The Tea Party, and the Danger of Excess in Response to Excess

Finally after a long absence from writing, I have the time again. I have been working on this post for a few months, and I finally decided to stop editing and post it. Besides being very busy over the last 18 months or so, I tend to alternate between only writing what is worth writing, and writing whatever is in my head. Usually when I only write what needs to be written, I don't write anything, so that explains the long absence. I think I am alternating the other way now, so who knows what stupid things I might post in the future. As always, if you disagree, think I am a total idiot, or have something constructive to add, please respond. Thanks.


As I am sure that you have noticed lately, the Tea Party is becoming a key political force in our nation's politics, promoting the so called "Country Class" above the "Ruling Class". Things like this are fairly typical, and you can even see similar examples in ancient Roman history, such as in the writings of Cicero. They are more or less a reactionary movement against the country's excesses, and strive for simpler and more traditional standards. The reaction seems to be a pragmatic one, for there is little in actual philosophical reason that has persuaded so many that our country is going in the wrong direction. This seems to be a key point in why they as a whole were not nearly so active in the past couple of decades. From the beginning, though I have supported them and appreciate how they are limiting our nation's political excesses, I had some reservations because of the human nature of excess in response to excess. At first, the Tea Parties seemed like a breath of fresh air and I still revel in the changing tide of the political scene. That being said, there is a tone in my local Tea Party, which is somewhat disconcerting. While the tone comes primarily from a big Tea Party organizer in my corner of the state, I have also seen it echoed in those who attend and many other locals. I suppose that it can best be described as nationalistic Palegianism with a modern version of manifest destiny. They say things like, "God has a wonderful plan for America to be the best nation in the world, but he needs our help." It is as if they live by Benjamin Franklin's quote that, "God helps those who help themselves," but at the same time, they believe that God has a plan. It is as if He is some incompetent force who wants good, but is incapable of it Himself. A few weeks ago, one of the meetings was about the US being a Christian nation, and I would have liked to attend, but they had it on Sunday afternoon. However, I kind of got the general gist from the newsletters. It is as if many today have taken the Fundamentalist view of Israel and extended it to the US. While it is true that there are some similarities between our nation and Israel, our country is not necessarily God's chosen country for bringing Christianity to the World. What was special about these United States was the Christian foundation they were based on and those Christian principles which used to be the standard for most areas of society; but whether or not our nation survives or keeps those principles, the principles themselves will still survive. Moreover, so many of these things that my local tea party looks on as being the problem with my country are actually only the symptoms. One such example is abortion. So many people are not against abortion because they don't want to see the embryo as a human life. They do not know, understand, or believe that humans are created in the image of God. Moreover, they would not respect that image anyway. That is the actual problem. The resulting apathy and embrace of abortion, is merely the result. What good does it do to be for truth and justice, if you don't know why and don't care what it is? Strangely enough, most people don't seem interested in discussing it. They kind of just get a glazed look and then change the subject back to the horror of these bad symptoms. Now I realize that this is just one man's observations of his own local Tea Party, and that it might not be the norm in yours or even throughout the country, and I hope it is not. However, it is something to think about and beware of. Furthermore, these problems do not lie only in the political arena, but have their roots in religion, and primarily in the church. We know that God has everything under His control and that the response for the Christian is to proclaim the truth to the world. However, the American church has been lax and has rested too much on its own merits. Now that things are on a downward spiral, people are panicking and thinking that they need to fix things in a sort of "God helps those who help themselves" type of way. It is as if they think that, "We let God down and now, to earn His grace, we need to redeem ourselves." Though they have suddenly changed their actions, the philosophies that led them to their error in the first place are still wrong. The local tea Party meetings have made it quite clear, that politics is tied to religion, but sadly they don't seem to understand their own religion.
The solution to these symptoms is nothing that we can do. While we are to preach the Gospel in both word and deed, not even it will fix the problem, unless the Spirit sees fit to soften the heart and open the eyes of those who hear it. We must remember that if the world is made better by our actions, it is because God decided to use it, and not because we did it. Our actions are to be a response to God. It is what we owe, and what the regenerate heart will want to do. It is not, however, natural for the sinful man. This brings us back to being reactionary, which is natural. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Che were all merely reacting to their experiences. None of them can be considered average people, but they all did the normal thing. While it can not be denied that some of our founding fathers were also reactionaries, such as Samuel Adams, in the end the level heads of the those such as George Washington and John Adams won out and an admirable attempt was made to avoid to the resulting war. It was not until it became obvious that the only options were war or to allow the British to break the law and subject the Americans to tyranny and eventually worse, that violence was pursued. However, the Americans were not the initiating force, and only responded in a nature that was true to their Christian beliefs, and which was, for the Christian founding fathers, likewise a result of their response to God. The Reformers were the same way.
People are reactionary by nature and we can see many examples both throughout history, and in our everyday lives. It has been said that for every action in society, just as in physics, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and sometimes a greater than and opposite reaction as both sides try to out do each other. Some examples of this in the church can be the Anglican episcopalism and Puritan congregationalism, and Kohlbruggianism and The Federal Vision, and more generally antinomianism and legalism which seem to constantly be trying to outdo each other. A very good example from the world of politics is the French Revolution. Only after foreign intervention, were things finally brought under control, but not before many live were lost and great atrocities committed. In our everyday lives, we can see it in the old Ford vs. GM John Deere vs. International Harvester (now CNH) rivalry, where people are fiercely and irrationally loyal to a brand name. The best and almost only explanation that I have heard for this is that somebody long ago bought a Model T or a Waterloo Boy and was so impressed that a brand loyalty was created, to which the somewhat competitive neighbors reacted by bragging up their New Chevy coupe or McCormick-Deering Regular just to spite their neighbors. The rest you know. We need to strive against falling into this tempting reaction. Though many of these reactionary positions often seem to be at odds with each other, the truth does not lie in the middle. It is not as if it is the reverse of Hegel's dialectic where the truth would lie in the middle and both antitheses on either side. The synthesis of two errant views is not the original and correct thesis. One example that shows this is the big Common Grace and Covenant of Works debate that has occurred in some churches. Over time, one group corrupted the doctrines around these subjects, and instead of returning to the truth, the reaction was to accept the errant definitions and deny the existence of Common Grace and the Covenant of Works completely. In such a case the middle ground would still include the incorrect definitions. We need to be careful that we do not go the same way with the Tea Party movement and accept the flawed basis of the problems. We must remember not to put our hope in government, even if it be in government limiting itself, and that only God can bring true change. Whether He does or not, though, we can still rest in the glorious fact that He has everything under control and that it is all going according to His wonderful Providence. Much of western Christian society has not done its part through the years to preach the truth of the Scriptures. We have let our neighbors forget about the sovereignty of the God they claim to serve, of the sin that is in man's heart, and of the way in which it can be changed from one of stone to one of flesh, for that is where the true problem lies. Are we, who know that we do not live for ourselves, so worried about what others think? It is sad that we should neglect to keep living and proclaiming truth that is so wonderful. Are we not grateful for this knowledge?
In some ways it is only natural that a reactionary movement should start, for it is the natural reaction. Perhaps the saddest part of the whole ordeal is that things got so out of hand that there could be a reactionary movement. It is really ironic that my local tea party is a reactionary movement against those who were reactionary against them in the first place.