Should our faith dictate how we should vote?
The most common topic suggested last week, other than those posted by The Dude and myself, was the interaction between government and the church, be it the separation of church and state or involvement with political candidates. So let's start with the latter. Here were posts from Hudson's Dad and Anonymous:
"Should we as Christians be obligated to support a certain candidate because he/she claims to be a believer? Let's say Bush had one more eligible term. Would it be wrong as a fellow believer to vote for Hillary or Obama instead of Bush?"
"to add to the last comment ... the Catholic Church explicitly stated that voting for Kerry last election would be committing an act of sin due to his condoning of abortion. Did the Catholic church go too far?"
I think these are great questions. What do you think?
What role does our faith or should our faith play in determining which political candidate we will support? Jimmy Carter says he is a Christian and many would say he was a terrible president. Bill Clinton says he is a Christian and he had an affair in office. George Bush says he is a Christian and lots of people would debate his choices.
I've done some research on each of the top candidates for 2008 and we can discuss them specifically next week, but this week, I wonder if we can talk specifically about the role of Christianity or, in the case of Anonymous' post the Church, in dictating how we vote.
Is it ignorant to expect Christians to be good presidents because they assumedly spend time in the Word and in prayer? Should we vote for a president just because he/she is a Christian? Should we just vote the issues? What do we do if we disagree with Christian politicians on certain issues?
"Should we as Christians be obligated to support a certain candidate because he/she claims to be a believer? Let's say Bush had one more eligible term. Would it be wrong as a fellow believer to vote for Hillary or Obama instead of Bush?"
"to add to the last comment ... the Catholic Church explicitly stated that voting for Kerry last election would be committing an act of sin due to his condoning of abortion. Did the Catholic church go too far?"
I think these are great questions. What do you think?
What role does our faith or should our faith play in determining which political candidate we will support? Jimmy Carter says he is a Christian and many would say he was a terrible president. Bill Clinton says he is a Christian and he had an affair in office. George Bush says he is a Christian and lots of people would debate his choices.
I've done some research on each of the top candidates for 2008 and we can discuss them specifically next week, but this week, I wonder if we can talk specifically about the role of Christianity or, in the case of Anonymous' post the Church, in dictating how we vote.
Is it ignorant to expect Christians to be good presidents because they assumedly spend time in the Word and in prayer? Should we vote for a president just because he/she is a Christian? Should we just vote the issues? What do we do if we disagree with Christian politicians on certain issues?
posted by Matthew at 8:42 PM
19 Comments:
This is an interesting topic, something I think a lot since I am interested in politics. Being a Christian, I would always feel more comfortable with the idea that the leader of my country is a Christian and base his/her decisions on Christian values. You mentioned rightly that Bill Clinton had an affair. I feel that Christians are not perfect and make the wrong decisions sometimes, presidents are also just human. A lot of times one read about good leaders in history and what great things they did for their countries. The people that write about these presidents often neglect to tell the reader whether or not they have been Christians. I always wonder.....
Grabow ...
... I think defining our terms in a question like this might be helpful. One of the difficulties with modern Christianity (especially in America) is that when people say they are a Christian it is often flippant and that individual might differ considerably on crucial topics despite calling themselves a believer. For instance, depending on the denomination and view of scripture of a Christian, one could bend scripture to protect a women's right to choose in abortion, or to allow love to conquer all and have two men marry ... etc. I bring this point up to ask how much of a responsibility do we have to test our candidates faith and not merely take their profession of faith at face value and allow God to judge them. This can have a huge impact on how we vote if voting for an "orthodox" Christian is our duty.
Smith and others, you are probably wondering what it would take to get me to post for the first time on here. Love the blog, just haven't had much to say until you ask the politics question. For those that do not know me, I am not a very "political" guy. However, since the 2004 election I have become much more active in speaking out on my political beliefs. I was definitely that Christian guy who in 2004 voted to keep Bush in the White House for the sole reason that he proclaimed to be a Christian. But over the past two years I have absolutely come to regret voting for Bush. I am not an anti-Bush guy. I don't have a bumper sticker on my car that says "F W." I still respect Bush for what I feel his original intent was as a Christian in the White House.
But what kills me is the person that says that Bush is an awesome president because he is a Christian and he is against abortion. And trust me, they are still out there. My coworker (25 year old girl for demographic purposes) said that exact thing to me this week. She said, "I love George Bush." I asked her to give me three reasons why he was a good president. She responded, "Because he is a Christian and is against abortion." End of conversation.
The biggest problem with that line of reasoning is that while a guy can be absolutely smoking for Jesus he can still be a very bad politician. Or even worse, he could put his politics before his Christianity.
For those that did not hear about David Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith" that came out last year here is an excerpt that brings to light the dangers with voting for a president based exclusively on the fact that he is a Christian:
[The practice was] to make grand announcements and then do nothing to implement them. Nowhere was this clearer than in compassion announcements. In May 2001, for instance, the president announced a new $3 billion drug treatment initiative. By December 2003 not a dime had been spent. I had been around politics long enough not to be shocked. The announcements were smart politics because absolutely no one called them on anything. . George W. Bush loves Jesus. He is a good man. But he is a politician; a very smart and shrewd politician. And if the faith-based initiative was teaching me anything, it was about the presidents' capacity to care about perception more than reality. He wanted it to look good. He cared less about it being good.
Christian leaders, Christian media, and Christian writers, however, didn't dare question or challenge him or the White House. He wasn't a political leader to them, he was a brother in Christ – precisely what the White House wanted them to believe. What they didn't get to see was what the White House thought of them. For most of the rest of the White House staff, evangelical leaders were people to be tolerated, not people who were truly welcomed. No group was more eye-rolling about Christians than the political affairs shop. They knew "the nuts" were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness. Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were. They didn't see much of the love of Jesus in their lives.
Political Affairs was hardly alone. There wasn't a week that went by that I didn't hear someone in middle- to senior-levels making some comment or another about how annoying the Christians were or how tiresome they were, or how "handling" them took so much time.
David Kuo quit his post with the Office of Faith Based Initiatives in 2004 after he saw more and more of this type of attitude. Whether we are to believe his stories or not, the truth of the matter is that he brings to light an excellent point. While Bush may be a on fire for Jesus Christian, is there any doubt that his sinful side could cause his political agenda to take more of an importance than his Christian agenda.
Truthfully, I don't think the argument is whether we should vote for a guy because he is against abortion. Nor should we vote for him bc he promises to give more money to faith based organizations that serve those in need. We should vote for a president based on his ability to run the country. Whether he professes to be a Christian or not is secondary, mainly bc we can never know the true state of a man's heart. Just my $0.02.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was quoted saying: "I'm not electing a pastor-in-chief. I'm electing a commander-in-chief." Sounds like many of you would agree. I'm not sure I would. I think that would make us guilty of the same categorization that says church is only for Sundays.
Yes, we live in a democracy but I think there is merit to looking back at how God set government up in Israel. Was not Moses both the spiritual and political leader of Israel? Sure, Aaron was priest, but Moses was undoubtedly the spiritual leader. What about Samuel? What about David?
Democracy is obviously different but, rather than saying we can't know a leader's heart, I'd be more inclined to agree with Grabow -- we have to take both their words and their actions (something David Kuo points out we are bad at doing), compare them to Truth, and make the most informed decision we can.
One more thought:
Voting is interesting in that we are forced into a utilitarian philosophy no matter how much we want to hold to absolute truth. We have to choose the "best option" between two candidates or two issues even if we do not completely agree with either candidate/position. For example, if candidate A is a mediocre leader who claims to be a Christian, supports bans on abortion and gay marriage, supports tax cuts for the rich, budget cuts for environmental concerns, additional troops in Iraq, etc. do some issues outweigh others? What if candidate B appears to be a better leader but supports "unGodly" positions on key issues and is divorced with kids from three different wives? Don't everyone of us prioritize the issues (public, personal, etc.) whether we verbalize it or not?
James Dobson says "the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children" are the great moral issues of our time. But surely caring for the poor is a moral issue. Surely caring for God's creation is a moral issue (e.g., not wasting our abundance of clean water while billions lack any access to water). Surely war is a moral issue.
Now if you say we shouldn't vote on issues, we should vote on a candidate's ability to run the country (or state or city, etc.), my question is: what does that mean and how do we decipher that if we can't know a man's heart? If we voted just on experience, Abraham Lincoln would never have been president.
If we have to consider all of these things together, which I think we do, what is the hierarchy?
There seem to be some underlying assumptions in this post that need to
be addressed.
1) A Christian can and should be the President of the United States.
2) We have an obligation to vote.
3) Having a Christian leader in office would be a good thing for the Church.
4) Having a Christian leader in office would be a good thing for the world.
5) Federal politics is more important than local politics.
My response to these:
1) I don't think this is necessarily true. In fact, historically
speaking this is probably a bad idea.
2) Again, I don't think this is necessarily true. The Anabaptist
tradition would argue this point along with many other strands of
Christian thought.
3) Again, not necessarily true. In fact, I would argue this has been
terribly bad for the Church.
4) Not necessarily true. As my friend Dave says, A Christian president “CANNOT help but compromise true Christianity and propagate an incorrect example of following Jesus.” I see this mostly being true in the areas of non-violence and economic/ecological sustainability.
5) The problem with American politics is that we think it all happens on a federal level. We might even think it all happens on a State level. But I want to argue that the most important place politics happens is on a local level. How many of us are informed about our local politicians religious beliefs (if that is what is important)?
Not me.
A very wise man once said, "You can't act locally by thinking globally. If you want to keep your local acts from destroying the globe, you must think locally."
The Church is a powerful force at a local level because it is free from abstraction and generalization, and is involved in the life of the people. If we can't make sense of politics on a local level why are we trying so hard to be heard at a federal level?
I think biblical scholars call this 'the scandal of particularity.'
Knowledge of the general must be interpreted in the light of the particular. - Hans Urs von Balthasar
as a temporary resident here in Mexico maybe some distance can help me place the Christian Pres talk in context...
Along with what Hunter and K.C were mentioning it appears that much of the rhetoric around "Christian" motivation for voting is because this country is viewed through a theocratic telescope. (e.g Pat Robertson, etc)
So if people vote for Bush if only bc he supposedly defends pro-life, family values, etc they seem to be doing so if only to call us back to what "our forefathers would have desired"
Now history seems to have a way of being silent to our currents issues but i think many of our founding fathers would have words to say against the seemingly at times tyrannical influnce of the Religious Right on policy.
Just some thoughts from a former fledging govt major...
A few quick thoughts:
1) I totally agree that we ought to care more about local politics than federal politics but, personally, I don't care at all about local politics. That should be a conversation we continue with people who live near us.
2) I'm not convinced it's wrong to hope for a theocratic government. It was the way God designed the first earthly government. A theocratic perspective doesn't have to be monopolized by lunatics and the extreme Right (e.g., Pat Robertson).
3) If a Christian president "CANNOT help but compromise true Christianity and propagate an incorrect example of following Jesus," is the same true for us in business? What's the difference?
4) I keep thinking of this verse this week: "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will." -- Proverbs 21:1 We are invited to participate in all of this but God can control kings/presidents/dictators however He wants. To that end, I'm not convinced George Bush has been bad for America politically or spiritually. What if GW has been part of God's plan to wake up a nation of Christians to realize that we ought to think critically about how Christianity plays itself out in our lives, about how we are/ought to be involved in politics, and about maybe, just maybe, being open to voting for a Democrat?
Maybe, just maybe, being open to voting for a Democrat?
WHAT!?!? How dare you say such blasphemous words.
NEVER!!!!! That is a sin in itself! Jesus was a Republican.
Grabow ...
a few quick thoughts ... the Dude ... I think I agree with your overall argument, but I can't agree that a Christian leader cannot help but to compromise his/her faith in office. If you believe the prayer of a faithful believing man/woman can effecuate change then I don't understand the disconnect of not desiring a leader that is in union with God through prayer. Is God sovereign and will His will ultimately prevail? I think most of us wouldn't question that, but I do believe that prayer has an effect and matters beyond the trivial box it resides within most christian American lives and this includes the prayer lives of our leaders.
Also, local politics are extremely important. A strong argument can be made that we could do more to change our nation by caring and praying for our local school board than our president, but let's not miss out completely on the bigger picture of how influencial the president's ability to appoint is. Time will only tell if Roberts and Alito will vote against abortion or issues of gay marriage, but I think we all stand a much better chance to succeed in our grass roots local mission you speak of if we avoid putting a president in the whitehouse who appoints the next general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, a la Ruth Beta Genzburg.
First of all, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and secondly, no reason to bash the ACLU.
Please don't tell me the world would be a better place if we backed the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and a myriad of other "great" appointees of this President.
I will take 9 Ginsburg's any day.
Grabow ...
I think there is ample reason to bash the ACLU as a Christian. Any organization whose founder, Roger Baldwin, states "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the sate itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal" threatens our freedom and certainly does not espouse or seek an America that I desire.
Or take the comments of the former executive director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, who demonstrated the ACLU's position concerning gay marriage stating that "certain fundamental issues should not be left up to a majority vote."
Or an ACLU press release "We must change the climate overall from one where abortion providers are vilified and assaulted to one where they are honored and upheld as the heroes they are."
I think it’s an untenable position within an orthodox Christian framework to defend these positions. I'm not saying that Bush is without fault or that his appointments have all been on the side of the angels, I am merely bringing up another side of the issue which accompanies who we vote into the Whitehouse. Surely you are not stating that because are current president states he is a believer and he has demonstrated a lack of judgment in his appointments that we should now cynically surrender any hope of a Christian appointing Godly men and women who will effectuate change in the future??
And thanks for the spelling lesson.
Ok, so the ACLU is now a front for a communist-backed regime. I was unaware of that. Also, I didn't realize that there presence was threating our "freedom." How so?
In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was "inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle." The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism.
I don't know what other ample reason you find to bash the ACLU...I suggest you keep watching The O'Reilly Factor and come back with some quotes that were made post-1920.
One of the main problems I have with your comments (and the majority of conservative Christians) is that they are so narrow-minded and seek to define Christians/Christian belief in only one "orthodox" way. That's absurd. Open your eyes, there are many Christians who are gay (even Christian leaders), and many Christians who support gay marriage. Should majority vote determine whether or not homosexuals can have equal rights? I think not. As far as abortion goes, just because you are pro-choice does not make you any "less" Christian.
I feel sorry for someone that finds it an untenable position to defend any of these positions as a Christian. I pray that one day you will find it ok to do so.
I don't think I stated in any way, shape, or form that we should "now cynically surrender any hope of a Christian appointing Godly men and women who will effectuate change in the future." That was pulled straight out of your a$$. Don't attempt to corner my distaste for the current President's appointees into such a riduculous statement.
Grabow ...
If I as a "Conservative" Christian am so narrow minded to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and thus utilize it as the standard by which something is adjudicated right or wrong, then areas where the Bible dogmatically speaks out against an action or activity should be absolutely wrong. Simply because Christians might engage in those sinful acts (i.e. abortion or gay marriage) does not and should not change the character of those acts. If "Liberal Christianity" evolves in the next 40 years to allow me to engage in child molestation, I sincerely hope there will be Christians who refuse to "open their eyes" as you say and coddle sin.
P.S. – I can’t stand Bill O’Reily either :)
So abortion and gay marriage are precursors for child molestation?
We have vastly different ideas about the role of religion. To quote former US Senator Gary Hart:
"Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses “the truth” to the exclusion of others."
That sums up my feelings about as accurately as anything I have read. I am not a person without faith because I feel that way.
As far as homosexuality goes, we are most likely on opposite ends of the spectrum (nature vs nurture argument). I think homosexuality is a God-given sexual orientation.
There is a difference in my eyes with being gay/supporting a woman's choice and molesting a child. I am not trying to put a weighted value on "sins", but a little common sense never hurts. I am glad to see, again, the extremism brought out with your example.
Men,
This seems like a good time to institute some blog etiquette. I believe this really ought to apply to all Christian discourse: every conversation about faith, every disagreement, every time.
"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift."
Let's never forget there is one God -- we are all striving for the same thing. That doesn't mean we don't disagree, it just means when we do, we do so with hearts truly seeking God, not seeking to prove a point or win an argument. Really, in the end, are we not all just a bunch of morons compared to the depth of God's wisdom (Romans 11:33-36)?
This passage in Ephesians gives us some great advice. We need to be humble, gentle, patient, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit. Let's make sure our responses heed this advice.
John 1:17 talks about Christ's embodiment of these attributes: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." If we get lost in debates on morality, we will be like the Pharisees seeking to justify ourselves by our actions or our arguments. Jesus brought a new way -- we are justified only through Him.
So as we strive together toward one this one God we must be filled with grace and truth. Root your arguments in scripture and clothe your responses in grace. If we give truth and no grace, we will be self-righteous, judgmental a-holes. If we give grace and not truth, we place tolerance ahead of the Word of God. We must strive to be like Christ, full of both grace and truth.
Grabow and Anonymous -- if you two would like to root your positions on abortion, gay marriage, extremism, child molestation, etc. in Scripture, I'm sure we would all be interested. Maybe we make it this week's post.
Grabow ...
I am all for discourse and debate and I see genuine purpose behind this dialogue generally, but I am not sure that our back and forth is going to resolve much. If you don't believe the Bible to be inerrant and the final authority when it comes to issues of sin (when it speaks out dogmatically against an issue) and you submit that we as Christians must evolve with the common views of our time on those topics which scripture clearly speaks out against, then I think we might be too far apart ideologically as any further comments I make will most likely boil down to the fact that I believe homosexuality and abortion are unequivocally sinful in accordance with scripture.
Just to clear up ... I don't think molestation is the same thing as abortion; the point of the example was to demonstrate this ... 100 years ago the church would have never entertained the thought that we would be debating gay marriage or terminating life inside a womb under the penumbra of our US Constitutional amendments to create the guise of privacy and phrase it as a woman's right to choose. Now that those actions have become much more digestible for society as a whole, the fact members of society or the church now engage in those actions should have no bearing upon whether or not the action is detestable. I originally brought up the examples of gay marriage and abortion thinking they would be extreme enough to make my point, but the fact that my categorizing those acts as sinful is now a topic of debate on a blog directed to Christians committed to seeking the proper role of the church within the global business community, further necessitated the need to use the most extreme example to demonstrate the fallacy of stating that simply because Christians engage in an activity, this fact should have no bearing on the adjudication of that activity as being sinful or pure, rather there is a benchmark of absolute truth in the Bible. And when you speak of “common sense” … I am not sure what that phrase even means in your context as I am sure Christians 100 years ago would have a drastically different meaning in mind for the phrase then your usage here. I would submit that “common sense” in the terms you have phrased it will differ amongst reasonable minds and thus is not so common.
Finally, since this is typed and you don't know me, I hope that you would extent the grace to me to know that if my comments have been offensive to you, I am not trying to be a jerk, I am just passionate about this topic and do appreciate your thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home