Christians.  My exposure to evangelicalism, of many stripes, suggests that most Christians don't even know what the word means, and only a handful can even articulate a coherent view of the subject.  Given Bush's often mangled philosophy and theology, I would say it is possible he doesn't even have a sophisticated view of the subject.

The most fascinating thing about Phillips' piece, I think, is his assumption of the power exercised by Christian conservatives.  While I suppose it is fair to say President Bush is a Christian, I have no real idea how conservative he really is--either religiously or politically.  Bush's administration has had a few prominent religious conservatives (Ashcroft chief among them, and Michael Gerstner), but it is, in no way, a stronghold.  Just rattle off a list of Bush's appointments--Christie Whitman, Alberto Gonzales, Porter Goss, FBI head Mueller, Norton, Norm Mineta, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, C.J. Roberts, Don Evans, Andy Card... This is not exactly an honor roll for Christian conservatives.  With almost all of those choices there would have been clear alternatives that would have shown our "power," but they did not happen.  Of course, we don't even need to mention Bush's decision to ignore abortion and gay rights (except for during the election as a sop), as well as a host of issues critical to Christians.

In spite of what Phillips thinks, Christianity in America, even within Evangelicalism, is incredibly diverse.  That label includes Jim Wallis AND James Dobson, Chuck Colson AND Ron Sider, Jerry Falwell AND Tony Compolo.  There is nothing like a completely coherent voting bloc of evangelical voters, certainly not like that of African Americans for the Democratic party.  Within evangelicalism, there is disagreement over the environment, economics, and foreign policy (does everyone forget that some of Calvin's faculty PROTESTED Bush's appearance at graduation?), not to mention the old debates on theology.

Phillips soldiers on, though, to claim that the rise of the religious right will push America over the civilizational brink.  He forgets no cliche when, throughout his article, he connects us (sometimes indireclty, to be fair) to the Puritans, the Inquisition, the South before the Civil War, and Mormon Utah.  I suppose he forgot South African Apartheid, and I think he was a bit lazy not to connect us to the Crusades, the Meunster Revolt, or, perhaps, the Fulan Gong.  But, when your world is not constrained by facts, or by reason, there is no end to the suppositions you can make.  In the end, Mr. Phillips, even when he does not enlighten, at least manages to entertain, and I suppose that is something.