Where politics and religion intersect
I've never attended a church where the pastor got up on the pulpit and started going off on a political rant. If it ever happened, I'd be one of the first people to get to my feet and walk out, never to return. The closest I've ever seen is a pastor simply encouraging people to vote in the next Tuesday's election -- an entirely appropriate suggestion because it wasn't followed by any indication of who the parishoners should vote for.
I don't like churches getting involved in politics -- that includes those on both the left and the right. Make no mistake, despite all the media coverage of the likes of the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, there are just as many men of the cloth on the left who make similar admonitions to their flock -- the politics are simply different.
However, there's a big difference between wanting churches to stay out of politics and wanting people who attend churches to stay out of politics -- only university professors strongly support that position, and only if you're an "evangelical."
One of the articles I've had up for nearly a week as a tab in my browser has been this piece by David Kuo that ran on NPR a couple of weeks ago. David Kuo is a brother in Christ who became disillusioned by the fact that they play politics in the White House and wrote a book about it -- much to the delight of the mainstream press and the Democrat Party.
Kuo's brief piece is interesting, but I think it's misguided.
It is a political world turned upside down. Republicans running away from religion and Democrats acting like evangelists.
Last night in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidates were long on conservatism and short on compassion. On immigration, on Iraq, on virtually every issue, the consensus was that America hasn't been tough enough. No compassion for anyone — particularly those 12 million Americans who got here illegally.
I hate to sound like a pastor, but what is compassion? Is it compassion to abandon a country to genocide, chaos and terrorism? Is it compassion to make it harder for U.S. blue collar workers to make a decent living by allowing the free flow of cheaper, illegal labor into the country that depresses wages?
When it came to the hungry — or, more precisely, those the Bush Administration has categorized as "food insecure" — there was silence. So, too, on issues like poverty and youth violence and the epidemic of the uninsured. There was, in short, no evidence of the compassionate conservatism George W. Bush once promised would be his governing philosophy.
I think the "food insecure" thing is a joke too, but this is one of the key problems I have with the "religious left" -- why is this the government's job?
I met a lovely young lady several months ago who happens to be dating my brother-in-law's brother. She worked for some religious organization that was lobbying the government on the issue of hunger -- that's where I first heard the "food insecure" news. My first thought -- which wasn't uttered in the interests of not talking politics at family gatherings because certain people can't handle the subject -- was: "Why are they lobbying the government? Shouldn't they be lobbying the churches?"
And that's where the odd dichotomy comes in. When the religious right invokes their faith as a reason for them voting a certain way, the left goes bezerk. You get people like journalist/author Chris Hedges telling radio show host Dennis Prager that if Falwell was elected president that all gays in this country would be executed. (Hedges spent a lot of time in the Middle East, so he may have confused Falwell with your garden variety imam.) You get cries of christofascism and theocracy.
Yet, when the religious left advocates for a variety of legislative remedies based upon "social justice," there is at minimum a silence in the media -- if not outright praise.
Religious right: Abortion ban = horror!
Religious left: Universal single-payer health care = Yay!
This is where the church has failed: The church has taken responsibilities given it by Christ and outsourced them to government. If the government doesn't do it right -- it's the government's fault, not the church's. Caring for the poor, the sick, the widows -- all of that is a government function nowadays. Churches do some things, but even with the expectation that the government will do much of its work for it, it's not enough.
(It will never happen, but I suspect that if the government got out of the social welfare business, there would be a revival in America's churches the likes of which hasn't been seen in a couple centuries.)
Kuo's piece unwittingly highlights that dichotomy.
And Jesus made only the briefest appearance — first from Wolf Blitzer's lips in a question to Rudolph Giuliani and then from Mormon Gov. Mitt Romney, who declared his love for Jesus.
Romney doesn't really want an in-depth examination of his Mormon faith. Ex-mayor Giuliani certainly doesn't want to explain his penchant for marrying in a religious context. And Sen. John McCain, who once called religious right leaders "agents of intolerance", isn't leaping at the chance to play pastor, either.
How differently the Democrats are behaving. Monday night, the progressive religious organization Sojourners hosted the three leading Democratic presidential candidates at a forum on "faith, values, and poverty." It was a Jesus fair.
John Edwards talked about how his faith in Jesus saved his life after the death of his son. Sen. Barack Obama, playing theologian, talked about what Jesus required of men and women today. And Sen. Hillary Clinton adopted the use of Republican religious "code words" when talking about her faith. She spoke of "witness" and "prayer warriors" even as she suggested that her faith in Jesus is what gave her the strength to save her marriage despite the ease with which she might have divorced Bill Clinton after his adultery.
When the left talks about faith, they're "reaching out" to religious voters. When the right talks about faith, they're "pandering to the base." That's the media template -- and they're going to stick to it. Kuo, has swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
As for the faith talk on the right this political cycle, there's certainly a realization among the frontrunners that their multiple marriages don't really position them well to talk about religion. Romney certainly doesn't want to discuss religion aside from the fact that he's led what appears to be an admirable life -- he'd be perfect if he were not a Mormon. Maybe he can tout himself as an Episcopalian -- that seems to be a faith that can include just about everyone. If the GOP hopefuls were to even start talking "God," then you can bet the mainstream media would beat them all over their heads with their shortcomings.
The Democrats have similar problems. Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to have excused her husband's infidelity not out of Christian love and forgiveness, but out of a desire for political power. Unlike President George W. Bush, Sen. Clinton has a reputation for not being a particularly nice person. Sen. Barack Obama attends a church which hasn't gotten a lot of scrutiny, but let's just say that if Sen. Obama was white, David Duke would feel comfortable at his church. As for John Edwards, it's difficult to say the least to reconcile his ostentatious lifestyle with genuine concern for the poor. Most would consider a 4,000 square foot home to be almost palatial, Edwards' new home is 28,000 square feet. What would Jesus do? He'd probably downsize.
But the media -- and "liberal" Christians like the Sojourners' Jim Wallis -- don't really seem to care about a candidate's personal religious life as long as they're on the correct side when it comes to government funding of things churches should be doing.
0 comments on “Where politics and religion intersect”
Tags
This is a very interesting subject to me. I am mostly in agreement with you. Jesus and the early Church had no political power. The function of the governments (Romans and Jewish) in the new testament was to oppress and persecute. It is a travesty what has happened to the Church in the USA. It is a wonderful country, but the Church here has not been pruned. It is full of a bunch of 1 day a week believers who have no concern for what God would have them do with their lives. The opportunity here and lack of persecution has allowed a spirit of "me first" to pervade the deepest depths of our collective conscience. The government has stepped in, step by step and the Church has not.
Having said that, we are now in a situation where it has become harder and harder for the Church to help people. Can you imagine the State of California sending a child to a Christian orphanage? The horror! Even 30 years ago my parents looked into adopting and they were turned down because they did not have enough of a social life outside of church.
I posted a bunch of this stuff on my blog:
http://www.zastoupil.org/zblog/?postid=14
http://www.zastoupil.org/zblog/?postid=18
http://www.zastoupil.org/zblog/?postid=22