15 posts tagged “politics”
Often, one of the big complaints of evangelicals is that they often speak into a political situation and come off all moralistic because they fail to "earn the right to be heard." That means that they have not built relationships or demonstrated any background or expertise on an issue.
I agree that we should earn the right to be heard but, when it comes to speaking to policymakers, everyone gets to be heard. If you are a constituent, most lawmakers will grant you an appointment or at least their staff will speak with you.
So to me, the issue is not being heard, instead it is being listened to. What makes the difference between being treated politely but insignificantly and becoming valuable to your representative? I think it is two things: earning the right to be listened to through building a relationship with your lawmaker and earning the right to be listened to by understanding that which you are speaking about.
Signing a petition, sending a fax, or calling your legislator are old methods of constituent contact that are easily managed by legislative staff. If the issues that are important to you are, well, important to you, then we should employ methods that are effective.
In Matthew chapter 13, Jesus teaches about the Kingdom of Heaven. "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." is the often repeated introduction to a number of parables. Wheat and weeds, mustard seeds, hidden treasures, pearls, and nets. All qualify as metaphors for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Wheats and weeds. In this parable, Jesus uses a common agricultural problem to demonstrate the nature of his kingdom - the infestation of weeds in the garden that seem to spoil that which God has provided. God blesses us with something good - our relationships, our health, our community, our church - and we find out that it has somehow gone terribly wrong. Should we just cut our losses and move on or continue to do the hard work of living in the midst of, well, weeds?
This parable has particular application with much that goes on in Christian and conservative politics. Here we are establishing a perfectly good political agenda and empire when danged if those milk toast moderate squishes don't screw the whole thing up. How are we every going to see the completion of the Republican revolution with RINOs like Ahnold, and McCain getting all the press?
In Matthew 13, Jesus teaches to live in the midst of the weeds and moderates. Why? Because the field is the Lords, not ours. He knows who is in control and that, at the harvest, justice will be done and the Righteous Judge will separate the good and the bad.
Kingdom politics seems to indicate that we would do well to accept that fact that we are to live and operate in the midst of the weeds and moderates. Let us then pray for those with whom we rub elbows so that, in the final day, they would join with us in the harvest.
pol·i·tics 
[pol-i-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
| 1. | the science or art of political government. |
| 2. | the practice or profession of conducting political affairs. |
| 3. | political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics. |
| 4. | political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill. |
| 5. | political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair. |
| 6. | use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc. |
| 7. | (initial capital letter, italics) a
treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with the structure,
organization, and administration of the state, esp. the city-state as
known in ancient Greece. |
This is the definition of the word politics from Dictionary.com. I wanted to re-check the definition of politics to be sure that nothing in it's definition is contrary to an orthodox understanding of faith. You see, some people in their understanding of faith, politics, or both believe they are oxymoronic or diametrically opposed to one another. They see Jesus and the influence and work of government as incompatible. I don't see it.
To me, politics is amoral like accounting, music, sports, engineering, or any number of professions. And, like any number of professions, it can be used to glory God - or not. I have known wonderful Christian politicians and those who work in politics who are completely consistent in the walk with Jesus.
So what is the deal with politics and its compatibility with faith? If you say: "Look at how we currently do politics. How can you find any Christian virtue in it?" Then I say: "Stop considering unbelievers as unbelievers and start considering them pre-Christians."
Is there no possible world where we as Christians can do better in our witness for Christ in the area of politics and policy? This is not to say that I desire an American theocracy. Just that Christians come to portray a version of political discourse and involvement that brings honor to Jesus.
Someone explain to me why I can't be engaged in the political and a Christian?
1 Timothy 2:1-4 reads as follows: "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
This is what 1 Timothy 2:1-4 means to me:
We are encouraged to pray for everyone, especially our elected leaders.
When we pray for our elected leaders it affects our community in wonderful ways.
Praying for our elected leaderst is a form of worship to God.
God desires the salvation of all men and the above works toward that end.
Therefore, praying for our elected leaders builds community, worships God and promotes evangelism.
The Palm Beach Post has an interesting article on religion in schools. The question is: Which expression of religion is less acceptable - Christian songs in chorus or a Christmas themed play?
The article points out - validly - that it is difficult to teach choir without understanding the music of the Christian church. It also points out the contortions that exist when school policies make penguins victims of political correctness in the name of the "wall of separation between church and state."
"How can one principal say penguins and Santa are religious, and another principal says it's OK to sing Christian music?" said Windmill Point Elementary parent Mary Anne Bender
Reading between the lines shows some shrewd believing music teachers in Fort Pierce. They understand the political and legal context that currently exists and devised a clever and - so far - effective way to promote an essential component of life and art - that is faith.
When those in public education continue to clearly demonstrate that they have lost all understanding of common sense by banishing penguins and Santa Claus in the name of religious tolerance, it is a clear sign that the stage is set for the landscape to be altered.
What is required is the very thing the Fort Pierce music teachers implemented: a reasonable strategy that compares the good with the ridiculous.
I believe that the democratic process is truly an enlightened form of government. It is a process that was unknown in the time of Paul and Augustine - not to say that their wisdom does not apply - but that we can look at some of their admonitions about mixing the godly and temporal through that lens.
I also believe that democracy is impacted by the eternal in the same way that kings and rulers of the Bible were impacted. Therefore, our democratic form of governing is subject to the redemption of Christ. It is not inherently evil or sinful.
Some Christians believe that engaging in the political process is somehow not compatible with Christianity. They believe that some line exists that Christian must not cross - that it makes us who are spiritual sullied in the things of this world.
Where is this line that followers of Jesus must abide? Why can't a Christian run candidates, engage in political discourse and even lobby fully in the Spirit and without sin? What is it about the political process that puts limits on a spirit filled Christian?
I was having a conversation with a friend and asked them if their church had a citizenship or salt and light ministry. "Oh, no," they said, "Our pastor makes sure to keep politics our of everything. He believes it is devisive."
I replied, "I wonder what he thinks of me: a spririt filled Christian making politics his vocation and ministry? Maybe I don't really exist."
Now I can understand how some would criticize the models of political involvment that currently exist for Christians. I can also understand that its hard to deal with things that, done poorly, can be divisive. But I reject the notion that politics- particularly in our democratic system - is somehow inherently unredeemable and therefore, it is unfit for the Christian community or part of our corporate life.
With respect to redeeming politics, it specifically takes those who carry the Gospel within them to redeem this system that is often far from the ideal. It takes those who are committed to Christ to build relationships with those with their hands on the wheels of politics to introduce them to the one who created freedom and equality. It takes us, in all our broken-ness and forgiven sin to wade into the gray and let the Spirit shine its light. For only then will we really see and operate politically in all the fulness of what the democratic system was designed to be.
One of the most radical notions of modern history is that citizens have input into the way they are governed. This countervails thousands of years of rule through conquest and royal or divine decree.
The fact that we the governed get to have something to say about how decisions get made means that governance relies heavily on a system that reflects our views. In other words, democracy replaces royal decrees with a political feedback loop. This feedback loop, typically called dialog and elections, is the heart and soul of our system.
The political system in which we live relies on numbers. Votes are numbers. Polling is numbers. Party registration is numbers. Membership to various groups or causes is numbers.
Many believe that the things that matter are principles and issues. But they are means to an end - that end being getting more numbers. If I only had a dollar for every frustrated person who wanted to know why a decision occurred that went against a certain principle or failed to advance a particular issue. The answer to the question is usually numbers - the people who did not ascribe to your principle or saw the issue another way were greater in number than those like you.
Numbers, of course, are fluid. They ebb and flow like the tide due to the pull of opinion, circumstances, and new information. The fact that a elected official was emailing teenage boys is new information that will affect the number of people who consider that person worthy of holding elected office and representing their views. The opinions of newspapers, Sunday morning pundits, and "insiders" about who has the best chance for winning an office will affect the numbers of would be supporters.
Many say that because numbers are fluid, it is best to stick to principle - to anchor your political and governing decisions on ideas and philosophies that do not change. Instead of being swayed by popular opinion or the changing winds of talking heads, principles like lower taxes, individual freedom, justice for the oppressed can help guide our decision making. One reason we have political parties is that they are supposed to represent certain principles that are relatively consistent.
While principles are a great to places to start in thinking about self-governance, principles need to be combined with an understanding of numbers. Otherwise the ideas, alternatives, and actions of certain interests can be unrealistic, unpersuasive, and counter productive. People need to realize that the numbers are not there to amend the Constitution with a pro-life amendment, or to remove Social Security from the federal budget, or to drill for oil in ANWR - as much as these things may be the right things to do.
Those in the church often suggest that God, being God, can overcome numbers and enact His will. They cry "Lord, though we are small in number, we ask that you give us the political victory." In my view, these kinds of requests are ignorant of the power that God has allowed us to have in affecting the way we are governed. Why should God, on whose principles our founders established this democratic republic, consider one area of our political decision making more worthy of his intervention than others when He has equally given us the tools to affect that decision making?
Since all of us in our country have the tools to affect the numbers, and if we believe that our principles are based on God's teaching and will, let us then work to get more numbers. Getting more numbers is within our reach. It is not difficult to do. But if we believe that our government system works on principle and not numbers, we will be constantly frustrated because the numbers will be working against us.
The middle is mad as fiddlesticks and is not going to take it anymore. So it seems as reported bythe Chicago Tribune in the article Chrisitan Middle Seeking a Turn at the Bully Pulpit.
Former U.S. Senator and current Episcopal Priest John Danforth wants the silent middle to be silent no more.
Seems incredibly dissonant - the unpassionate are more passionate in their anger towards the Religion Right than they are for poverty, environmentalism and the like. How do you motivate the middle in a bi-polar political world? Do these so-called moderates not understand that while they may be upset with the Republicans over abortion and traditional marriage, they will find little "tolerance" in the Democratic Party? Unless there is more behind this "moderate movement"?Predicting a backlash against the increasing political consonance of faith with conservative Christianity and the GOP, Danforth said, "I think the antidote to all of this is for a lot of people to speak out. Beyond people writing about it, the key is for the ordinary citizen to engage with this issue of the use of religion as a wedge to divide the American people."
Danforth said he is convinced the majority of Americans are religious moderates or centrists but that, in line with the very definition of the word moderate, they have not been as vocal or as driven by passion as their conservative counterparts.
"I think that honest, rational people have begun to understand that not everybody who uses the language of religion is religious. . . . They're beginning to see that, in some instances, religious rhetoric and relationships to [religious] institutions have been more about campaign strategy than they have been about the high principles of morality," Gaddy said.
Exactly! The campaign strategy of the Left is to demonize the political reality of the Right - that is - that more of the conservative faithful are motivated and active in voting than the mushy middle of faith. The other fact is that, in the end, movements need candidates. The Left is hoping to capitalize on the ascendence of a great mushy middle moderate for the 08 elections. Now who could that be?
This seems like a disturbing news story - exploiting kids in the name of religion to speak in tongues, and venerate the President. From what I know about the media, there is less to this story than meets the eye.
The media typically take hundreds of minutes of footage and edits it down to a three minute clip, the backgrounds and true context lost on the editing room floor. Knowing this fact, my skepticism is running very high on the whole "worshipping Bush" claim.
We all know various ministries with which we agree, disagree or simply prefer not to participate. The fact is that one "Jesus Camp" in North Dakota does not a movement make.
Part of the footage is encouraging. The evidence of a strong and vibrant youth movement coupled with staunch views on life and sexual wholeness is wonderful to see.
What is worrysome is the claim that any firmly held beliefe is detrimental to the future of our society. More evidence that today's definition of tolerance is one way.
Baylor University has unveiled the first data from a muli-year survey on religion in America. According to Christianity Today's summary, many of the faithful do not consider themselves a part of a denomination or as religiously affiliated.
"Past survey research has tended to consistently depict Americans as a highly religious people, while some of these same surveys have shown that the percentage of Americans indicating no particular religious affiliation has doubled over the last two decades.
"Our survey reconciles any apparent contradiction. It turns out that Americans remain connected to congregations to an extent far greater than they associate with denominations or other religious labels. Also, a fair number of those who claimed 'no religion' in our sample were actually active, engaged affiliates of evangelical congregations who were 'screened out' by previous surveys that concentrated on denominational affiliation."
The Baylor survey, "American Piety in the 21st Century: New Insights to the Depth and Complexity of Religion in the U.S." also plumbs attitudes about religion and politics. Among it's findings:
"Only Evangelical Protestants show a consistency in political opinions. They agree with conservative agenda items and disagree with liberal items. Being Mainline Protestant tells us nothing about someone’s political views on these ten items.
Biblical literalism and religious service attendance are better predictors of political opinions than are Mainline Protestant or Catholic religious traditions."
So Karl Rove was right: The most reliable Republican vote is from voters with high church attendance. Democrats often criticize Rove for "politicizing religion." But, in fact, Rove was just doing what any winning political strategist does - identifies his voters and gets them out to vote.
