I want to thank brother Nic for his honest confession and compelling thoughts in our five-part conversation on politics and religion (has anyone heard of some election coming up soon??). While we’re being confessional here, I should probably go ahead and admit a few things of my own:Confession #1:
I'm a realclearpolitics.com addict. I literally check the polls and the latest political editorials more often than I do my email theses days. In fact, I've checked the website three times in the process of writing this post. I could really use a support group to help me overcome this addiction! As a Christian, it really is embarrassing how much time I spend consuming the latest political news and ignoring the Christian story. I feel like I have more of a relationship with our presidential candidates than a relationship with Christ. I more publicly tout my identity within a certain political party than the fact that I am a Christian, and I certainly don't do much to live out some of the simplest of Christian acts like loving my neighbors, caring for the poor, etc… so I admit that in any conversation regarding the relationship between politics and religion (limited here to Christianity), it’s a lot easier for me to criticize and critique the political perspectives of certain Christians when I'm basically practicing a pseudo-Christianity. In other words, I feel like a hypocrite in even having this conversation, so I won't be offended if you don't take seriously a word I say…haha
Obviously, there is a tension here between politics and Christianity. In case any of my Rhetoric professors are reading this, I'm speaking of politics in the narrow sense of the operations, including the discourse and actions, of our local and national government and the participation of citizens in that government (in Rhetoric, we say that everything is political). It seems that Christianity is a totalizing system, a rhetorical lens through which to view all existence, and a model of being in this world. I wonder, if I was really living out my Christianity, if it would be possible, or desirable, to set aside my Christianity while participating in and thinking through political issues? Since it appears that Christianity is a system that works best from a position of powerlessness, why not advocate, as Nick hinted at, for complete non-political involvement? Christians didn't enjoy state power until the age of Constantine, so why not return to the pre-Constantinian, early church model?
While its easy to look at our government, that is often lead by self-proclaimed Christian men, and point out its glaring transgressions, hypocrisies, and policies that have anything but Christian effects, I'm not sure that exiting the political arena all together is the best course of action for Christians. I do think we need to reconcile what it means to preach a gospel of brokenness and powerlessness while aspiring to gain power, but more importantly, I think we should take the cue from Jim Wallis and consider a new question: How should religion/faith influence politics?
Confession #2:
I voted in 2004, my first eligible election, for Bush. Ashamedly, back then I never really cared or thought about politics, and I fell prey, like a wildebeest crossing the Masai Mara, to those predatory emails, warning me that the Bush/Kerry election was the most important election in the history of the world. Kerry, then, was the anti-Christ, and if I didn’t vote for Bush it was as good sticking my head inside the croc’s mouth!
It’s amazing how differently one’s perspective can change over four years, and at times I feel like I did stick my head inside the croc's mouth with my vote for Bush. Since '04, I’ve become much more politically informed as a result of seeing the disastrous, real life consequences of failed leadership in our government. Ironically, I’m getting the same emails again this year, but this time Obama is the ant-Christ and McCain is the only real Christian in the campaign. (If, indeed, being Christian means taking pro-life, pro-guns, anti-gay rights, and lower-tax positions)As I’ve witnessed the voice and influence of the Christian community in this election year I’ve become rather ashamed of the lack of civil discourse exuded by many Christians. Why aren’t Christians the ones openly seeking to create a space where ideas can be rationally debated instead of spreading around false lies, presuming to know who’s Christian and who's not, whose preacher is more theologically sound than another’s, and conflating words they don’t understand (socialist, Marxist, communist) with “evil.” Sadly, the first person I read who made the strongest case for a new civil discourse was Sharon Crowley in Toward a Civil Discourse, and she's certainly no Christian.
Lately, I've been into simplifying things, and Jim Wallis, in The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America, offers up the simple notion that Christians should not seek to control the political arena, but to allow their Christian lens to serve as a moral center to the discussion. Such a moral center should focus on politics of the common good, with emphasis on the very larger issues of fighting poverty, hunger, disease, and environmental conservation. Christians should be motivated to tackle these issues because of their faith, but they can, and should make their arguments in ways that can be accepted by people of any faith or no faith.
In other words, I think Christians should be involved in politics if they can do so realizing that we do not live in a theocracy, we desperately need to find solutions to major problems, and so we should be the leaders in creating a space for civil discourse.
Can anyone say that our political culture is one of love and civility these days?
Confession #3:
While I’m being confessional, I might as well go ahead and tell you that I plan on voting for Obama.
I agree with Nick in that Obama will not be a Christian president if being a Christian president means enacting policies that align with Christianity. I can say that I am voting for him because I believe he would be a step in the right direction towards creating a new discourse of civility and rationality in our political culture. He's demonstrated an ability to work through difficult, controversial issues such as abortion and gay rights in fresh, respectful, thoughtful, non-irritative ways. In this sense, I do sing the praises of his nuance. I also think his civil temperament is exactly what we need in a culture stifled by Left v. Right ideology. I don't presume to know if Obama's Christianity is informing his belief in finding middle ground, but I do know the actions of our political leaders directly affect the lives of not only our own citizens, but people around the world, and so it is vital that our next president be able to create a civil space large issues can be honestly and urgently addressed. I look forward to a president who can be a voice of reason and leadership on key issues that all Christians should be concerned about. I hope that more Christians will become politically involved but in a way that respects the voices of non-Christians.I know I haven't necessarily made a theologically compelling argument here, but hopefully I've offered a simple idea of how Christians can and should be involved in politics in way that doesn't seek power, but the common good.
15 comments:
I have a politically themed comment, as it is the season for such.
I am not really interested in politics in that I live in a sort of cave with too much emphasis on Fourier transforms and phonon excitations, etc. But I do have a strong distaste for any smacking of 'socialist policy', mostly because I just like being left alone.
Many arguments have been made in the vein of "charity is the responsibility of private enterprise" i.e. the government shouldn't take money from (tax) people and then redistribute it among the needy, but the people in the form of church, volunteerism, whatever should do this willingly.
So my comment is this: I love that idea, but, as the laziest, arguably flakiest Christian caregiver I know, I find guiltily that it would be better to begrudgingly give money to a (perhaps bloated) system who will at least give food and clothe stuffs to those in need. How does this resonate? If it is our calling as Christians to take care of these people, and giving will always net more than taxing, if giving in a truly selfless way, but the reality is that more will happen if charity is forced from us, what to do?
Perhaps I sadly admit that in light of my own continual shortcomings in the calling of basic charity, it is best for a more 'socialist' (I use this term tongue-in-cheek) government to develop.
Cop-out, no?
And the previous was actually myself, not my wife, as would be indicated by names and etc.
1. If it is forced, it is not charity. Contrary to what Biden thinks.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/biden-releases.html
This MIGHT be considered charity…
http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
but probably not a very effective one, and not one I would recommend.
2. I would question whether or not "more will happen if charity is forced from us." Private charity is much more efficient than anything the government tries to do. There is alot of evidence to support this in New Orleans right now.
http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6031025&page=1
3. Don't be lazy and flaky.
I do agree with the theme of this post and the last in that I often wonder how much time, thought, effort, and resources Christians should be spending on government, politics, etc.
The tone of #3 came across to harsh. My apologies. Not my intended tone.
To look at the issue from another perspective, an Obama win may be good for Christianity in the US. Maybe it will allow the church to disengage somewhat from the horrible power struggle that it has got itself involved in.
Although I've already outlined my basic position on all this in my past two posts (concern for the poor over the rights of the wealthy, commitment to the church over political alliances), I have to make a couple injections into this conversation:
1. Since when are Christians supposed to be more concerned with how efficiently their money is being spent than with the concrete end result of aiding the poor? I don't care if I get charity points for paying higher taxes or not, and I don't care about the calming feeling at the end of the day of knowing I've voluntarily given up money for a noble cause; what I do care about is whether there are people on the receiving end who need it. (i.e. If it is truly selfless giving we shouldn't be concerned with who gets credit.) So charity or not, when Levitical law says to leave crops out for the homeless to pick up unconditionally, that becomes the just thing to do. And the reason we have enforceable taxes is that no one is going to volunteer money up to pay for somebody else's kid's education, no matter how wealthy we might become in the fantasy of libertarian tax systems. There is simply not an NGO or church powerful or wealthy enough to provide free education for all of the country's children. I understand that churches are doing incredible work in New Orleans, and this makes me proud to be a Christian. But this should serve as an indictment of the government's negligence and not as an affirmation of it. So I'll submit to paying higher taxes, not because I want to give into the state's dominance but because I want to bear Christian witness against the pervasive lie in mainstream culture that we have unconditional right to our own property because we have "earned" it. I'm sorry if I sound a bit fancifully socialist, I'm just trying to take seriously the profound example in Acts of the church sharing property so that none was left lacking. I say all this out of my Christian identity and not out of my American identity--I don't have a stake in how the US winds up but I do have a stake in what we bear witness to as Christians.
2. I hope Christians always disengage from whatever power struggles they find themselves in, and it would be good if they didn't need whoever winds up in the Oval Office to spur them to do so.
Thanks for the candid comments all around, and I apologize if the candor with which I returned the favor came out too harshly.
Not too harsh at all. No harm, no foul.
I wholeheartedly agree that we, Christians, should be much more concerned with the concrete end result of aiding the poor. But, doesn't the efficiency of our resources have a significant impact on the concrete end result? It is not about getting charity points; it is about doing the most good. When we are talking about taxes, we are talking about big dollars, and a lot of potential impact. Efficiency plays a huge role, and our government does happen to be embarrassingly inefficient. New Orleans is only an example. There are people there that think Brad Pitt has done more for that city than the entire U.S. Government. I do think this is absolutely an affirmation of the inefficiency of government. If you are saying that Christians should have no concern over the efficiency of how our resources are utilized (I'm not sure that you are), I have to disagree. Just because we are called to sacrifice doesn't mean we shouldn't practice stewardship.
I am not attempting to argue that all taxes could or should be suddenly replaced by charity (We lost any hope for that when the federal government first initiated an income tax to fund the Civil War, not to pay for education. The first peace-time income tax wasn’t until 1894. So whether it was through the so-called fantasy of libertarian tax systems or not, this country somehow funded education and everything else without a federal income tax for a long time. Also, our government isn’t wealthy, and the only thing that even renders it solvent or credit-worthy is its ability to tax the American people.). Our government is entirely too big for that (replacing tax with charity) to even be imaginable now. Whether or not it would work is irrelevant. The transaction costs of a sudden transition of that nature would be enormous. I am merely stating that as Christians, we can, and should pay attention to the marginal utility of our resources. In my personal experience, a dollar or an hour of work donated to a private charity (be it your community church, Brad Pitt, or something else), does much more good than the same resource contributed toward the government. When you have dollars to give, do you actually consider donating them to the government? Not me.
I hardly consider myself submissive by paying higher taxes. It might technically be considered a choice, but just barely, considering the consequences and repercussions from a government that has a monopoly on violence.
The main reason I posted was because yes, I do think it is a cop-out to ask the government to raise taxes because we are too lazy to do our part. We should do our part, and pay our taxes.
I also struggle with justifying a request of the government to raise taxes because Christians are supposed to be charitable. Yes, we are supposed to sacrifice and be charitable, but should we call everyone (non-Christians) to that standard? Isn't this the same as asking a non-Christian homeless person to not use the Lord's name in vein, asking a non-Christian pregnant teenager to not have an abortion, or telling a non-Christian homosexual that he is sinning? I have a hard time seeing the good that does when all Americans don’t shares the same values. Increased tax burdens most likely won’t soften the non-Christian taxpayer’s heart to be more charitable, or in any way lead him or her to Christ, in the same way that laws banning abortion won’t reduce unwanted pregnancies or change the heart of a pregnant teenager who doesn’t want the inconvenience of a baby.
I’m not convinced a modern-day national government should be attempted to be structured like the Christian community presented in Acts 4. To me, it seems a community like that demands a lot of common values. I believe there are some methods that are better than others when it comes to structuring a government for people with varying values, the same way that there are some methods better than others for structuring a building, a bridge, or a boat. This is an issue, that in my opinion, the bible gives little guidance. If someone disagrees and can point me in the right direction I would be grateful.
As Christians 1st and Americans 2nd (or somewhere after that), we may not have much of a stake in America, but we do have a stake in Americans. And yes, for my own political confession, I am extremely guilty of contemplating the best ways to structure a nation full of people with different values more often than I am seeking, encouraging, and promoting a community like the one found in Acts 4.
This conversation is too fun to stay out of. While I will reserve my main thoughts for a later post, I would like to comment in this flurry of activity.
Jason, great second post. Stewardship should not be ignored in all of this. And a very perceptive insight into the nature of our multi-valued system in democracy. I think Daniel's description of Jim Wallis suggests that he would be in favor of creating coalitions of people who hold different values and beliefs but can all come together for some specific causes. While I like all of the things Jim wants to tackle, it can easily be seen as a liberal flip side to the conservative Christian agenda. It could lead to the same kind of tyranny. That leads me to believe that Christians should disengage and fight their battles away from and in spite of the political arena. That too is tricky.
I think the ambiguity of the word "Christian" in all of this is practically nauseating. To say, "I am a Christian first and an American second" essentially means nothing, which is exactly why people with completely opposing and contradictory ideologies say it with such frequency. For two thousand years people have claimed to be Christians, which for some meant slaughtering innocent people and others it meant feeding them.
Today for some, it means bombing Arabs at a distance for the sake of preserving safety of good suburban "Christian" families. For others it means renewing the inner-city and that dreaded redistribution of wealth. Still, we're all Christians first, praise the Lord!
For this reason, I find it rather ridiculous that we are supposed to step away from the political arena in order to be Christian. The political arena is where the very word "Christian" is being defined in our society. This is why polemic is so vehement in our society; the battle is over who can own the term, and therefore the religion. The more Christian history I read, the more I realize that it's always been this way. If Acts 4 ever happened (and I have some doubts) then the utopia was ephemeral at best. By the second half of the first century the debate over who was "actually" Christian had already begun.
So, I find the debate is not so simple as "Who would be the more Christian" president? But rather, this is an anonymous discourse of our society as to what does the word 'Christian' even mean? This debate as such has long ceased to have anything to do with who is following Jesus, and instead is about what is moral and good.
I agree with Nic that certainly no U.S. president will ever follow in Jesus' footsteps, but being "Christian" hasn't meant following Jesus in millennia. "Christian" is merely a word signifying a good and decent person.
We're all Christians, and no one is a Christian. Politics is how we define what kind of Christian we are, unless we mean to imply that we follow Jesus at which point we'll likely be dead in a few months so what does it all matter?
Yeah, this is just too fun. I feel like I'm being come at from 8 different directions, much to my chagrin because I'm not even sure what the central position is that I'm trying to defend. But since I believe in the idea of "theology performed in conversation", I know you guys are helping me forge a theology in the process, so I am sincerely grateful for your poignant objections.
Jason, I'm on board with you about stewardship and responsible management of our funds. You seem to have an impressive grasp on how we can do that on a large scale. I didn't mean to imply that we should be okay with throwing our money at a wasteful government. That's simply irresponsible and lazy. I just don't see a correlation between what we're taxed and our charitable giving--I say this descriptively as well as prescriptively. First, it's evident that Christians in this country are not taking advantage of our relatively low taxes to give more: churchgoers tithe on average around 3%. Second, I don't think we should welcome higher taxes as substitution to real, effective charity. Again, that's just negligent. We can clearly do great things ourselves, as in New Orleans, when we take the initiative.
I also don't think we should expect our country to behave like Acts 4, and I don't expect non-Christians to have good reason not to have abortions or same-sex marriages. But I do think that we have a moral core to work from as Christians, and we contribute our particular values to the the broader, pluralistic political context. Part of that core is a belief that it is not your money and my money; it is all God's. (This is a very complex idea in Scripture that permeates the Old Testament and comes to vivid materialization in Acts 4, albeit briefly, pace Joe.) When people like Brad Pitt share common goals with us and we can work together to reach them. We take advantage of our commonality. The reason we leave abortion at the door in national politics is that we simply can't achieve that reasonably.
Joe, for once, I couldn't disagree with you more!
I'm well aware of the inherent pluralism in the Christian faith, and no one group can claim a monopoly on it. Republican Evangelicals and pre-Chalcedonian Assyrian Church of the East Christians are both Christian groups (ACotE are the ones being persecuted in Iraq right now, due in part to a war waged by the first group). This doesn't, however, render the term "Christian" nonsensical, as you seem to believe. I could see how it would, though, if you take a lowest-common-denominator approach that takes whatever people do in the name of Christianity as determinative of the main idea. On this account, the loudest and most obnoxious voices would be allowed to dictate the conversation. Islam is therefore a violent religion, and atheism is suspect because Stalin was a monster. Just because people burned each other at the stake in the name of Christianity doesn't mean the faith is hopelessly divided against itself; it means that there decidedly IS such a thing as "Christian" and some people desperately drop the ball on living up to it. Like any system of belief, it's always subject to its own internal critique.
The idea of the political arena determining the definition of "Christian" is totally depressing. If it's up to corrupt politicians, Christian Right bullies and the soundbites of Al Franken to define what it means to be a Christian, then I say to hell with the whole thing. But unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the label under the bus just yet. I would rather take it up and authentically try to redefine it, because that's what we've always done at our best anyway, right?
I think the idea of being a Christian first and an American/Venezuelan second is a pretty sensible idea. I'd like to know, if the term "Christian" is so problematic to you because of its ambiguity and inherent pluralism, how is the notion of being "moral and good" any consolation? Is there anything more drearily ambiguous and crippled by competing accounts than the idea of the "good", or "morality"?
I'd rather take my chances trying to live out a commitment to the general rubric of Christian ethics, because, as pluralistic as the idea is, at least there is a call to a specific way of life that undergirds that very pluralism.
Is this any kind of theological Pepto Bismol for you at all?
I only favor throwing it all under the bus two or three days out of the week, the remainder of which I am continuing to look for reasons not to. If I sound too critical of it all, my apologies, but lately more of my thinking has been coming down on the negative side. Yet, if I had decided against Christianity altogether, then I assure you I would have no reason to read this conversation, let alone contribute to it (if I may be so bold as to throw in my two cents even when it's not of the amenable variety).
I didn't have it in mind to say "let's just let the lowest denominator define it all", so much as to just point out that it's happening whether we like it or not. I personally am not a fan of this phenomena, but lately have ebbed between apathy and anger at it. (Apathy generally coming when I feel less attached to a faith community, and anger when I'm closer to the fold)
When I speak of politics I generally don't have Al Franken or other pundits in mind. I see America as a terrifyingly atomized society, so basically ANY congregation of people in such context has a political function. PTAs, softball teams, and certainly (without question) faith communities. Atomization is impotence. Gathering is power.
Any group of people numbering one hundred or larger has political potential. Yet it seems to me that "Christian" groups (churches) as such, waste all political potential for fear of bad press. And in this context "Christian" becomes a term up for grabs. Thus, the most hateful contingents of America are all Christian. (and I do lament this)
To redeem the term, in my opinion, requires a political dimension, albeit a radically different type of politics. Archbishop Romero and so many others of Latin America were redefining "Christian", but they knew full-well that this required more politics not less. And, like them, we can assume bullets and kidnappings await should we choose to be authentically Christian. Which returns me to my previous pessimism that is directed equally at myself and the society that has shaped me. I'm tired of throwing around a word that we continually leave void of all meaning. (Sorry, I'll take some Prozac and maybe be more uplifting in future comments)
I'd like to be clear that when I said you were throwing the label under the bus, I meant just that: the label. I wasn't in any way implying you were giving up on your commitment to the faith; surely I have no basis for saying that. I trust and respect you enough to assume that the pretext for your frustration with abuses of the Christian faith (and the reason you're having this conversation) is your deep concern for its integrity.
Thanks for your clarifications, and I agree with you that the Gospel is irreducibly political. That's the basis for the church, which is a political body. I'll stop here and leave it to the other conversation partners (namely Bryce, Ryan and Brice) to have their say in what our faith should mean for our politics.
Ill chime in -
what faith means to my politics -
it means that wednesday morning, after the election is over, i keep loving my neighbor. the work still continues no matter who is in office.
granted, i have a duty to vote, and will do so for the candidate i feel best aligns themselves with the work that i try to do. unfortunately, two party partisan politics make this really hard - i wish the ballot was an a la carte menu of issues, rather than two guys who have compromised to maintain adequate bases of support.
its a dangerous thing to attach the word hope to any person, much less a political candidate. listening to bruce springsteen in the morning gives me more hope than listening to any stump speech - but, my real hope is renewed when I see the kingdom of God advancing on earth, through people loving each other. as complicated as i have made this political season, it seems really easy this morning.
1-27-09 (1 week post-inauguration)
Does this mean we'll have to wait 4 years to hear parts 3 and 4?
Post a Comment