Religion vs. Politics

[Tom Wetmore]

I am troubled. For some time I have had some disturbing mental conflict in reaction to the posts of some folk around here. I read inspiring thoughts and ideas and professed beliefs on religious/spiritual matters posted by a member and then read the very same person expressing their ideas/thoughts/beliefs on a political topic that seems in tone/attitude and/or substance either directly or indirectly in conflict with, if not 180 degrees in the opposite direction of, the previous points. There seems to be a total disconnect, almost to the point that I find it hard to believe it is even the same person. Sadly, my opinion of what that person may have said on the religious/spiritual topic is significantly and negatively effected. And quite honestly I have to admit that my opinion of that member as a person is sometimes diminished.

Am I alone in this reaction?

Tom

[Gail]

I don't know, Tom. I was always taught not to discuss either politics or religion... (TIC)

[Woody]

I hate to chime in with another "I don't know" but Tom ... I would point out something for you to consider. Many times the tone or position we take on a political issue seems harsh but it may just be a different perspective than yours. There may be spiritual reasoning that you might not have considered. This may not be the case you are referring to ... I don't know.

I would only encourage you to further probe the reasoning behind the political belief and you might find the spiritual components that you thought were in the person from the beginning.

I just know that it is easy to be misunderstood unless you give the person the opportunity to clarify.

[Bravus]

Tony Campolo's 'Is Jesus a Liberal?' has a good take on this: he says that Jesus challenges our politics wherever on the spectrum we are (if we let him). Jesus doesn't fit in a political box (this is a point Ed D has made here on CA as well).

So I keep trying to think and say, not 'how can someone be a Christian and believe that?' but 'how does being a Christian challenge my own political beliefs and assumptions?' Doesn't mean I won't argue pretty strongly for what I believe in, but hopefully always with that self-critical and Christ-challenged perspective.

[David Koot]

Without knowing some specifics, it would be quite difficult to respond to your post, Tom. Can you give an example of what you are talking about?

[Dr. Shane]

Things can seem to conflict and yet not conflict at all. I'll touch on a few issues.

Abortion: A person can be pro-life in that he doesn't want the government legislating the issue and yet favor disfellowshipping members in their local congregation that have abortions. Is there a conflict there?

Welfare: A person can give large amounts of their own money to charity to help the poor and yet not support government programs that take money from the rich to feed the poor. Is there a conflict there?

Capital Punishment: A person can be actively involved in prison ministries and yet favor capital punishment. Is there a conflict there?

[Tom Wetmore]

Dave,

The specific issues are not the point. Once a a specific example is given, then that becomes the topic. While a heated and devisive political debate might illustrate what I am talking about, I am more interested in hearing others reactions and how they resolve in their own mind gross inconsistency and apparent disconnect between religious belief and political rhetoric.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

What I was trying to illustrate was that while there may seem to be "gross inconsistency" that often is not the case.

A liberal person may ask, "How can that person claim to be a Christian and not favor increasing the federal budget for food stamps?" However that person may not favor a larger food stamp program because he or she believes that government welfare programs take away the churches' responsibility and opportunity to feed the poor.

A conservative person may ask, "How can that person claim to be a Christian and not favor banning abortion?" On the surface there seems to be "gross inconsistency." However that person may be completely against abortion and consider it a grievous sin before God but simply be concerned about giving the government more power over an individual's life.

So my point is that if we look at someone's post here on a religious topic and think, "what a wise Christian" and then look at one of their posts on a political topic and wonder "how can he or she possibly be a Christian?", the problem may be that we do not grasp their perspective and there is no "apparent disconnect between religious belief and political rhetoric" at all.

[Tom Wetmore]

Tony Campolo's 'Is Jesus a Liberal?' has a good take on this: he says that Jesus challenges our politics wherever on the spectrum we are (if we let him). Jesus doesn't fit in a political box (this is a point Ed D has made here on CA as well).

So I keep trying to think and say, not 'how can someone be a Christian and believe that?' but 'how does being a Christian challenge my own political beliefs and assumptions?' Doesn't mean I won't argue pretty strongly for what I believe in, but hopefully always with that self-critical and Christ-challenged perspective.

Bravus, this is what I'm getting at. Another perspective is to ask, "Are my political views shaping my religious beliefs?" Or is as you have framed it, "Are my Christian beliefs shaping my political views and rhetoric." And I wonder should they? Can I keep them separate?

Tom

[David Koot]

Actually, I should think that the two fields are rather separate. One's political views may indeed be disconnected from his or her religious beliefs, because the two are quite separate. Perspectives on politics do not have to do with religion, within certain parameters. For example, government spending to stimulate the economy (Keynesian economics) vs. stimulating the economy by reducing taxes and government spending, ("trickle down" economics) would not necessarily be an extension of religious beliefs. Similarly, differing views on immigration, the environment, and many other topics would not reflect poorly on one's religion. Nor, for that matter, would the area of foreign policy and defense necessarily be a disconnect. Or do you propose that it would be?

That is why I must confess to some puzzlement as to Tom's observation. If it were testimony, written or otherwise, I could think of a few objections . . . but that is another story.

So, is there some specific area, Tom, in which you are thinking of the disconnect you mention?

[David Koot]

Can I keep them separate?

One of the unfortunate legacies of the Nicene Fathers is Origen's doctrine of the two swords. Ever since then, a substantial contingent of adherents of the Christian relligion, have viewed religion and politics/statecraft as connected. However, Jesus Himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

One simply cannot Scripturally assign value judgments to many areas of political and economic activity. Doing so would, in fact, seem a bit dangerous, as commingling church and state. I am reminded of the words of the Senate Report on Sunday Mails (1830's) that "the first effort of the kind represents a dangerous innovation upon the spirit of the Consitution."

Similar to the odd practice of the two opposing teams in a football game, or in a battle, praying for victory!!! God is simply not in it!!!

In fact, I should think that the suggestion that there is a disconnect between someone else's religious beliefs and political views, is itself an innovation upon the spirit of the Bible, and a form of passing judgment upon the individual being scrutinized. More a reflection of the spiritual and intellectual arrogance which sometimes typifies certain temperaments and backgrounds. The "I am right, and he/she is wrong" attitude.

Sorry, old chap.

[there buster]

Some time ago, I started a thread here entitled, "What Would Jesus Do Differently" in which I listed several OT actions by God, and asked what, if anything, Jesus would do differently.

IT was an interesting exercise.

J.B. Phillips wrote a small book titled "Your God is Too Small." Like most of Phillis work, it is quite worthwhile.

My experience is that when it comes to politics, most people's mental model of Jesus is too simple.

The Jesus who said, "My peace I give unto you," must necessarily be a pacifist. What then of the Jesus who said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

I am not here saying Jesus would support this or that war, only that the Christ presented in scripture is more complex than most appreciate.

He said his followers did not fight for his kingdom because his kingdom was not of this world. He did not say that they would/should never fight for any kingdom. In fact, his and the apostles' encounters with Roman centurions never ended with exhortation that these professional soldiers shouls abandon their trade.

Once again, I'm not saying Jesus would support this or that foreign policy, only once again to point out the complexity of the scriptural portrayal.

================

On a totally separate note, I think "The Abolition of Man," by C.S. Lewis explains the political polarization today.

The debate is radically different than that of previous times.

[Gregory Matthews]

I am not certain of the focus of Tom's comment. But, I just might (?) fit into it. I believe that there are some things that should be taught by the chruch, and not the state. So, I may believe that X is outside of God's will. but I will reject law that enforces such. God gave people choice, and I may support law that allows people that choice.

[lazarus]

Quote:

I read inspiring thoughts and ideas and professed beliefs on religious/spiritual matters posted by a member and then read the very same person expressing their ideas/thoughts/beliefs on a political topic that seems in tone/attitude and/or substance either directly or indirectly in conflict with, if not 180 degrees in the opposite direction of, the previous points. There seems to be a total disconnect, almost to the point that I find it hard to believe it is even the same person.

Here's my take:

This is an adventist forum and therefore most of us here have knowledge of, experience of and sympathy with Adventist "thought" and lifestyle. I think there is a general understanding when it comes to Adventist issues because that's part of our culture. We are nicer and friendlier because we seem to have alot of common ground.

In the political arena there can be very little common ground and fundamentaly we have different persprectives and experiences. Out true colors come shining through.

I have a Pastor friend who is an avid listener to Sean Hannity. I on the other hand am not so appreciative of his approach! We share very similar perspectives about church, God etc. but we are polls apart when it comes to politics. I think she's nuts politically but a great Christian.

We hardly ever discuss politics! The only time we had a long conversation about political stuff was when we talked about Universal health care. She became really upset!

[Tom Wetmore]

Dave, Sorry old chap if this disappoints you, but I think you really do get my point. I am in agreement with what you have posted. And it is this, "I am right you are wrong arrogance" that has infested both arenas that is disturbing and sadly cuts both ways. Political views are expressed with religious fervor and rationalized as having a religious foundation. And religion become very political, with efforts to reshape and interpret Scripture to fit the political position. Therefore, if you disagree with the political position, the judgement is that you are deficient in your Christian beliefs. An extreme which I have heard in our current political climate is that you can't honestly and truly be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time.

This merging of politics and religion helps politics, but it compromises and hurts religion. But sadly I see it manifested more and more frequently by Adventists, who of all people should appreciate the danger of breaking down that wall of separation.

Ed, you have aptly illustrated my point.

Thanks,

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Lazarus, exactly!! That political poles apart thing, especially in todays climate of religious foundation of political views causes my cognitive dissonance.

Tom

[Naomi]

I am not certain of the focus of Tom's comment. But, I just might (?) fit into it. I believe that there are some things that should be taught by the chruch, and not the state. So, I may believe that X is outside of God's will. but I will reject law that enforces such. God gave people choice, and I may support law that allows people that choice.

Gregory, you have expressed my feelings very well.

Thank you

[there buster]

Quote:

An extreme which I have heard in our current political climate is that you can't honestly and truly be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time.

A swedish pastor said, concerning American politics, "I don't see how a person can be a Christian and be a Republican."

So I said, "Jesus ate with Republicans and sinners." He got a chuckle out of it.

The "I am right you are wrong arrogance" doesn't worry me. That's been a part of human discourse since Cain and Abel disagreed over the sacrifice. It's the "I am right and you are immoral or unloving" that bothers me. In a political debate, to say someone's policy is mistaken or even dangerous is one thing; to say it is immoral or mean-spirited is something else entirely.

As a comment on this thread, it should be noted that ONLY in Christianity do we find the principle of separation of church and state, embodied in Christ's statement about "rendering to Caesar and to God." In all th ancient religions, the king was a god, or a descendant of the gods. Judaism was an exception, but there the king was anointed by a prophet at God's direction. This continued right through the Roman Empire. And vestiges of it remained in the "divine right of kings" thereafter.

As someone who has worked as a lobbyist, and consulted with legislators of both parties, my stance has been that policy decisions should be made on secular grounds. For example, I counseled that abortion laws should be based on the benefits/liabilities to the state/society, not upon 'the Bible says' this or that.

Our political judgments need to be informed by our Christianity, but formed by strictly secular political philosophy.

As far as "merging church and state," both ends of the political spectrum attempt that.

The right, today, seems more intent on assaulting the "establishment clause," while the left is steadily reducing the area protected by the "free exercise clause."

[Woody]

You've made some good points Ed.

I am curious ... as someone who has spent a lot of time in the lobby ... what all did you do while in the lobby? Who paid you to stand in the lobby? Do you actually get out of the lobby and into someones office?

I think you are right about arrogance. Especially as Christians we should avoid that. But unfortunately Christians have to image of arrogance. Look at the issue of abortion. Some Christians go out and kill in the name of "protecting a life".

I just don't get it. I've said this before and I'll say it again ... Good Minds and Good Christians can differ. And this even applies to the big issue of abortion.

[there buster]

Quote:

I am curious ... as someone who has spent a lot of time in the lobby ... what all did you do while in the lobby? Who paid you to stand in the lobby? Do you actually get out of the lobby and into someones office?

Actually, lobbyists spend almost no time in the lobby. Most of my time was spent in the rotunda, some in the Senate and House lounges, and more than a little time in the vaunted 'back rooms' hammering out 'deals.'

As to the rest, I cannot too strongly recommend 'THe Abolition of Man," by C.S. Lewis.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

An extreme which I have heard in our current political climate is that you can't honestly and truly be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time.

An extreame I have heard in our current political cliamate is one cannot honestly and truly support the war in Iraq and be a Christian at the same time. Thus, the President isn't a real Christian.

[Dr. Shane]

I gave the Christians Can Disagree thread in World Affiars a bump.

[CaseyButler]

"And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

"Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, (one) Jesus." [KJV-Bible - Acts 17:6-7]

If Jesus is our King we will suffer persecution, if Caesar is our king we will fit right in with the world.

The Politics of God, the Precepts of the Kingdom of God, are what we are here to be a light to the world of.

There is no separation of the two if we really believe in the Government of the Kingdom of God, and if we truly desire to serve His King.

God bless you,

Casey

[jasd]

QR frame:

Doesn't "Render unto Caesar..." imply an involvement of sorts in the political arena? And didn't Jesus have something to say about

"hot", "cold", and spewing?

...not desiring to appear too plebian but,

Edmund Burke's quote on "evil" and "good men" bears keeping in mind -- should one shun political debate.

And shouldn't that debate reflect some arrogance (by both parties)? ...at least, mebbe, some cantankerous harrumphing

[Clio]

Dave,

The specific issues are not the point. Once a a specific example is given, then that becomes the topic. While a heated and devisive political debate might illustrate what I am talking about, I am more interested in hearing others reactions and how they resolve in their own mind gross inconsistency and apparent disconnect between religious belief and political rhetoric.

Tom

I have found, over the years Tom, that Christians will say just about anything. We are well known to have great "head-knowledge" and very little heart-knowledge. The Holy Spirit manifests in our lives through how we live, not necessisarily what we know, although He's also a great teacher. :-)

Therefore, before I worry about the dichotomy between someone's spiritual perspective and their political perspective, I first concern myself with the fruits of the Spirit manifested in their lives according those listed by Paul in Galatians 5. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

If I see such fruit and it matches with their spiritual discussion, then I am willing to take on faith that they do in fact know Jesus, are His in all respects, and am willing to leave their convictions on their political views to His and the Holy Spirit's corrections according the needs of their heart. For again in the Bible we are told that "Man looks upon the outward appearance but the Lord looks on the heart."

I tend to find that if someone who teaches spiritual pearls of wisdom has a great dichotomy between their spiritual and temporal beliefs, there is a decided difference in what manifests in their life in terms of longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, and peace with their fellow Christians.

Clio