I object

Phil over at Team Pyro raises a number of valid and important questions in the context of behavior (and the thoughts behind it) that some Christians evince around political issues.

To wit:

• Is it OK for pastors to use their pulpits to organize voters rather than teach the Bible and proclaim the gospel?
• Is it OK that when the average unbeliever today hears the word evangelical, he thinks of a voting bloc rather than anything spiritual?
• Is it OK that most evangelicals are overwhelmingly on the same page politically, but their movement is doctrinally so diverse that they can't even agree what the gospel is?
• Is it OK that the average evangelical could not give a coherent, biblically sound summary of the gospel or a theologically accurate explanation of justification by faith—yet be more worried about an Obama presidency than they are about the disintegration of their own testimony?

Phil continues:

If we take George Barna's data at face value (and I don't recommend that, but even a nuanced interpretation of his statistics would probably bear this out), the typical "evangelical" hasn't got a clue what the biblical idea of redemption is about. He isn't really sure he needs to be "saved" from anything other than the wave of immorality and economic crises liberal policies have foisted upon us. He believes the work of God in this world is all about a handful of highly-publicized moral issues involving sins other people commit. And he is convinced the first and most important remedy for our culture's moral meltdown is government-imposed legislation.

And even goes so far as:

As a Christian, I have a more important message to proclaim than "God hates fags," and I know a better, more long-term remedy for drunkenness and all its associated evils than Prohibition ever managed to be. The gospel is what Christian ministers ought to be known for, not for getting themselves arrested barricading clinic doors or screaming hateful slogans at their political opponents. Yes, I do realize most politically-oriented pastors and evangelical organizations do not go that far, but the evangelicals in the political arena who are most savvy about public relations tend to be the very ones who have perfected the art of compromise. It's really pretty hard to think of evangelical organizations or church leaders who are deeply involved in political causes and who are also known for being clear and uncompromising heralds of gospel truth. The two things simply don't work well together [emphasis courtesy of Live As If].

And to close the deal, so to speak:

But if we're talking about doing ministry (as opposed to sheer political lobbying) then once we've established that homosexuality is an abomination, the rest of the message we are obliged to proclaim as ambassadors of Christ is the good news of how sinners can be redeemed from the guilt and bondage of those sins and be reconciled to God. If we focus our energies instead on secular legislative "remedies," we are simply not doing what Christ called us to do.

I don't think it's a complex issue at all.

And my guess is that if you look back in history and contemplate the question of prohibition vs. the sin of drunkenness (instead of gay partnerships and constitutional amendments defining what marriage is)—even if you only consider the pragmatic side of the issue—you'll probably see the point.

In short, there's a reason Spurgeon's preaching is still relevant and powerful today, but Billy Sunday looks like a bad parody.

You're right, Phil, its not a complex issue at all. It's simple, like all great answers: not simplistic, but simple for sure