How should faith influence our political positions?
If we are going to talk about our involvement in politics as Christians, maybe we ought to take a step back and think about how our opinions are formed. If we're honest with ourselves, we probably care more about what people think than why they think it but that often produces devastating consequences. We argue political positions with people who have had and who are living experiences we could never imagine so, by caring more about issues than the people we are debating, we make our brothers into enemies.
So what then? How do/should we form political positions on gay marriage, abortion, war, creation, gun control, taxes, etc., etc.? Is it just scripture? Should experiences/emotions/church history be part of the mix?
The issue of scripture is obviously important for me. I don't like using words like 'inerrant' or 'infallible' because scripture doesn't claim that for itself. Those are post-enlightenment categories that are violently applied to scripture for self-serving reasons. I prefer the Bible's own language of "inspired" and "useful". Now, don't start getting angry and think that I have a low view of scripture. I don't. I just want to be clear what we are arguing and defending. I have no way of discussing this here, but if you want to get into the larger conversation going on there are a few things you can do. I wrote a few posts about a year ago on my own blog having something to do with this issue so you can at least read what I think there. They are flawed thoughts, like most of what I think. However, they both reference a few books and articles that are written by less-flawed individuals with much sharper minds and words than myself. But take a look at what these guys have written as well. It will open you up to new ideas and see the larger conversation all of this is a part of. Here are links to my posts:
1. Three Thoughts on the Bible
2. A Few Thoughts on Inerrancy (I really should be more creative with my titles...)
The scriptural issues are another ballgame. But they are interrelated. All that stuff needs to be kept in mind while dealing with any issue, so know that I am assuming what I have written above for everything else I say. Below I have sketched out a short example of how I go about examining and determining my beliefs about some of these political issues. This process is not simple and I usually wrestle hard over this stuff. And I am convinced that faith is what allows me to come to any decision. Not certitude. Faith. Not that I'm right but rather that I am doing my best to follow the story of scripture and that it is OK for me to make a mistake. God is big enough for my mistakes. And I hope the Spirit guides me despite my mistakes.
Before I start, I want to clarify that this is not intended to be prescriptive; this is just the way I think through issues like politics. I hope it challenges us to take a different approach to thinking about issues...not necessarily this approach:
1) The first thing I should do is take a minute to think through why I hold the position I do (emotionally, intellectually, culturally, traditionally, and scripturally). This varies from issue to issue. Some issues are highly emotional to me because they have directly impacted my life. Others I feel less passionately about and that is OK. But I must recognize how each part plays into an issue. I must take each of these aspects seriously. But, it is important to try to figure out why I feel/think/believe what I do as a starting point. Many times I can recognize that I am in no position to formulate an opinion because of some other issues I must deal with first. So I start here.
2) Now I think about the larger Biblical narrative (creation, fall, redemption, new-creation) in order to think through a biblical perspective on the issues at hand. But it is good to start with the big picture. 1) My theology must be rooted in Creation. It places itself within the context of a Creator God who ordered the cosmos. It remembers this Creator God declared his creation 'Very Good'. This God created man in his image. 2) It must also take into account the fall. Not just of man, but of all creation. Every part of life is touched by the fall. This is not to say that everything or everyone is completely ruined, but the image of God has been scarred badly and the 'Good' creation has been tarnished by sin. 3) It also looks to the resurrected Jesus as the climax of redemption. Although the whole of scripture witnesses to God's redeeming action, Jesus is the pinnacle of this. And He wants to redeem everything. Everything that is fallen is a target for his redemption. 4) And finally, this redemption is consummated in the new creation that God has begun in Jesus. This new creation 'comes down' from heaven to earth. God will not scrap his original creation--much like a painter will not scrap his masterpiece--but rather He will restore it. This is a very basic and simple outline, but it is how I would at least begin this process.
3) Without prooftexting (picking random, unrelated scriptures to prove my point) and logical fallacies, I try to pull together a coherent argument using the revelation of scripture, my own experience, and the traditions of the church. This involves a lot of work; reading, wrestling, discussion, and prayer. Most importantly prayer. But having the big picture in mind I can begin to develop my thoughts on the issue at hand.
4) Now I can deal with the broader issues but only after the hard work of understanding the story I am a part of. An example: earth-keeping. Creation is a gift from God, and our relationship to the earth should be that of both steward to creation and as a fellow creature of God (Genesis 1-4). My focus on earth-keeping is in sync with both God's love of his creation (therefore, our love, because we are in the image of God), recognition of the fallenness of creation (Genesis-Revelation), and hope of God's new-creation (Revelation), while rejecting the anti-creation sentiment of the Left Behind series (as one example) and the escapist attitude of most American Christianity. I wholeheartedly believe God will not destroy this earth, but rather renew it and our work (and life) should be in accord with this act of new-creation of God.
5) I can now begin to make decisions on smaller aspects of the issue at hand because of my ability to articulate the larger narrative. I can now deal with the specifics--for earth-keeping at least--of pollution, destruction of the earth, oil, energy conservation, organic produce, animal husbandry, local farming, etc. And all of this is held in faith with open hands. I need to constantly go back to #1 to rethink my position.
It is a long process that requires patience but I hope that helps you see how I process this stuff. For issues like abortion or gay marriage, I would say, for me, these are smaller parts of two larger issues--namely, a life-giving God, and a God who desires his creation to live in harmonious intimate relationships in an ordered creation. I would have to work through these larger issues using the framework above (loosely, of course) before I dealt with either of these specific examples. So, needless to say, I am hesitant in telling you what I think seeing as I have a lot of work to do.
This process is obviously inadequate and meant to be an outline, not a thorough, detailed checklist, but I hope it takes us out of this mentality of trying to develop a political platform that we take to the streets. Personally, I think we could all stand to spend more time researching/wrestling through issues before we proclaim them as being Biblically based.
What do you guys think? How do you evaluate your own views on political issues? Do you look at your emotions as well as the scriptural basis? Do you examine the traditional as well as the cultural contexts in which you find yourself? Do you have another model you use to help inform your political views—or to inform the rest of your life, for that matter? My hope is that we will not fall victim to literalism, traditionalism, or legalism, but rather have thoughtful, informed Christian worldviews that take into account more than our cultural biases, more than our emotional reactions, and are much more than intellectual exercises. How do you do this? How can we do this?
So what then? How do/should we form political positions on gay marriage, abortion, war, creation, gun control, taxes, etc., etc.? Is it just scripture? Should experiences/emotions/church history be part of the mix?
The issue of scripture is obviously important for me. I don't like using words like 'inerrant' or 'infallible' because scripture doesn't claim that for itself. Those are post-enlightenment categories that are violently applied to scripture for self-serving reasons. I prefer the Bible's own language of "inspired" and "useful". Now, don't start getting angry and think that I have a low view of scripture. I don't. I just want to be clear what we are arguing and defending. I have no way of discussing this here, but if you want to get into the larger conversation going on there are a few things you can do. I wrote a few posts about a year ago on my own blog having something to do with this issue so you can at least read what I think there. They are flawed thoughts, like most of what I think. However, they both reference a few books and articles that are written by less-flawed individuals with much sharper minds and words than myself. But take a look at what these guys have written as well. It will open you up to new ideas and see the larger conversation all of this is a part of. Here are links to my posts:
1. Three Thoughts on the Bible
2. A Few Thoughts on Inerrancy (I really should be more creative with my titles...)
The scriptural issues are another ballgame. But they are interrelated. All that stuff needs to be kept in mind while dealing with any issue, so know that I am assuming what I have written above for everything else I say. Below I have sketched out a short example of how I go about examining and determining my beliefs about some of these political issues. This process is not simple and I usually wrestle hard over this stuff. And I am convinced that faith is what allows me to come to any decision. Not certitude. Faith. Not that I'm right but rather that I am doing my best to follow the story of scripture and that it is OK for me to make a mistake. God is big enough for my mistakes. And I hope the Spirit guides me despite my mistakes.
Before I start, I want to clarify that this is not intended to be prescriptive; this is just the way I think through issues like politics. I hope it challenges us to take a different approach to thinking about issues...not necessarily this approach:
1) The first thing I should do is take a minute to think through why I hold the position I do (emotionally, intellectually, culturally, traditionally, and scripturally). This varies from issue to issue. Some issues are highly emotional to me because they have directly impacted my life. Others I feel less passionately about and that is OK. But I must recognize how each part plays into an issue. I must take each of these aspects seriously. But, it is important to try to figure out why I feel/think/believe what I do as a starting point. Many times I can recognize that I am in no position to formulate an opinion because of some other issues I must deal with first. So I start here.
2) Now I think about the larger Biblical narrative (creation, fall, redemption, new-creation) in order to think through a biblical perspective on the issues at hand. But it is good to start with the big picture. 1) My theology must be rooted in Creation. It places itself within the context of a Creator God who ordered the cosmos. It remembers this Creator God declared his creation 'Very Good'. This God created man in his image. 2) It must also take into account the fall. Not just of man, but of all creation. Every part of life is touched by the fall. This is not to say that everything or everyone is completely ruined, but the image of God has been scarred badly and the 'Good' creation has been tarnished by sin. 3) It also looks to the resurrected Jesus as the climax of redemption. Although the whole of scripture witnesses to God's redeeming action, Jesus is the pinnacle of this. And He wants to redeem everything. Everything that is fallen is a target for his redemption. 4) And finally, this redemption is consummated in the new creation that God has begun in Jesus. This new creation 'comes down' from heaven to earth. God will not scrap his original creation--much like a painter will not scrap his masterpiece--but rather He will restore it. This is a very basic and simple outline, but it is how I would at least begin this process.
3) Without prooftexting (picking random, unrelated scriptures to prove my point) and logical fallacies, I try to pull together a coherent argument using the revelation of scripture, my own experience, and the traditions of the church. This involves a lot of work; reading, wrestling, discussion, and prayer. Most importantly prayer. But having the big picture in mind I can begin to develop my thoughts on the issue at hand.
4) Now I can deal with the broader issues but only after the hard work of understanding the story I am a part of. An example: earth-keeping. Creation is a gift from God, and our relationship to the earth should be that of both steward to creation and as a fellow creature of God (Genesis 1-4). My focus on earth-keeping is in sync with both God's love of his creation (therefore, our love, because we are in the image of God), recognition of the fallenness of creation (Genesis-Revelation), and hope of God's new-creation (Revelation), while rejecting the anti-creation sentiment of the Left Behind series (as one example) and the escapist attitude of most American Christianity. I wholeheartedly believe God will not destroy this earth, but rather renew it and our work (and life) should be in accord with this act of new-creation of God.
5) I can now begin to make decisions on smaller aspects of the issue at hand because of my ability to articulate the larger narrative. I can now deal with the specifics--for earth-keeping at least--of pollution, destruction of the earth, oil, energy conservation, organic produce, animal husbandry, local farming, etc. And all of this is held in faith with open hands. I need to constantly go back to #1 to rethink my position.
It is a long process that requires patience but I hope that helps you see how I process this stuff. For issues like abortion or gay marriage, I would say, for me, these are smaller parts of two larger issues--namely, a life-giving God, and a God who desires his creation to live in harmonious intimate relationships in an ordered creation. I would have to work through these larger issues using the framework above (loosely, of course) before I dealt with either of these specific examples. So, needless to say, I am hesitant in telling you what I think seeing as I have a lot of work to do.
This process is obviously inadequate and meant to be an outline, not a thorough, detailed checklist, but I hope it takes us out of this mentality of trying to develop a political platform that we take to the streets. Personally, I think we could all stand to spend more time researching/wrestling through issues before we proclaim them as being Biblically based.
What do you guys think? How do you evaluate your own views on political issues? Do you look at your emotions as well as the scriptural basis? Do you examine the traditional as well as the cultural contexts in which you find yourself? Do you have another model you use to help inform your political views—or to inform the rest of your life, for that matter? My hope is that we will not fall victim to literalism, traditionalism, or legalism, but rather have thoughtful, informed Christian worldviews that take into account more than our cultural biases, more than our emotional reactions, and are much more than intellectual exercises. How do you do this? How can we do this?
posted by The Dude at 12:00 AM
7 Comments:
If you achieve step 1, you're already ahead of 99% of people. Thinking is today's culture is like some sort of cancer to stay away from.
To be honest on how I vote: I vote based on who the best representative of our nation is.
Screw minor issues...the prez has no (or should I say 'little' to cover my ass) influence over this anyway. If we are truly blending into a global economy, then to me judging a candidate based on what some may call trivial things (communication ability, poise, look) become important to me.
You can never tell what a prez is going to be like before he's elected. Case in point, the last 3 prezs.
I at one time thought I should vote for Bush because I thought I'd agree with his appointments to the S.C. and his cabinet, etc. Well, I don't.
Anyway, all this to say...to me, the most important thing is the representative aspect of the man (or Hilary). I'll vote that way unless the candidate is so whacked out.
And you may ask if my stance neglects our own country. Well, the ability of a president to communicate effectively, appear confident, well-groomed appearance does wonders for the unity and confidence and pride for the people of our nation. I think a simple 2 minute meditation will convince you of that too. The average person cares not about the little issues (or even the big ones), they care about whether the country's in good hands and the appearance of a president is the most common way Americans are affected. I believe that this is the main reason Bush is slammed all the time. He doesn't have poise nor is an effective communicator. And he's really not that handsome. Then look at Reagan and Clinton and JFK.
Just to clarify, the intent for this week was to talk more about issues -- how we think through them, what all the considerations ought to be, etc. -- and less about how that translates to voting. Poise, communication ability, appearance, etc. might be important characteristics of a president, but their value is limited to political perception and effectiveness. The way we approach issues impacts our daily lives. Let's talk this week about issues, regardless of who holds them. Let's talk about the right way to think through gay marriage, abortion, estate taxes, helping the poor, health care, etc., etc.
Personally, I love the outline The Dude has given but I have to admit, I am guilty of:
1) Listening to the political positions other Christian leaders say I should believe
2) Hand-picking verses to support what I want to believe
3) Simply not taking the time to really think through all sides of my positions
My pride drives me to just want talking points so I can effectively debate politics. If I incorporate emotion, Church tradition, culture, etc., I do so purely subconsciously. I need to step back and consider the full story.
I believe and use the saying (I can't remember who gets credit for it, but certainly not me)"Love is the only law", to guide me in developing my position on both personal and political issues. I ask myself, what is the most "loving" way or position. What is the most "loving" way to act? It's just another way of asking "what would Jesus do?"
Of course, that forces you to determine what real love is...it is not judgemental...which would tell us we should love all regardless of which sex they prefer...and if we "love" them, how can we deny them a "life partner". You do not "love" someone when you insist you are right and that their sexual desire is wrong. To me, that's an easy one.
I would like to know how you think through the right of women to obtain a legal and safe abortion. I believe that if we "love" women, we must trust them to make that decision.
Anonymous,
Thanks for your question.
I will say that I think there is a flaw with the 'what would Jesus do?' model for ethics. Jesus wouldn't be in most of the situations we find ourselves in. I am not saying he doesn't have an answer or can't relate to where we find ourselves, but most of our moral and ethical questions are much more complex than that simple question can handle. A better question might be: 'how might Jesus redeem this situation?'
In the case of pro-life or pro-choice, which are terribly flawed terms for this issue, I would say that God respects the choices of every man and woman. God is pro-choice. On the other hand, God is the giver and sustainer of life, which would make him pro-life. Simple Christian ethics, in my opinion, would dictate that the correct choice to make would be for life. I can say this because I believe all of life is holy, and even the semblance of life in an unborn child is precious to him, as he is the author of life. The situation, although much more complex than I am making it to be, can in fact be redeemed by the Creator God. How that happens is beyond my guess, although I do passionately believe it can and does happen.
But this cannot be done on your own in an individualistic manner. Ethics are to be practiced in community, with love being the guiding mode in community, rather than abstracted to meet our preferential needs. So the problem of abortion is also a problem of a community failing to support its members. And that only adds to the problem.
But I would never mandate this or desire that this opinion ever be legislated to anyone. It is simply my best effort at coming up with a Christian response to a very hard and lamentable problem.
An interesting and important fact is that in the Roman Empire, if a girl was the first born, she was often 'exposed' to the elements, leaving her to die. A firstborn girl was unwanted. Two important Christian historical points of fact:
1) Christians were specifically known as a group of people within the empire who did not participate in this awful act.
2) Christians were also known in the empire as people who would recover children who had been left for dead and take them into their community as their own.
You can't legislate this. And I'm not sure that should be our first priority, either.
http://postcritical.blogspot.com/2007/03/rethinking-christ-and-culture.html
http://postcritical.blogspot.com/2007/03/
rethinking-christ-and-culture.html
likely i am late in getting my thoughts in and no one is going to read this, but oh well...
i'm not sure if i know how i formulate political opinions. this has all been good to read as it challenges how i come to a position on some major/minor issue.
but still i have to think it's not about abortion, gay marriage and foreign oil. instead, as many have suggested it's about the larger picture. what, truly, is my identity/position as god's beloved? if i really and truly understood that i am just that (god's beloved) - if i knew that i was a new creation - what kind of effect would that have on my treatment of others?
i don't mean to oversimplify or be impractical. if i/we could truly get over ourselves, how different would these issues look? if we took the time to consider why people think what they do (love how the dude pointed that out), we would be miles ahead in any political debate. and likely we will not find ourselves considering other people first until the gospel has truly gotten a hold of our lives and resulted in a new creation.
bottom line, i want to be about loving other people even (especially?) when their political opinions are different. i admit that i am not good at this. how beautiful it would be if we lived in true communities that supported each other through hard times despite all of the junk that we all haul in with us.
Post a Comment
<< Home