Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2016
A Christian Politic- Pt. 3
If you're reading this, thanks for your endurance. If you missed the first two entries in this blog series, check out the previous two entries which set the stage for this final post. In Part 1, I laid out some of the basic underlying theology of my political views, namely my focus on the Kingdom of God as revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Part 2, I attempted to critique the American Christian tendency of compartmentalizing faith and politics into separate realms. In that post I tried to demonstrate that our faith should impact all aspects of life, and therefore can be applied to all political issues, including those not typically thought as "religious" issues.
That leads to today's final post. As I mentioned at the end of Part 2, one of the concerns of applying faith uniformly to all political issues is that faith might be easily co-opted by political ideologies. Another concern I'll identify now is that such a tactic also opens up the potential for abuse of faith, particularly on the part of religious leaders and pastors. Or conversely, how can we prevent faith from abusing our political systems and creating an oppressive "theocracy"? If our faith is to impact our political views, how can we practically mix faith and politics without poisoning either of these two realms?
Before offering some suggestions to help navigate these difficult waters, I think it's important to emphasize one point that could easily get lost. When I refer to "a Christian politic" I am not naively assuming following this will mean all Christians will come to the same political conclusions. In fact, far from it. The truth is every Christian's political conclusions are heavily informed by other forces besides just their faith. For instance, a Christian in a rural setting and one in an urban setting will likely see the same issue very differently. Likewise, an Asian Christian, a Black Christian, and a White Christian will also likely come to different conclusions. Similarly, Christians will settle on different political ideas due to different experiences, education levels, and access to facts.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in some cases it can be a good thing. Often, a single political policy or law will not be equally beneficial in every place. For example, a law that works well and promotes justice in New York City may not be very effective or just in small town America. Furthermore, if Christians always came to the exact same conclusions this could be a recipe for disastrous group-think.
As such, a "Christian politic" is not so much about coming to the exact same conclusions as it is about having common ground in the process. It's about ensuring we as Christians seek a consistency in what we advocate. It's about coming together around Scripture to seek policies, laws, and candidates that most closely approximate the ethics of the Kingdom of God while simultaneously remembering that no earthly government will replace or realize God's Kingdom.
With those considerations in mind, here are several practical suggestions for how we might live out a Christian politic:
1) We must live out our politics in community
While America is inherently an individualistic culture, the culture of the New Testament was extremely communal. Additionally, the nature of the church should drive Christians to recognize the importance of community. The church is a communal body, and likewise a Christian politic should be communal in nature. This means a few things.
First, we cannot arrive at political decisions in isolation from others. Dialogue is essential. If humans are damaged creations, then no single one of us has perfect insight. We need to hear the voices of others around us and need to be corrected by others. As I addressed above, we all come from different backgrounds and will draw different conclusions about specific policies. In order to seek the best options for our specific community we need to learn the practice of listening to others.
Second, the Bible's view of the end of the age gives us a picture of the type of community the church is called to be. In Revelation, we get a beautiful depiction of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue standing before the throne of God as the people of God. If we try to live out this eschatalogical reality in the present, then our politics must leave room for diversity. This is particularly a struggle for white Christians. It's way too easy to listen to political rhetoric that is one-sided or only favors a particular race. However, as Christians we must fight this temptation and create space for listening to viewpoints that are different than our own. For white Christians, this means listening to black, Arab, and Hispanic/Latin@ voices. A truly Christian politic must reflect input from the full diversity of God's Kingdom.
Finally, a communal politic means we recognize the need for the common good. My politics cannot be just about my own personal good. Neither can it just be about the good of Christians alone. Rather, a Christian ethic calls me to care for my neighbor, even at my own expense. Not only is the process of discovering a Christian politic a communal one, but the end result is also communal in nature.
2) A Christian politic must be grounded in humility
If we take seriously the message of the cross discussed in Part 1, then we will recognize that a Christian ethic must be dominated by a radical humility. Much of this echoes point one above. Christians engaging in politics should not be proud or arrogant. We are quick to admit that we are not God, and therefore we might be wrong. Unlike the self-righteous rantings of both the political Right and Left, Christians must stand ready to learn and be corrected. We are also ready to compromise on personal preferences for the well-being of the wider community when necessary. If we follow a man who became nothing on the cross for the sake of enemies, then we too should practice humility and self-sacrifice in our political endeavors.
3) A Christian politic must be committed to free-will and non-coercion
As one studies early Christianity from the New Testament era through the first several centuries, it become clear that Christianity was at its best before it came into political power. After Constantine legalized Christianity and after Christianity became the official religion of the empire, so much of the true power of Christianity was lost. When people were forced to become Christians, Christianity became hollowed out and even committed gross atrocities and crimes (the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, opposing science and learning, etc.)
In contrast, many Christians throughout history, particularly the Baptists and Anabaptists, have advocated for religious liberty and free consciences. "A coerced faith is no faith at all," they have said. This principle is especially helpful in our current conversation.
First, this concept means that the goal of a Christian politic is NOT theocracy. The goal is not to establish a "Christian nation" or to have a "Christian" government. History has shown time and again that such tight equivalencies between religion and state only lead to oppression. Rather, our faith should inform our decisions, but also allow room for the free practice of other religious opinions.
This also means Christians should advocate for the religious liberty of all religions, not just their own. One of the travesties of most current discussions about "religious freedom" is that Christians seem preoccupied with the supposed "persecution" of Christians, but rarely raise their voices against the very real discrimination against other faiths, such as Islam.
This principle also suggests that Christians should be cautious when it comes to "legislating morality." Yes, it is good to seek Christian values in policies and law. However--and this goes back to my first point--such policies should be made in conversation with the wider community (including non-Christian voices) and should always seek the common good.
4) Christians, especially leaders, should give priority to general values above specific policies
This is perhaps the most important point of this post. As I alluded to in Part 2, the Bible does not comment directly on most political issues. Rather, we must look at the story of the Bible, study its original context, and draw out principles that can guide our current debates.
It would be nice if this process were easy and straightforward, but it's usually not for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post. For instance, in the immigration debate, what Biblical principles do we look at? And, how do we best apply those principles? One principle could be that we need to have compassion on our neighbors. Another principle could be that we should "seek the welfare of the city" in which we live. However, what does this mean practically? Does having compassion mean we allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country and establish a better life than the dangerous one they had? Or does "seeking the welfare of the city" mean we should send illegal immigrants back home because failing to enforce immigration laws opens the door for drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, or diseases to come into our country and hurt our fellow citizens?
These are tough questions, and I frequently see Christians come to very different conclusions on the matter and get angry with each other. However, it seems to me that most of these Christians debating each other have not stopped to have a meaningful conversation about the underlying values driving their policies. That is putting the cart before the horse. Before we can discuss what specific policies we should advocate for as Christians, we as Christians need to have more meaningful discussions about what values and principles we can agree on.
This fourth suggestion is especially important for pastors and Christian leaders. Some pastors get criticized for being "too political" in their preaching. I think this is a bit misleading. The truth is that Christianity is a political faith. Jesus was crucified by Rome for a political crime--proclaiming to be a King. So, I don't think the problem is that some sermons are "political."
Rather, I think the problem is that such sermons are political in the wrong kind of way. Namely, such sermons go beyond advocating for common principles and values from the Bible all Christians can agree upon to advocating for (or against) specific candidates or policies. They become partisan. For instance, I have heard way too many preachers over the past 8 years blast Obama and his policies in sermons. This is a dangerous strategy.
Going beyond promoting values to promoting specific political agendas or persons is damaging in several ways. First, it falsely connects those policies or candidates to having faith. As such, it can imply that if you don't agree with this particular political stance that you are sub-Christian (or maybe non-Christian). But that is simply not true. In the case of pastors who criticize Obama explicitly, what does that say to members of the congregation who voted for or who support Obama, perhaps on equally Christian grounds? Bringing such specifics into the sermon can easily abuse the spiritual authority given to pastors and church leaders and drive a wedge between the pastor and certain members of the congregation.
That being said, there will be times when church leaders need to become more specific in their political preaching. For instance, pastors in Nazi Germany most certainly should have spoken out against Hitler and the Holocaust. Pastors during the civil rights era in the South should have stood up against racism and Jim Crowe laws. However, how does one know when it's acceptable to preach directly about specific policies, laws, or people?
This is a tricky question--and one I can't answer completely--but here are a few thoughts. First, the issue-at-stake must be a severe injustice, particularly injustices that are costing lives. Second, the values at play should be indisputable. In other words, the specific cause must relate directly to a certain Christian value, and that value should be accepted by Christians throughout history and in the present. Third, such decisions should preference the voices of the oppressed. If we are going to speak out to something specifically, we should choose to speak on behalf of the oppressed, not the powerful, as they are the ones with no voice. Finally, such decisions to speak on specific issues should only be made after much prayer and fasting. They should not be made hastily.
In general, though, pastors and church leaders should stick with preaching the values that are common to all Christians. They should leave room for those values to be applied differently by different Christians, and should leave room for dialogue and free will. Incidentally, when we preach about Christian political values and get congregations to abide by those, then the policies usually have a way of working themselves out.
As an example, since I am currently not serving in a leadership role in a church, I have made it no secret that I strongly oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump (although I have also been careful not to publicly disclose who I am voting for or if I will be voting at all). However, if I were currently serving as a pastor, I would be more reserved in condemning Trump specifically for several reasons. First, I know a number of Christians who plan on voting for Trump for one reason or another and I don't want to make them feel excluded from our community. Second, I recognize that such Christians are often trying to apply their own Christian principles, but are simply applying them differently than myself. Finally, I don't want to imply that a vote for Trump will throw into question a person's salvation or Christian faith. Therefore, I would choose to speak more generally about Christian principles all Christians should agree on that incidentally challenge Trump as well--compassion for the poor, love for enemies, humility, sexual purity, honesty, hospitality for foreigners, etc.
None of this excludes ever talking about specifics. In fact, we must talk about specific policies at some point. However, we should only do so through dialogue within a community and only after we have examined the Christian principles that will guide those policies. Specific policies also should arise from the community and not unilaterally from church leaders or pastors.
5) Read the Bible and listen to the Spirit
Ok, I know I said point 4 was the most important point, but it's actually this one. Gotcha! The truth is, a Christian politic can only be accomplished when we are reading the same story of Scripture and when we are listening to the same Spirit. Yes, it's important to undertake this task in community. Yes, it's important to have humility and allow freedom of choice. Yes, it's important to focus first and foremost on guiding values before policies. However, none of this matters if we are not engaging the story of Scripture which forms those values. None of this matters unless we listen to the Spirit of God who binds together the church in love and unity.
----------------------------------------
Engaging in political discussions is a difficult endeavor. It can easily go wrong in so many ways. People get so worked up over political matters and debates and will even cease speaking to each other because of politics. That is why politics (in addition to religion and sex) often is taken off the table for ordinary conversation.
But we can't escape politics. We live in a democracy and are impacted by politics every day whether we choose to vote or not. If you do vote, you are forced to make decisions about what you value, who should represent you, and what laws you'd like to see. Even if you don't vote, you likely have opinions on political matters, whether those be economics, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, welfare, or the weather (just kidding on that last one).
As such, Christians have a responsibility to think (and talk) about political matters. It's not a matter of if you'll be political, but of how you will be political. But for a Christian, that "how" matters quite a bit. The Gospel is not just a belief, it is a way of life. As such, the way we live, including the way we live politically, is a reflection of our faithfulness to Christ.
Developing a Christian politic takes much careful work. We must mine our theology for values that can inform our politics. We must resist the urge to compartmentalize our lives into sacred vs. secular. And we must approach political decisions with great humility and in dialogue with a Spirit-filled community of faith rooted in Scripture.
I hope these past several posts have been helpful to you in this election year. I'm sure I'm off on some points, but that's the purpose of dialogue. Maybe these posts have given you some ideas to incorporate into your own life and practices. Maybe they've just given you insight into where I am coming from when I post about political issues. If nothing else, I hope they will allow us as Christians to have better conversations with each other and to develop healthier political views that can perhaps shape our culture into something beautiful, just, and compassionate.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties
However, the focus on these bills (as with other similar efforts) has been on the expansion of these religious rights to companies and businesses. The go-to example seems to be Christian bakers. Under these laws, if a baker who happens to be a Christian is asked by a gay couple to cater their wedding, the baker would have the right to refuse service if he felt catering the wedding would violate his conviction that homosexuality is wrong.
This has sparked outrage on the part of gay-rights groups who insist the law invites and legalizes discrimination. Proponents of the law claim that the focus is not on the gay community and that it will not be used to discriminate. Instead, they say, the law is intended to protect from big government.
Now, I am not an attorney or legal expert, so I cannot weigh in very much on the legality or implications of these laws. However, I have observed one issue in the back-and-forth that must be brought to the surface.
As I've listened to both sides, I can agree that each has some valid points. However, neither side is likely going to see eye to eye for one simple reason--they hold competing values. In particular, conservatives are prioritizing "religious liberty" while their opponents are prizing "civil liberties."
Of course, we in America like to believe that our laws and justice system can bring us peace, prosperity, and unity (which honestly looks a lot like idolatry at times to me). We also want to believe that our Constitution can solve any social problem we encounter. As such, we want to believe that religious liberty and civil liberties (both great American values) can coexist in harmony. But ultimately, this is not the case. When push comes to shove, you most often will have to choose either religious liberty or civil liberty, or you will have to redefine what one of those values looks like.
Recently, Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential hopeful, came to the defense of RFRA laws by trying to point out the "two-way street" that exists. He asked why it would be wrong to allow a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple based on religious beliefs but not be wrong for a pro-gay print shop to refuse service to Westboro Baptist, who famously promote the slogan "God hates fags."
However, these kinds of remarks illustrate the tunnel vision that creeps into such public debates. Comments like Santorum's completely ignore the other side's point that the LGBTQ community is entitled to civil rights, and therefore any such discrimination is wrong. I can just imagine a gay-rights activist responding to Santorum's illustration by saying, "It's wrong for the Christian to discriminate, AND ok for the print shop to refuse service because discrimination against gays is wrong in both scenarios."
This conflict between religious liberty and civil rights (and our different priorities) means that we are really just talking past each other. We will never find common ground or see eye-to-eye as long as we are operating by different paradigms. For instance, our definitions of "civil rights" conflict. For some conservative Christians, civil rights includes race, ethnicity, and gender, but should not include "sinful" behaviors like alternate sexual orientations or gender identities. Meanwhile, others feel sexual orientation should be a protected category. As long as we cannot agree on these terms, there will be no resolution to the public debate. Beyond this simple fact, we also place different values on religious and civil liberties, and this is important because religious and civil liberties inevitably stand in tension with each other.
The bottom line is that if we value religious freedom as the highest priority, then we are going to admit that all kinds of religiously motivated beliefs are acceptable. But how far do we take this? Is it ok for white supremacist groups who use the Bible as justification for their actions to hate or even harm blacks and Jews? Is it ok for certain cults to employ suicide or human sacrifice? Most of us would say that these actions cannot be prohibited in a civil society, but this is what you will get if you prize religious freedom without adding any qualifications or redefinitions.
And most often, the way we place a check on unbridled religious freedom (or any other freedom, like freedom of speech) is to fall back on civil liberties. It's ok to utilize your freedoms unless it infringes upon the freedom or well-being of others around you. This is the very argument being used with RFRA laws. It's fine to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but the moment that belief drives you to treat others differently or to discriminate, that is a problem.
And the truth is that, by-and-large, sexual orientation is considered a civil liberty now. We have a variety of laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community in certain contexts. More and more cities are passing non-discrimination ordinances (my college hangout town of Springfield, MO is set to vote on one such ordinance today). And, as I said in an earlier post, regardless of your beliefs regarding homosexuality, you need to come to terms with the fact that society has accepted it as a legitimate lifestyle (more than half of Americans support legalized gay marriage). So, if defenders of religious liberty want to protect the civil liberties of other races and genders, they are going to have to start protecting the rights of the gay community as well.
But, at the same time, we would do well to hear conservative concerns that valuing civil liberties as the highest value can pose problems as well. For instance, should a pastor be forced to offer his church building for a lesbian couple's wedding ceremony even if it violates his conscience or his church's teaching? What if civil rights keep expanding and begin to offer protections for more and more specific groups? This increases the likelihood that there will be conflict between civil and religious liberties. So, it's not good enough to simply place civil liberties on a pedestal either.
One thing I hope Christians see from this conversation is the futility of placing our hope in government or laws. Yes we need good government and just laws, but these things cannot save us. They will always be imperfect. So maybe it's time we stop putting so much emphasis on these American values, and instead turn our attention to the values of God's Kingdom, the place where our allegiance is supposed to be anyways.
In God's Kingdom, we value rights, but we don't die for them. Instead, we die for the well-being of others, even for our enemies. In God's Kingdom, we are called to practice radical love, grace, and hospitality. In God's Kingdom, we confess that all are made in the image of God, but also that all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is only as we begin to set our eyes on our heaven-on-earthly calling that we will be able to navigate the tricky areas between religious liberty and civil rights. Looking to laws and our Constitution won't bring opponents together, heal the pain in someone who has experienced discrimination, or bring about a society that respects faith. Quoting the Constitution or appealing to the "weight of history" won't change the lens your opponent is using that prevents meaningful dialogue. Only the Way of Jesus can do this. So perhaps it's about time that we start looking at the words and life of Jesus as the starting point of how to decide whether or not to bake that wedding cake.
------------------------------
Other random observations as additional food for thought and discussion:
- It's helpful to note that the current RFRA bills tend to extend religious protections to businesses. For Christians, we need to really think about whether this accurately reflects reality. A business may have Christians in it, but does that make the company "Christian"? This might be easier to believe with small businesses and those who are self-employed, but what about bigger corporations like Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby? Certainly not every employee of these companies is a Christian. While we may want to say the company has a right to religious protections, who is protecting the religious beliefs of individual employees? If Chic-fil-a were to decide it can't cater to gay-rights events or at gay weddings, are non-Christian employees obligated to carry out the same practices, even if it goes against their religious conscience?
- We Christians do a poor job of thinking about the precedents we set. One of the interesting developments in the news has been that the governor of Indiana ended up signing a clause to prevent the RFRA law from interfering with non-discrimination laws, while Arkansas has specifically avoided creating any exemptions for non-discrimination laws. In fact, Arkansas even passed a bill that prevents cities from enacting any non-discrimination ordinances not already in state law (by the way, there are no non-discrimination laws in Arkansas protecting gays or lesbians). However, at the end of the day, the motivation for pushing back against such ordinances is the conviction that homosexuality is a sin (there really is no commercial or legal reason). However, with these and other efforts, are we setting a double standard? Are we saying it's ok to discriminate on the basis of the sin of homosexuality, but not on the sins of lust, greed, adultery, or lying? Do Christian bakers ever feel compelled to refuse to cater weddings that celebrate excess, drunkenness, and wealth? Probably not (they probably get excited about selling twice as much). Once again I wonder if are trying to legislate morality, but are ending up looking like hypocritical fools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)