My God and/or the Republican party.
"When you mix religion and politics...you get politics"
-Rev. Gene Carlson, former member of the religious right. (1)
-Rev. Gene Carlson, former member of the religious right. (1)
I've recently set out to figure out just how Christians should relate to politics. I've known for awhile that the right way to interact was wrong but I've erred on the side of ignorance for awhile and simply decided to sit out of the whole thing. After a little reading I don't think either position is a good one. Here's why.
The attempt to figure out just how Christians should relate to the political world is difficult. In the New Testament there was very little opportunity for political reform. Voting, much or less lobbying, was not really an option. The easy argument says "Jesus didn't talk about politics, he talked about helping the poor and loving the world." and "The early Christians were not political they were spiritual, they told the gospel and fed the poor themselves." I've been a part of this party for awhile and I'm still pretty much right there on most issues but there are some problems with this position.
1. The proper interpretation of scripture, or hermeneutics, must take into account the society to which the text was written and the society we are applying it to today. Times have changed since scripture was written. This doesn't change the truths inside but it will change how we apply it today. The fact that the early Christians were not political could very well be more related to the political climate of the day than to the way Christians should live. This brings me to number 2.
2. Its an argument from silence. If the Bible stated "You should not try to love the world through politics" then this issue would be resolved. It doesn't. All we have to go on are the early Christians relation to the political leaders of their day. Which is basically not mentioned unless the leaders are trying to kill them. We see Paul witnessing to the leaders during his trials but his arguments are not for followers of "the Way" in general or for the government to feed the poor but for his innocence.(2) We can take this to mean that we are to be completely separate from the political realm but this is not stated in the Bible and in my opinion is not the intent of its authors.
The vast majority of theologically conservative Christians aren't inactive. They are quite outspoken and active politically but they are not always active in the right ways. The alliance between the most outspoken religious leaders (the religious right) and the Republican party has hurt not only the public perception of the Christian faith in America but the state of the country in general. Christianity has become hated by half of America not based on its teachings but because it has aligned itself with one side of a two party debate. This robs the country of the positive moral values (the real ones not the fake ones you see on TV) that Christians have to offer.(3) There are other real issues within Christian theology that are caused by this alliance.
1. The idea that Christian=Republican leads to a complete inability to actually deal with real issues. There is very little discussion among Christians about campaign issues besides the few the religious right cling to. Christians know about abortion and the know about gay marriage. There is no discussion about what candidate best deals with these issues as well as social issues such as caring for the poor or Jesus' statement "Blessed are the peacemakers." (4) It is irrelevant how a candidate deals with these issues because Christian=Republican. This causes a serious rift in the way Christians live our lives. As more and more pastors try to "save their country" by preaching on the issues of abortion/gay marriage less and less Christians are making an impact for the poor, the downtrodden, and other people Jesus would have us love. (5) This complete lack of discussion has allowed the Republican religious right to dominate the entire theologically conservative protestant population based on the lie that to be theologically conservative you must be politically conservative. This doesn't allow for political discussion because any debate about other candidates instantly becomes a religious discussion and in order to consider another option someone must compromise not on their politics but on their theology. This is unhealthy. (6)
2. The Republican party does not stand for Christian values. If there were a political party based completely on Christian beliefs this would be a different discussion. The religious right has not attempted to find a candidate that will attempt to live up to the teachings of the Bible. They have found candidates and given them votes for signing off on a few issues. Pre-requisites: 1. Say you're a Christian 2. Be against abortion. 3. Be against the gays. 4. Be the Republican candidate. You've got the religious right vote. The Christian Coalition, the major mobilizing force behind the religious right has realized that focusing on the two main issues wont get people elected. Ralph Reed, largely the man behind the organizations success, said "Values alone are not enough. The successful candidate or movement must promote policies that personally benefit voters--such as tax cuts, education vouchers, higher wages, or retirement benefits. Without specific policies designed to benefit families and children, appeals to family values or America's Judeo-Christian heritage will fall on deaf ears. ..." (7) Reed is correct in his statement that values (by values he is speaking primarily about the issues of abortion and homosexuality) alone are not enough. However his additions are not what a truly "Christian" coalition would add. Taken simply, of course no one would elect a president if all he could talk about was abortion and homosexuality. There are millions of other issues a president must deal with. But if values are not enough what other issues should mark a "christian" candidate? This is the question that must be asked but its the question the religious right isn't asking. There is no discussion about what the Bible says (what a radical thought...) on other issues because as far as they're concerned the issue was decided by gay marriage and abortion. This is not to take away from the importance of getting rid of abortion. It is taking an innocent humans life and has to go. But the point is that that alone is not enough to label a candidate Christian. Christians are supposed to take care of the poor. Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek when they're attacked. Christians are supposed to love their enemies. (8) The religious right has compromised on these issues in order to align themselves with the Republican party. Instead of finding a third party that is both against abortion and for the poor they have settled for the more likely to be elected Republican candidate. They have sacrificed religious integrity for political viability.(9)
3. We have missed the boat when we attempt to enforce righteousness on other people by law. Abortion is not a personal issue. The reason its so hotly debated and the reason the phrase "pro-choice" is so ludicrous is that there is another life involved. When there is not another life being infringed upon attempts to enforce righteousness on people by law are a complete waste of time. The Bible clearly teaches that people are saved by the Grace of God not by their own good works or righteousness. (10) Enforcing righteousness by law will not save anyone. We should be more focused on showing Jesus Christ to the lost than getting the government to get the lost to act like they know Christ. Founded on Christian values or not the way to fix the sin in America is not through legislation. Forced righteousness is not righteousness at all; as such why are we campaigning for politicians based on this premise? Jesus is the only one who can truly change people's perspectives on sin. Lets campaign for Him and let Him fix the sin in America.
(My opinion about gay marriage=The family in America is falling apart since divorce became the norm and this is the cause of most of our crime rates.(11) Personally I'm not a big fan of legalizing gay marriage because the institution of the family has already been so damaged by divorce. We are still experiencing the fallout of so many kids growing up in broken homes. I will not however be campaigning against it. Not because homosexuality is right but because its not the governments job to enforce righteousness.)
Where does this leave the Christian? Should we abandon politics altogether because neither the right or the left have it right? This sounds great. Separation of church and state right? We vote but our faith occupies a different sphere. This is not biblical though. Our faith should influence our every action including who we vote for. We should vote because the people in office do make a difference in this world. We are a part of this country and doing everything we can to love other people will leave us compelled to vote. We should not however buy hook line and sinker any political ideology simply because its labeled as "the christian one" nor should we compromise on key issues because we disagree with the religious right. We shouldn't alter who we vote for based on our like or dislike for one group or the other. The Bible, God's word for our lives, should be the final decision maker when choosing just how involved to be in politics. Is there a social injustice being ignored by a candidate? Jesus clearly taught that what is done for the weak, the poor, and the helpless are important to Him. (12) It is our job to feed them, clothe them, and defend them. It is acceptable to decide that this is the church's job and not the government's. Make sure that you, a part of the church, are actively involved in defending the weak. It is acceptable to decide that the government should have a part in feeding the poor. You aren't off the hook personally but go for it. Personally I don't like welfare in its current state. I think it encourages people to not work and the Bible encourages people to work. (13) This only serves to keep the poor poor as they get by on what they're given. There are people who legitimately need help but I think welfare hurts as many people as it helps. I'm not for ditching it; I'm for fixing it. Whatever the case, as a Christian, I cannot sit by while poverty continues. As long as I have I cannot let others have not. The Christian faith is so much more than a political ideology but it should be impossible for a Christian to form one without it being distinctly influenced by his or her faith. We MUST be active in every area we can defending the weak, promoting peace, feeding the poor, and sharing the love and Good News of Jesus Christ. This includes the political arena. Apathy is not an option for the Christian. We must interact but we as a group MUST find a better way to interact than simply to align ourselves with the Christian Coalition man. "Values voters" need to expand their values to include the teachings of the entire Bible not just a few issues. With the Bible and the Holy Spirit as our guide we (this is where that whole priesthood of the believer thing comes in) can make an informed decision and be actively involved in changing our country for the better. Even without the consent of the outspoken, often obnoxious, religious right that has dominated our votes for years.
1. The proper interpretation of scripture, or hermeneutics, must take into account the society to which the text was written and the society we are applying it to today. Times have changed since scripture was written. This doesn't change the truths inside but it will change how we apply it today. The fact that the early Christians were not political could very well be more related to the political climate of the day than to the way Christians should live. This brings me to number 2.
2. Its an argument from silence. If the Bible stated "You should not try to love the world through politics" then this issue would be resolved. It doesn't. All we have to go on are the early Christians relation to the political leaders of their day. Which is basically not mentioned unless the leaders are trying to kill them. We see Paul witnessing to the leaders during his trials but his arguments are not for followers of "the Way" in general or for the government to feed the poor but for his innocence.(2) We can take this to mean that we are to be completely separate from the political realm but this is not stated in the Bible and in my opinion is not the intent of its authors.
The vast majority of theologically conservative Christians aren't inactive. They are quite outspoken and active politically but they are not always active in the right ways. The alliance between the most outspoken religious leaders (the religious right) and the Republican party has hurt not only the public perception of the Christian faith in America but the state of the country in general. Christianity has become hated by half of America not based on its teachings but because it has aligned itself with one side of a two party debate. This robs the country of the positive moral values (the real ones not the fake ones you see on TV) that Christians have to offer.(3) There are other real issues within Christian theology that are caused by this alliance.
1. The idea that Christian=Republican leads to a complete inability to actually deal with real issues. There is very little discussion among Christians about campaign issues besides the few the religious right cling to. Christians know about abortion and the know about gay marriage. There is no discussion about what candidate best deals with these issues as well as social issues such as caring for the poor or Jesus' statement "Blessed are the peacemakers." (4) It is irrelevant how a candidate deals with these issues because Christian=Republican. This causes a serious rift in the way Christians live our lives. As more and more pastors try to "save their country" by preaching on the issues of abortion/gay marriage less and less Christians are making an impact for the poor, the downtrodden, and other people Jesus would have us love. (5) This complete lack of discussion has allowed the Republican religious right to dominate the entire theologically conservative protestant population based on the lie that to be theologically conservative you must be politically conservative. This doesn't allow for political discussion because any debate about other candidates instantly becomes a religious discussion and in order to consider another option someone must compromise not on their politics but on their theology. This is unhealthy. (6)
2. The Republican party does not stand for Christian values. If there were a political party based completely on Christian beliefs this would be a different discussion. The religious right has not attempted to find a candidate that will attempt to live up to the teachings of the Bible. They have found candidates and given them votes for signing off on a few issues. Pre-requisites: 1. Say you're a Christian 2. Be against abortion. 3. Be against the gays. 4. Be the Republican candidate. You've got the religious right vote. The Christian Coalition, the major mobilizing force behind the religious right has realized that focusing on the two main issues wont get people elected. Ralph Reed, largely the man behind the organizations success, said "Values alone are not enough. The successful candidate or movement must promote policies that personally benefit voters--such as tax cuts, education vouchers, higher wages, or retirement benefits. Without specific policies designed to benefit families and children, appeals to family values or America's Judeo-Christian heritage will fall on deaf ears. ..." (7) Reed is correct in his statement that values (by values he is speaking primarily about the issues of abortion and homosexuality) alone are not enough. However his additions are not what a truly "Christian" coalition would add. Taken simply, of course no one would elect a president if all he could talk about was abortion and homosexuality. There are millions of other issues a president must deal with. But if values are not enough what other issues should mark a "christian" candidate? This is the question that must be asked but its the question the religious right isn't asking. There is no discussion about what the Bible says (what a radical thought...) on other issues because as far as they're concerned the issue was decided by gay marriage and abortion. This is not to take away from the importance of getting rid of abortion. It is taking an innocent humans life and has to go. But the point is that that alone is not enough to label a candidate Christian. Christians are supposed to take care of the poor. Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek when they're attacked. Christians are supposed to love their enemies. (8) The religious right has compromised on these issues in order to align themselves with the Republican party. Instead of finding a third party that is both against abortion and for the poor they have settled for the more likely to be elected Republican candidate. They have sacrificed religious integrity for political viability.(9)
3. We have missed the boat when we attempt to enforce righteousness on other people by law. Abortion is not a personal issue. The reason its so hotly debated and the reason the phrase "pro-choice" is so ludicrous is that there is another life involved. When there is not another life being infringed upon attempts to enforce righteousness on people by law are a complete waste of time. The Bible clearly teaches that people are saved by the Grace of God not by their own good works or righteousness. (10) Enforcing righteousness by law will not save anyone. We should be more focused on showing Jesus Christ to the lost than getting the government to get the lost to act like they know Christ. Founded on Christian values or not the way to fix the sin in America is not through legislation. Forced righteousness is not righteousness at all; as such why are we campaigning for politicians based on this premise? Jesus is the only one who can truly change people's perspectives on sin. Lets campaign for Him and let Him fix the sin in America.
(My opinion about gay marriage=The family in America is falling apart since divorce became the norm and this is the cause of most of our crime rates.(11) Personally I'm not a big fan of legalizing gay marriage because the institution of the family has already been so damaged by divorce. We are still experiencing the fallout of so many kids growing up in broken homes. I will not however be campaigning against it. Not because homosexuality is right but because its not the governments job to enforce righteousness.)
Where does this leave the Christian? Should we abandon politics altogether because neither the right or the left have it right? This sounds great. Separation of church and state right? We vote but our faith occupies a different sphere. This is not biblical though. Our faith should influence our every action including who we vote for. We should vote because the people in office do make a difference in this world. We are a part of this country and doing everything we can to love other people will leave us compelled to vote. We should not however buy hook line and sinker any political ideology simply because its labeled as "the christian one" nor should we compromise on key issues because we disagree with the religious right. We shouldn't alter who we vote for based on our like or dislike for one group or the other. The Bible, God's word for our lives, should be the final decision maker when choosing just how involved to be in politics. Is there a social injustice being ignored by a candidate? Jesus clearly taught that what is done for the weak, the poor, and the helpless are important to Him. (12) It is our job to feed them, clothe them, and defend them. It is acceptable to decide that this is the church's job and not the government's. Make sure that you, a part of the church, are actively involved in defending the weak. It is acceptable to decide that the government should have a part in feeding the poor. You aren't off the hook personally but go for it. Personally I don't like welfare in its current state. I think it encourages people to not work and the Bible encourages people to work. (13) This only serves to keep the poor poor as they get by on what they're given. There are people who legitimately need help but I think welfare hurts as many people as it helps. I'm not for ditching it; I'm for fixing it. Whatever the case, as a Christian, I cannot sit by while poverty continues. As long as I have I cannot let others have not. The Christian faith is so much more than a political ideology but it should be impossible for a Christian to form one without it being distinctly influenced by his or her faith. We MUST be active in every area we can defending the weak, promoting peace, feeding the poor, and sharing the love and Good News of Jesus Christ. This includes the political arena. Apathy is not an option for the Christian. We must interact but we as a group MUST find a better way to interact than simply to align ourselves with the Christian Coalition man. "Values voters" need to expand their values to include the teachings of the entire Bible not just a few issues. With the Bible and the Holy Spirit as our guide we (this is where that whole priesthood of the believer thing comes in) can make an informed decision and be actively involved in changing our country for the better. Even without the consent of the outspoken, often obnoxious, religious right that has dominated our votes for years.
(1) David D. Kirkpatrick, The Evangelical Crackup, 7.
(2) Acts 26, ESV.
(3)Isaac Krammick, and R. Laurence Moore. 1996. "Is God a Republican? Why Politics Is Dangerous for Religion. The Christian Coalition Has Made a Dangerous Gamble by Associating Faith with the Republican Party. If God Blesses Us Only As Republicans or Democrats, Both Parties And Religion Are in Trouble." The American Prospect. no. 28:50. Available online via FirstSearch.
(4) Matthew 5:9, ESV.
(5) Kirkpatrick.
(6) Jason Carter. 2006. Toward a Genuine Debate About Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the "Christian" Right. Georgia Law Review. 41, no. 1: 69. Available online via FirstSearch.
(7) Ibid.
(8) The Bible.
(9) Carter.
(10) Romans 3:23-24, ESV.
(11) Beck, Randy. 2006. The City of God and the Cities of Men: A Response to Jason Carter. Georgia Law Review. 41, no. 1: 113.
(12) Matthew 25:34-36, ESV.
(13) Ephesians 4:28 and I Thessolonians 4:11-12 are two examples.
(2) Acts 26, ESV.
(3)Isaac Krammick, and R. Laurence Moore. 1996. "Is God a Republican? Why Politics Is Dangerous for Religion. The Christian Coalition Has Made a Dangerous Gamble by Associating Faith with the Republican Party. If God Blesses Us Only As Republicans or Democrats, Both Parties And Religion Are in Trouble." The American Prospect. no. 28:50. Available online via FirstSearch.
(4) Matthew 5:9, ESV.
(5) Kirkpatrick.
(6) Jason Carter. 2006. Toward a Genuine Debate About Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the "Christian" Right. Georgia Law Review. 41, no. 1: 69. Available online via FirstSearch.
(7) Ibid.
(8) The Bible.
(9) Carter.
(10) Romans 3:23-24, ESV.
(11) Beck, Randy. 2006. The City of God and the Cities of Men: A Response to Jason Carter. Georgia Law Review. 41, no. 1: 113.
(12) Matthew 25:34-36, ESV.
(13) Ephesians 4:28 and I Thessolonians 4:11-12 are two examples.
Comments