08.23.05
Posted in faith, politics at 11:29 am by
Steve offered these questions:
1) What role, if any, should an individuals faith play in politics?
2) What role, if any, should the church have in politics?
It seems like we talk about this a lot. I think that there are few of us who’d argue that faith should play no role in politics. Yet, the distinction is a blurry one. Faith and politics, politics and faith. Crazy bedfellows, I think. Crazy, because we often think of the two as these separate entities. One influencing the other, faith and politics have both been particularly devisive entites.
On the one hand, you’ve got some religious conservatives (and the majority of conservatives would classify themselves as ‘religious’) who’ll swear up and down that faith should influence politics. Of course, this is often boiled down to the single issue argument of abortion. Many conservatives squelch this faith influencing politics by engaging in the act of referring to liberals as ‘baby-killers’. It’s hard to respond to this charge. Frankly, because it’s so grossly oversimplified that it’s no longer even close to accurate. Often, these folks aren’t really interested in REAL political debate, they’re interested faith overtaking politics.
On the other hand, you’ve got ‘religious’ liberals whose politics seems to completely inform their faith. (And, I’m not talking about the ‘Progressive Christianity’ faction that’s become more vocal of late, either.) I’m talking about being ‘just spiritual enough’ to buy yourself a few extra votes come election day. These folks seem, to me at least, to be more concerned with politics than they are with faith.
I’m not sure that separating the questions ‘what is the role of an individual’s faith in politics’ and ‘what is the role of the Church in politics’ is the way to go. First of all, I think that it’s safe to assume that we’re talking about an individual’s CHRISTIAN faith and the CHRISTIAN Church. I’m not prepared to go on the record about the belief systems of other faiths, so I’ll limit my observations thusly.
I think that as individual Christians we’re to act as a part of the Church. We’ve all got our individual callings, but these are inseperable from the corporate identity of the Church. The Church, I believe, is called to be a part of society. So, yes, to participate in government. There’s a big difference though between participating, and being IN CHARGE.
It feels like that’s the move that Christians in high places (you can fill in the blanks to figure out who I’m talking about) would like faith to take the place of government. The Faith Based initiative springs to mind. I’m not so certain we can expect the Church to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to welfare programs. After all, historically, the Church hasn’t been a fantastically inclusive organization. We’re more apt to assassinate (either figuratively or literally) individuals than we are to work toward inclusion.
I’m not sure that I can answer the question: what IS the Church’s role in politics? But, I think I can much more closely answer the question: what ISN’T the Church’s role in politics? My answer would go like this:
- Praying that liberal supreme court justices die or retire (either way) so that a more conservative one can come around and put a stop to all things liberal.
- Referring to liberals as ‘baby-killers’.
- Protesting against the rights of homosexuals.
- Demonizing the GLBT community and using loaded terms like ‘the homosexual agenda’.
- Insisting Republican votes be cast unilaterally.
- Being largely un-critical of conservatism.
- Being overly critical of liberalism.
- Assassinating the character of Sponge-Bob Squarepants.
- Working against Affirmative Action and calling it reverse racism.
- Opposing all forms of social welfare.
- Threatening to ex-communicate Kerry voters.
- Thinking there are only two moral issues (gay marriage and abortion).
I could go on. But, you get the idea.
Now, I think it’s fair for the Church to have positions on issues. I’m also cool with the Church having a diversity of opinions represented. What’s not cool is dishonest rhetorical assasination. I’m pretty sure there’s something about bearing false witness in the Bible, and I’m also pretty sure the Bible generally comes down against such behavior.
For a people who’re so damn interested in faith influencing politcs, Christians tend to ignore the fact that their faith should influence their rhetoric, too. Funnily enough, it seems like people of faith often resort to dirty politics to get the job done–and then, they think the ends justify the means.
Fundamentally, that, to me, is the way faith should influence politics. It’s not getting the WHOLE Church on board with a political perspective, it’s not getting the government to come down on ‘our’ side of the issues. It’s all about honesty. Faith should influence the very way we play the game of politics. Anything less…would be uncivilised.
ADDENDUM: If you were curious about what exactly would constitute dishonest rhetoric, Zalm’s got a great example up over at his place. There’s nothing like teaching children the value of a political smear job before they’ve stopped wetting the bed.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/08/23/politics_schmolitics/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics at 11:29 am by
Steve offered these questions:
1) What role, if any, should an individuals faith play in politics?
2) What role, if any, should the church have in politics?
It seems like we talk about this a lot. I think that there are few of us who’d argue that faith should play no role in politics. Yet, the distinction is a blurry one. Faith and politics, politics and faith. Crazy bedfellows, I think. Crazy, because we often think of the two as these separate entities. One influencing the other, faith and politics have both been particularly devisive entites.
On the one hand, you’ve got some religious conservatives (and the majority of conservatives would classify themselves as ‘religious’) who’ll swear up and down that faith should influence politics. Of course, this is often boiled down to the single issue argument of abortion. Many conservatives squelch this faith influencing politics by engaging in the act of referring to liberals as ‘baby-killers’. It’s hard to respond to this charge. Frankly, because it’s so grossly oversimplified that it’s no longer even close to accurate. Often, these folks aren’t really interested in REAL political debate, they’re interested faith overtaking politics.
On the other hand, you’ve got ‘religious’ liberals whose politics seems to completely inform their faith. (And, I’m not talking about the ‘Progressive Christianity’ faction that’s become more vocal of late, either.) I’m talking about being ‘just spiritual enough’ to buy yourself a few extra votes come election day. These folks seem, to me at least, to be more concerned with politics than they are with faith.
I’m not sure that separating the questions ‘what is the role of an individual’s faith in politics’ and ‘what is the role of the Church in politics’ is the way to go. First of all, I think that it’s safe to assume that we’re talking about an individual’s CHRISTIAN faith and the CHRISTIAN Church. I’m not prepared to go on the record about the belief systems of other faiths, so I’ll limit my observations thusly.
I think that as individual Christians we’re to act as a part of the Church. We’ve all got our individual callings, but these are inseperable from the corporate identity of the Church. The Church, I believe, is called to be a part of society. So, yes, to participate in government. There’s a big difference though between participating, and being IN CHARGE.
It feels like that’s the move that Christians in high places (you can fill in the blanks to figure out who I’m talking about) would like faith to take the place of government. The Faith Based initiative springs to mind. I’m not so certain we can expect the Church to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to welfare programs. After all, historically, the Church hasn’t been a fantastically inclusive organization. We’re more apt to assassinate (either figuratively or literally) individuals than we are to work toward inclusion.
I’m not sure that I can answer the question: what IS the Church’s role in politics? But, I think I can much more closely answer the question: what ISN’T the Church’s role in politics? My answer would go like this:
- Praying that liberal supreme court justices die or retire (either way) so that a more conservative one can come around and put a stop to all things liberal.
- Referring to liberals as ‘baby-killers’.
- Protesting against the rights of homosexuals.
- Demonizing the GLBT community and using loaded terms like ‘the homosexual agenda’.
- Insisting Republican votes be cast unilaterally.
- Being largely un-critical of conservatism.
- Being overly critical of liberalism.
- Assassinating the character of Sponge-Bob Squarepants.
- Working against Affirmative Action and calling it reverse racism.
- Opposing all forms of social welfare.
- Threatening to ex-communicate Kerry voters.
- Thinking there are only two moral issues (gay marriage and abortion).
I could go on. But, you get the idea.
Now, I think it’s fair for the Church to have positions on issues. I’m also cool with the Church having a diversity of opinions represented. What’s not cool is dishonest rhetorical assasination. I’m pretty sure there’s something about bearing false witness in the Bible, and I’m also pretty sure the Bible generally comes down against such behavior.
For a people who’re so damn interested in faith influencing politcs, Christians tend to ignore the fact that their faith should influence their rhetoric, too. Funnily enough, it seems like people of faith often resort to dirty politics to get the job done–and then, they think the ends justify the means.
Fundamentally, that, to me, is the way faith should influence politics. It’s not getting the WHOLE Church on board with a political perspective, it’s not getting the government to come down on ‘our’ side of the issues. It’s all about honesty. Faith should influence the very way we play the game of politics. Anything less…would be uncivilised.
ADDENDUM: If you were curious about what exactly would constitute dishonest rhetoric, Zalm’s got a great example up over at his place. There’s nothing like teaching children the value of a political smear job before they’ve stopped wetting the bed.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/08/23/politics_schmolitics/trackback/
Kari said,
August 23, 2005 at 1:29 pm
13. Advocating the assassination of another nation’s democratically-elected leader
Steve said,
August 23, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Hey - I just heard this morning driving in that Pat Robertson called for the assasination of the President of Venezuala. Talk about mixing faith and politics!
Brandon said,
August 23, 2005 at 2:05 pm
You both raise an interesting story. (Albeit the same story). I’ll be watching the right-wing ‘religious’ media’s response (or lack thereof.)
Leighton said,
August 23, 2005 at 3:22 pm
What I like about this post is that it rejects the (modernist? heh) framing of the question “What should the relationship of faith and politics be like?” that either ignores or rejects their current dysfunctional relationships (plural intentional) as necessary starting points; it’s not a question that can be answered in a vacuum.
Personally, what I’d like to see less of is rhetoric in which faith is used as a synonym for virtue. Regardless of what you do or don’t believe, I think everyone can agree that some people (though not everyone will agree on which ones) believe some pretty boneheaded and wrong things because of what they call faith; and for obvious reasons I think it’s possible to be a responsible citizen and a good neighbor without living by something you call faith.
Mike said,
August 23, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Brandon: Love the list. However, I have a longer historical perspective on Evangelicals and politics (I think I’m older than most who post here) and I remember back before Roe V. Wade. Before that ‘polarizing’ issue, many evangelicals were card-carrying Democrats. Since that time, most evangelicals find they cannot support a party that makes abortion part of their platform. To some, it would be akin to making slavery part of their platform. I’m not comparing abortion to slavery (apples and kumquats), I’m just saying that many people cannot support a party that has such a polarizing issue in their platform. The same thing is true of those who would not vote Republican when they were officially anti-abortion in their platform. I think both parties should back away from an official position on abortion and leave the issue to individuals to decide. IMO.
Brandon said,
August 23, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I understand what you’re saying, I think, Mike. I’m not arguing, though, that abortion shouldn’t be an important issue. Nor am I saying that you can’t be Republican and conservative nor Christian.
My argument, simply, is that honesty should be the hallmark of any Christian in politics. Unfortunately, it is not so.
JS Narins said,
August 23, 2005 at 8:20 pm
Nice post.
You definitely have a good handle on the subject, even though you come at it from an entirely different perspective (I’m an atheist, and raised Jewish, so totally outside the community).
Cheers.
Brandon said,
August 23, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Thanks, JS.
JJ said,
August 23, 2005 at 9:52 pm
One of the things I find most frustrating is when people insist that, as a Christian, I have to only care about certain issues — ie: abortion, gay marriage, etc… Apparantly we’re all supposed to be clones of one another. Drives me nuts.
Slublog said,
August 24, 2005 at 12:09 am
Weird. I was just talking to my pastor about this. I think Christian political involvement should be encouraged but should never get in the way of the church’s ability to communicate the gospel.
It’s unfortunate that liberal Christians and conservative Christians are too often at odds with one another. We’re all on the same team, after all.
Xpatriated Texan said,
August 24, 2005 at 12:42 pm
My blog deals extensively with the relationship between faith and politics. Basically, I am unable to leave my Christianity behind when I contemplate action. This does not mean that I want to force Christianity upon people, but I do gauge the morality of my government’s actions by my faith. I defy anyone, religious or not, to explain how they can totally leave their beliefs of right and wrong out of politics.
I know Brandon has heard of the Christian Alliance for Progress, of which I am a member and community organizer. While I don’t support every single part of every single issue, I would say that I agree with the majority of what they say. The problem that the secular country at large has with religion is that the only voices they hear talking about faith are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson. We have to change that.
XT