Fax of Life
Rubel Shelley's "Fax of Life" email that comes out each week blesses me each time I get it, but I thought this week's message was both powerful and timely. Some of you may not get it (you should sign up.......it's free!) and I wanted to share it here. Thanks Rubel!!
Title: Faith and Politics
Date: For the Week of August 4, 2008
My title may be misleading. This essay isn't really about politics - although it is. It is about everything. It is about business, education, choosing (or rejecting) motherhood, and eating apple pie. It is about mowing grass, taking exams, balancing a checkbook, and changing oil. And, yes, it is about politics.
I confess to being bothered by things I am hearing already about "who a Christian will vote for in November." Some will vote for Obama, some for McCain, and others will either stay home or write in a vote for somebody whose name most of us will have never heard. Faith doesn't dictate a particular social order, and spiritual people are not all members of the same political party.
Part of the genius of faith is that it isn't American or French. It doesn't make you anti-democracy or anti-monarchy. And it doesn't require you to favor socialism or capitalism. In the case of Christian faith, it declares that one's true citizenship is in God's kingdom and that his or her life under whatever political system is to be lived for the sake of a divine calling.
On the one hand, faith is not divorced from one's social context. It should make one a better citizen in Africa, Europe, or America. A God-honoring way of life moves us to care for our neighbors and to seek the good of all people.
On the other, faith is not defined by one's social context. A woman can be a true and faithful child of God in Russia, Australia, or North Korea. Nothing about earthly governments trumps the value of a heavenly citizenship.
So what's with the title? Why raise the issue of "faith and politics" or "faith and business" or "faith and family"? Simply to make the point that good theology and authentic faith are always practical. They relate to life as it is being lived every day by ordinary men and women in our homes and workplaces.
Eugene Peterson says that a healthy pursuit of the spiritual life is "the development of awareness and discernments that are as alert and responsible in the workplace as in the sanctuary, as active while changing diapers in a nursery as while meditating in a grove of aspens, as necessary when reading a newspaper editorial as when exegeting a sentence written in Hebrew."
Faith is the orientation of a life to pursue God. Scripture is a compass to keep us from getting disoriented on our journey. Jesus is the defining personal example of what it is to live spiritually. If you believe all three of those statements - as I do - there is nothing about any one of them or all taken together that dictates your candidate for president, the career you must pursue, or the city where you must live. Yet all those decisions will be informed by your faith.
Faith is not your private opinion but your life-defining commitment by which everything in your public and relational life is decided.
31 Comments:
"...good theology and authentic faith are always practical. They relate to life as it is being lived every day by ordinary men and women in our homes and workplaces."
Who's he kidding? We all know that "good theology and authentic faith" are intertwined almost exclusively with the proper political affiliation and how many officially sanctioned church ministries and mission trips you've been a part of recently.
Tsk-tsk; who is this "Rubel Shelly" anyway?
Seriously, I would like to make 95 copies of this and post it on a certain church door.
"And it doesn't require you to favor socialism or capitalism."
Nope, it does not REQUIRE that. However, if there is some implication here that there is no moral difference between the two, that tells me Mr. Shelley knows very little about capitalism or socialism.
Other than that, I thought his argument was long on generalities, but very short on specifics. No one can really disagree with much Shelley has written here, but how exactly does one apply it to questions of the war in Iraq, abortion, energy policy, tax policy, same-sex marriage, health care, social welfare spending, etc.
Why is Shelley bothered about "who a Christian will vote for in November?" Does it and should it make any difference? If, as he says, our politics should be informed by our faith, then how exactly does that translate on specific issues? I cannot help but believe Shelley's real problem is with those whose politics are to the right. Yet, simply listing a bunch of platitudes with which virtually no one would disagree does nothing to address any wrongs he sees -- no matter which side of the political spectrum we might guess he comes down on.
I like his theology better than his application of it.
To pretend that issues like abortion (just one example) are so petty that choices about life and death issues are no more important than where you will live or work is foolish.
A faith that does not result in ethics and morality is not much in my view. Sorry, but I have to question the sanction of perversion, killing the unborn, and encouraging immorality by official policy of the U.S. government. Don't kid yourself, when you go to the polls you are making a moral choice whether you admit it or not.
Neither candidate or party fully embodies the Christian ethic but one out weighs the other for sure.
Royce
Jim, maybe you can enlighten Rubel about socialism and capitalism.
You are correct in observing that he talked in generalities. I'm pretty sure that was intentional. That allows each of us to make individual application as we need to. I've noticed that approach usually doesn't connect with issue driven folks. And to correct one of your observations......he's NOT bothered about "who a Christian will vote for". He's bothered by what he is hearing others communicate when they talk about "who a Christian will vote for". That's why he put it in italics. As to your last point, I don't think his motive for writing this was to "address any wrongs he sees". What gave you that impression?
Royce, I don't think he would disagree with anything you said in your paragraph about faith resulting in ethics and morality. Were you implying that he would? If not, what was the point of that paragraph?
I respect your opinion, and I am glad to recognize the freedom you have that allows you to pick your party and candidate. I hope you will be as gracious in return.
We are spending the month of October, each Wednesday night, discussing faith and politics. I will be speaking from the Christian libertarian position, another will speak from a pro-right position and a third will speak from the pro-left position (though none of us are happy with those labels). On the fourth Wednesday night we will do a roundtable, answering questions from the congregation.
I don't believe you can divorce your faith from your politics, but it is certainly possible to divorce yourself from the political realm because of your faith (i.e. Lipscomb and, to a lesser extent, Campbell). When we pull those levers in November, we are either binding or loosing our fellow citizens. That matters to me and my faith has much to say about that.
Can I make a confession? Based on Romans 13, I used to abstain from voting. I figured that if God establishes governing authorities, who am I to vote against Him?
Now I can't imagine a less-informed interpretation. God can work through my vote or in spite of it. In a democracy, we elect the government we deserve and I believe God works through that.
I haven't yet met a candidate or party that was perfect. I haven't yet encountered one that reflects all my views and preferences, nor do I expect that there has ever been one that reflects all of God's views and preferences.
Faith isn't about voting right or left or correctly or incorrectly. A vote expresses a preference. It describes what you believe is important. God already knows that. What is just as important - if not more important - is how you campaign for/support your preference and how you live with the result of the election: do you do so in a Christ-like manner?
Will you forward e-mails that paint a candidate in a negative light even though they are untrue?
Will you criticize one candidate, holding him/her to a higher standard than the other ... or a standard higher than you can meet yourself?
When it's all over, will you rub it in when yours wins or paste an "I-didn't-vote-for-him/her" sticker on your bumper if yours loses?
Because when it's all over, all of us who voted for what we believed to be best for our country will have to live in it together ... and it makes no sense to live as red versus blue under the red-white-and-blue.
David,
Something he said I completley agree with. "Faith is not your private opinion but your life-defining commitment by which everything in your public and relational life is decided." It seems to me that some of what he said earlier is in contrast to that idea.
I refuse to believe that apathy is a Christian virtue. The idea that Christians should be content with whatever government comes their way doesn't pass muster. Yes some "Christians" can support Obama and some McCain and some can even be ok with socialism. Very true! Some "Christians" can cheat on their wife and income taxes too. What does that prove?
I am one of those odd balls who is against the homosexual agenda because my belief in Holy Scripture "informs" me that lifestyle is perverse and wrong. I am kind and cordial to politicians with whom I disagree (as Kieth suggested) for the same reason.
I am a Christian first. Then I am a United States Citizen. Because of each I am afforded rights and benefits and I have responsibilities as a result. To shirk either off as unimportant makes me less than I should be.
The last sentence of my earlier comment was "Neither candidate or party fully embodies the Christian ethic but one out weighs the other for sure". Any casual observer should know that statement is true.
Royce
Royce,
It's not that I don't consider a homosexual lifestyle to be wrong. Personally, I believe that it is...as is adultery, gluttony, greed, dishonesty, fornication, materialism...To the extent that I or someone I know is practicing one of these lifestyles, I agree that it's something that I need to address in love. However, I don't think it is a proper role of government in a secular society like ours to be discriminating among its citizens based on these lifestyles that I consider to be immoral. Of course, there are plenty of other things that I consider to be immoral that I also think the government should prohibit because they infringe on another's personal liberty and safety, but those aren't among them.
Jonathan,
My opposition to the governments policy positions in regard to homsexuals is that it has made perverson a protected class. Where does it end? One doesn't have to be a Phd to see that the evil one is making an all out assault on the family, the bedrock of every society in history.
In Canada it is illegal to read any passage from scripture on the radio that mentions homosexual acts in a negative way. We are not likely far behind our friends to the north.
You said "I don't think it is a proper role of government in a secular society like ours to be discriminating among its citizens based on these lifestyles that I consider to be immoral" Discriminating against? You and I aren't living in the same country!
A people with no moral anchor is doomed.
Royce
Jonathan said, "I don't think it is a proper role of government in a secular society like ours to be discriminating among its citizens based on these lifestyles that I consider to be immoral. Of course, there are plenty of other things that I consider to be immoral that I also think the government should prohibit because they infringe on another's personal liberty and safety, but those aren't among them."
Well, hey! Let's get all those incest laws off the books as long as it is two conseting adults.
Royce and Jon,
I take it from your response to comment that there wasn't anything in it that you thought made any sense and that it was only worthy of ridicule.
Anyway Jon asked about incest between consenting adults. I don't really know anything about it, but I assume that it's rare enough that explicit regulation probably isn't really necessary. But, yes, I would say that private sexual activity between consenting adults isn't the business of anyone else as far as secular society is concerned, even if the consenting adults are closely related.
Royce seemed to think that I'm clueless for believing that homosexuals are discriminated against. There is a partial list of the legal benefits of marriage here: link.
Jonathan is making the assumption that same sex marriage should be seen as "normal" and that is the error. When couples are married they usually make promises to each other and implore diety to bless their union. Weddings are public declarations before God and man. "What God hath joined together.." and similar words are traditionally spoken. The idea that God in heaven, the author of the inspired Bible would reverse what He has said about sexual perversion and bless and sanction same sex marriage is utter foolishness.
If homosexuality is "natural" as most pro-homosexaul folks would have us believe, then how has homosexuality not only been around for centuries and appears to be growing as a percentage of population? Since same sex unions do not produce children, the process of natural selection would have done away with same sex desire long, long ago.
Royce
Well, let's see Jonathan, you have just stated that if momma wants to marry her own boy (and he is of age and consents) that society should bless such a union with legal protection. And, given your what you have said about both incest and homosexuality, you apparently believe society would be doing a good thing if momma wanted to marry her boy's little sister (so long as she is of age and consents).
You also error when you speak of a "secular society." We don't have a secular society. In spite of everything, American society is far from being secular. We do have a secular element within that society trying to impose a purely secular (and spiritually hostile) government upon it, but American society is a long way from being secular.
I thought something Keith said was also interesting: "Faith isn't about voting right or left or correctly or incorrectly."
If faith has no role in helping one to vote correctly, then what is the point? If there is never a correct vote and an incorrect vote for a Christian, then exactly what role is faith supposed to play when one walks in the voting booth? If it does not matter how one votes, then why does it matter whether that vote is influenced or not by one's faith?
Wow guys, this is fun. I can tell that you're thoughtfully considering the points I'm making and respectfully addressing what I've written...emphasizing both where we agree and where we disagree...and resisting the urge to put words in my mouth so that you can argue against those words rather than what I've actually said. If you weren't doing this, our conversation might seem like petty bickering instead of a fruitful discussion.
Royce,
I'm not saying anything about what kind of sex God sanctions. I think you and I agree that the homosexual lifestyle is contrary to God's will. From a Christian perspective, I don’t think homosexuality should be seen as “normal” any more than I think that adultery, gluttony, greed, dishonesty, fornication, materialism, etc. should be seen as normal. However, as a citizen, I think Americans should be free to eat as much food, horde as much money, have as many sexual partners as they want, etc., regardless of whether I think it is moral or should be normal. You spoke against making a perversion a protected class. I’m saying that all of us are a protected class not to be discriminated against, regardless of sexual orientation etc etc.
A point I’m trying to make is that it seems to me that you are effectively singling out homosexuality as perverse and unnatural in God’s eyes in a way that adultery, gluttony, greed, dishonesty, fornication, materialism, etc. are not. I’d be interested in understanding the Biblical basis for that view. Cynically, one might suspect that the basis is more related to the fact that neither I nor any of my friends or family has a homosexual lifestyle but many of us struggle with adultery, gluttony, greed, dishonesty, fornication, materialism, etc. ourselves.
If society wants to have a special institution of “marriage” from which it excludes part of the population, that wouldn’t bother me much as long as the government doesn’t then discriminate among it’s citizens on the basis of this institution from which it has excluded them.
Jon,
I'm talking about a secular society/government in the sense that we don't have a theocracy that is explicitly tied to any one single religion or religious text. Rather, it is based on a set of shared values that are in turn often based on religion but are more universal and commonly held than any one specific religion. I agree with you that our society/government should not impose a purely secular and spiritually hostile worldview on its citizens…any more than it should impose in one specific spiritual worldview.
Also, I think you’ve done a decent job of summarizing my view on incest while you were ridiculing it. Although I believe it to be morally wrong, I don’t think the sexual relations of consenting adults is any of my business.
Again, I don’t know much about incest but I assume part of the historical reason behind its prohibition is related the genetic problems that can result in offspring. Maybe that is enough practical reason to ban it, I don’t know. Again, I assume that it is extremely rare regardless, and it's not something I spend any time worrying about.
That last comment is from me. It looks like my OpenID is doing something funny.
Jon, I think I already said what I meant. Taking a quote like ""Faith isn't about voting right or left or correctly or incorrectly" out of its context strips it of the intended meaning.
(I hope you ain't one o' them folk what do that with scripture!)
But if it will make my comment clearer:
How can there be a correct or incorrect vote when we're all voting for imperfect people? Candidates who will make mistakes?
Voting for a person is almost always a choice we make about whom/what we feel is the classic "lesser of two evils." Voting for an issue is frequently the same thing. When I vote for a candidate for federal office, I often have to decide things like: "Which is worse - a candidate who supports abortion, or a candidate who favors invading other nations based on unverified information? A candidate who doesn't see homosexuality as a legal issue or a candidate who wants to make everything he/she considers a sin illegal? A candidate whose energy policy is unrealistically enviro-friendly, or a candidate whose energy policy is environmentally hostile and shoves money into the pockets of energy monopolies?"
We want to be certain about everything. We want to be right. We hate ambiguity. We hate paradox. We hate difficult questions. So we over-simplify them - or vote on the basis of just one issue - call the choice morally right and pull the lever.
That, to me, is totally irresponsible behavior for an American, let alone a Christian. But our Christian heritage often complicates our choices in life and in the voting booth by insisting that every decision we make is either morally right or morally wrong. That's just nonsense. Paul could not have been clearer when writing to the followers in Rome that there are some things that are matters of conscience - and that some people will feel strongly one way, and others will feel strongly the other way.
When they do not impinge directly on one's relationship with God, they are matters of choice.
So, in the booth, we choose. We choose what we feel is more important, more "right." Hopefully, we struggle with the choice and pray about it and grow because of it. And we realize it's not a perfect choice, sometimes not even a right choice - because there is none - and in the end we pull the lever based on what we believe.
Rubel's point is that what happens in that booth ain't all that different from what happens every day of our lives.
I happen to think he's right about that.
Johathan,
I have never even hinted that homosexual acts are more sinful than the ones you list. What I have indicated is that our government has decided in it's wisdom to make homosexuals a protected class. Our government has thus sanctioned the lifestyle and one party in our country will continue that path. Just as they will continue to protect the right of women to have babies killed my the tens of thousands.
Both of these positions fly in the face of common sense, decency, and I believe the will of God.
Royce
Royce said:
I have never even hinted that homosexual acts are more sinful than the ones you list. What I have indicated is that our government has decided in it's wisdom to make homosexuals a protected class.
Sorry to misrepresent you on that. I got that impression because you keep singling it out as a perversion.
It does not concern me too much that it is becoming a protected class because, as I've mentioned previously, I don't think it or a variety of other things that I consider to be immoral should be the basis of discrimination.
David,
First I apologize to you for hijacking your blog for our discussion. This will be my last comment on this thread.
Jonathan,
Perversion is not prejudicial term. It describes unnatural or deviant sexual practices. The obvious natural order is sex between male and female primarily to propagate a speces. It is not natural for a man to desire another man sexually. Such acts are against nature and the clearly revealed will of our God.
This fact says absolutely nothing derogatory about the worth of any individual who practices such behavior, nor does it make any statement about God's love or mine for any person for whom Christ died.
The United States government should not be in the position of extending special rights, giving aid to, or in any way sectioning deviant sexual behavior in my view. It is odd to me that judges, prosecutors, and elected officials will move heaven and earth to put a polygamist in jail and take his kids but will put their stamp of approval on same sex unions.
The congress of the U.S. should pass a marriage amendment but it will not happen while Pelosi and Reid have control. The husband/wife family and common language are both under intense attack and when they are destroyed so goes the nation.
Royce
Royce,
I doubt DU is feeling hijacked. He wouldn't post and enable comments if he weren't interested in sparking a discussion.
I agree that the treatment of polygamists is puzzling too. In the absence of child abuse, the living arrangements of polygamists is none of my business.
I think we're at a bit of an impasse. You're opposed to the government giving special rights to homosexuals. I'm opposed to the government discriminating against homosexuals by giving special rights to a group from which homosexuals are excluded. I think we're talking about the same thing, but where I see that the current system discriminates unfairly you see that to change the current system would be giving special rights to a group that you think doesn't deserve them. I'm not sure how to make any more progress in the discussion unless we resolve this difficulty, and you're done anyway.
abortion has been mentioned a few times. This is my perspective on that issue:
The American public is pretty evenly divided between the view that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare and that it should be illegal and rare. Ideologically those two views are very different, but practically they are very similar. Both parties focus on ideology as a wedge issue, dig in to give no ground, and as a result do things that don't help. Rather than focus on ideological differences, an approach that has led to stalemate with little hope for significant change in the foreseeable future, I'm more interested in both sides focusing on where they agree and can work together to do practical things to reduce the abortion rate.
"I agree that the treatment of polygamists is puzzling too. In the absence of child abuse, the living arrangements of polygamists is none of my business."
The treatment of polygamists is easy to understand. Think feminism. Polygamy is a patriarchal institution and the feminists are not going to tolerate that. Lesbianism, homosexuality, etc., are fine with them, but no one should think they are going to stand by and let a man have a harem.
"I'm opposed to the government discriminating against homosexuals by giving special rights to a group from which homosexuals are excluded."
So you see married men and women as a special class singled out for special treatment by current U.S. law. I suppose we should ignore the fact that this has been the basic social structure for several thousand years.
Jonathan,
Abortions in the United States:
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
These U.S. stats would cast doubt on your idea that the practice is "rare".
Royce
Keith said, "How can there be a correct or incorrect vote when we're all voting for imperfect people?"
The idea that one choice cannot be better than another choice because neither choice is perfect is an idea that defies logic.
I'm still waiting to see how faith should play any role at all in the voting process if, as you said in an earlier post, that faith had nothing to do with votiing correctly or incorrectly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Better" is different from "correct" or "incorrect," bro.
"Better" is a comparative adjective.
"Correct" and "incorrect" are absolute adjectives.
Did I really say what you think I said?
Keith said, ""Better" is different from "correct" or "incorrect," bro. "Better" is a comparative adjective. "Correct" and "incorrect" are absolute adjectives."
Thanks for the grammar lesson. Now, given a choice between two candidates where one is better than the other, which would be the correct choice? The better candidate or the other one?
I think you're parsing words at this point and you haven't answered a single question I've asked. Not that you have to, but I just wonder, if faith has no role in voting correctly or incorrectly, as you said, then what is the point of bringing your faith into the voting booth?
Royce,
You misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say that abortion is rare. I was saying that both Republicans and Democrats are united in desiring that it be rare.
anonymous said:
"So you see married men and women as a special class singled out for special treatment by current U.S. law. I suppose we should ignore the fact that this has been the basic social structure for several thousand years."
Yes, like we have done in rejecting discrimination against women, against the disabled, and against various races, it is my personal opinion that we should ignore the fact the discrimination against homosexuals has been the historical norm in our culture and that we should guarantee them equal treatment under the law.
I haven't answered your question because of the way you phrased it, o critic of parsing words. It's one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" kinda questions.
Now, given a choice between two candidates where one is better than the other, which would be the correct choice? The better candidate or the other one? is what you asked. I disagree that there is necessarily a correct choice. There may be a better choice - based on your preferences about what's important to you, your faith, your country.
The point of bringing your faith into the voting booth is the same as the point of bringing your faith with you into all parts of your life. It honors God. You will still elect imperfect candidates. The world will keep revolving, and in the remainder of your life outside the booth you will engage your faith to help clean up the messes that imperfect candidates - and everyone else - continue to make.
I'm sorry there's no glib and easy answer to the questions you phrase. That's the way life is. Complicated. Difficult. Full of gray areas between the black-and-white of morality. God wants us to grow by sorting out those gray areas actively, not by comforting ourselves in thinking we know it all and are always choosing and doing the right thing. (That leads to self-righteousness, and no one finds it attractive.)
He does know it all. He's in control.
Whether you voted for Him or not.
Jon said -- "Now, given a choice between two candidates where one is better than the other, which would be the correct choice? The better candidate or the other one?"
The correct choice would be to choose the better candidate. Is this a trick question?
Post a Comment
<< Home