conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Our faith has influenced our way of thinking, thus it affects the way we look and think about politics. When our faith teaches us to think for ourselves we can apply that same principal to politics. When our faith teaches us to accept the thinking of others as our own. We will apply the same to politics. One only has to look at the teaching of their faith to understand how we view the world. Moslems have good and bad sects just as we have fundamentalist and moderates. We have trouble accepting the faith of people who follow dictator but we seem to be able to accept it in ourselves. One cannot legislate the faith they want everyone to follow. God gave us free-will and some of us only want that for ourselves.

Great question!

The danger, from the political side, is that USAmerican Christians have been trained that words are what matters rather than actions. Therefore, a politician may say all the right Christianese words and s/he will be accepted at face value. However, the actual life and deeds of that politician may be far from the standard of Christian teaching.

The danger, from the religious side, is that preachers will excuse the unChristian behaviors of politicians in order to get their agenda promoted politically.

This can lead to two knee jerk reactions. One is that we close our eyes and accept whatever our preachers and politicians tell us uncritically (gulliblity). The other is that we grow unable see the junction of faith and politics as being an honest intersection, but rather see the person who is both religious and political as disingenuous in one or the other (cynicism).

We are going to have to come to a new view of what it means to be citizens and Christians. Philip Gulley and James Mulholland in their book If God Is Love have a great chapter on "Gracious Politics" that really humbled me. "To follow Jesus is to be political," say the authors, but, "Dualism, with it's division between the righteous and the unrighteous, offers a pattern too easily transferred to politics." We must learn to listen and not to demonize those we do not understand politically. Of this I am guilty. There has to be a way that we can hold our leaders accountable, but do so with grace. If our political leaders are using the gullible of the faithful to attain a political goal, there needs to be a way to hold them accountable without demonizing the gullible. If our preachers are using politics to promote an agenda, we need to find a way to hold them accountable and let them know that they do not speak for all Christians. And we must do this with grace.

This responsibility makes us people of both faith and politics. I agree with the statement, "To follow Jesus is to be political." Even the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon, was very political. But he isn't necessarily remembered for his politics, but for his preaching of the Word.

I agree with your statement, "The trouble is the very nature of our political system. A democracy is based on competition and not consensus. It compels us to choose sides and ally ourselves with ideological systems and individuals..." Perhaps the greatest need in our time is to teach Christians that we need to choose the side of Jesus and call all other things into line with Him, rather than trying to fit Him into political boxes and ideologies.

Just a few thoughts.

Peace,

Mike

Tripp, if we don't separate rel and pol, how do we avoid becoming the Taliban-by-majority? I thought the point of the separation was to enable multiple religions to live together. And that does require introducing a split between our religious beliefs and our political beliefs. I think.

Politicians need to get out of the religious waters.

You are right that politicians are trying to engage the American public at this intersection of faith and politics and they should not. In so doing, they are exploiting the tenuous balance at the heart of your question.

It is true that for many faith and politics will be enmeshed with one another. I believe it is a citizen’s duty, however, to understand that the belief system driving both their faith and their politics will sometimes provide a skewed view of the political and social landscape. It is the duty of the faithful, in my mind, to seek out a rational and well-developed system of belief that can peacefully co-exist with other systems. Many of the faithful in this country seem unable to do this. That is why it’s our government’s duty to separate faith from politics, or better, governing.

Robert Ingersoll argued passionately that it is a high calling for a country to establish itself on human principles of compassion, justice, and equality. These don’t need to intersect with religion in any way, although they will for many people. As robust and heady ideas, humanistic and secular principles of good will can under gird our systems without invocations to deities, faith-based morals, or proselytizing. Sometimes I think it just comes down to the old argument – the godless can be good people too. Faith may play a hand in how some people establish their belief system but it should not become the basis for all political action.

I highly recommend the book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, which closely traces the relationship between faith and politics in this country.

I think there are many ways to approach your question. Reading your post I was reminded of a Ph. D. Seminar I was allowed to take when I was at Fuller working on my M. Div called the "Politics of Jesus". The purpose of the seminar was to examine the various ways in which Historical Jesus scholarship was recognizing the political dimensions of Jesus' ministry and teaching. Religious belief and action simply have political consequences. This statement doesn't need to come from any particular opinion about how religion and the state should interact, or how politicians should manifest their faith. Various academic disciplines from anthropology, to history, to sociology seem to be of the opinion that the neat lines of demarcation we have between arenas of life are imposible constructs to maintain perfectly without bluring. A politics or ideology that banishes religion and faith from certain arena's does not leave faith and theology untouched, and a faith that accepts that banishment in turn effects the political sphere simply by virtue of its withdrawl.
We are emerging from a period in which there was the pursuit of that neutral ground arround wich all could gather. That neutral ground was never found because at best that ground was agnostic if not in fact atheistic which means that in fact people of faith was not welcome on this supposedly neutral ground. Secularism is in fact an alternative to religious belief and faith not a neutral position. Secularism can be as idological and destructive as any religious position.
The challenge for us of faith now I think is how to return to the "public square" to borrow a concept from certain neo-conservatives, and retain a certain level of dialogue, though dialogue based in difference rather than neutral sameness.
Along those lines, I think it is destructive to view democracy as competitive as opposed to seeking concensus or at least a place where a majority can agree on a course of action (this concensus and the coalitions demonstrating this consensus would very from situation and issue). I would argue that it is not the issue of faith or religion that is the current problem but the belief in a winner take all attitude demonstrated by our two parties. The art of compromise is lost on our two parties. (it is also btw the belief of the hardliners on the current conflicts in the middle east, and between the terrorists and our terrorist hunters, securlarist or religious)
Compromise is where the rub comes for faith and religion. Ultimately, as a Chistian my alegiance is to Christ, there can be no compromise there. Faith in Christ (that is: believing in Jesus Christ, trusting in Jesus Christ, and being faithful to Jesus chirst) means certain things in the world and thus should affect my political alegiances. However, politics are not ideal, and even if I were to find a party that would fit my faith perfectly, in a democratic system for that party to win votes and get things done it would need to work with oponents and with those it disagrees.
This is where politics can get uggly (and this goes for secularist or religious forms of politics), because the temptation is to subtlely (as seems to be happening at the moment both in Republican use of patriotism and Domocratic and Progresive use of fear of fascism and Hitler images) or not so subtely discourage dissent from a particular ideology or party line or policy.
Here I would agree with the Baptist insight that coersion and religion are not only a destructive mix but result in false faith.
So, I think that the problem of the intersection of faith and politics (or church and state) is not whehter they interesect or if a politician should have his/her politics affected by faith, but that there is in this intersection the temptation to coersion and viewing not the commonweal but the victory of ones party, ideology of religious constituency as the ultimate end of politcal involvement. But this is a problem of politics and the state not of faith and religion. It is the state that weilds the most effective forms of coersion, and it seems to me it is when the church seeks to copy the state that it tends toward manipulation and coersion.
Thus, yes faith and politics intersect and no that does not mean a political party will embody Christian faith, nor is that ultimately desirable not only for a pluralistic society but to foster an environment in which true faith in Christ can blossom and in whicht he church can be the church without mimicing the state.

This kind of sentiment always emerges when people talk about secularism:

"Secularism is in fact an alternative to religious belief and faith not a neutral position. Secularism can be as idological and destructive as any religious position." [from Larry above]

And then it gets dismissed.

Well, I protest. Secularism is, by its very definition a rejection or exclusion of religious considerations. It is not just an atheist's or agnostic's particular "faith."

Secularism asks that we look at what we know here in the earthly realm about how we interact with one another.

If we agree on values that are important in the way that we treat one another (disregarding where those values fit in a religious spectrum), then we have some hope of consensus and equality. Those values should respect the sanctity of individual choice and expression, representation of minority groups as well as the voice of the majority, and the safety and wellbeing of all.

My beef is that you religious folk want to lay religion on me. You want to take the stance of the non-religious and make it religious (labeling secularims just an alternative sort of faith) and I want to clarify to you that I find it a noble challenge to look at my country and my world in human terms, not faith terms. Sure, secularists have gone awry (although, with history on my side, I might contend that the mixing of religion and politics has done the most damage) but don't dismiss the system out of hand.

This is a great article of questions and ideas. Here are a couple of theories.

1. People are all religious. They cannot be separated from religion. They can switch from one to another but, cannot be separate of religion in one form or another. Meaning that people could be of any sect within Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Tribal religions, Humanist, Atheist, Gnostic, Agnostic and a million more.

There is probably no one else on the planet that believes exactly like me or you or anyone else. For that matter I have yet to find anyone in any church that I have ever attended who believes exactly like me. Since we live in a democracy we are voting for people and have to use our best informed judgment to decide how to vote inline with how we believe. The problem here is that US Christians have a history of not doing their part in being informed. This has led to at least two entire blocks of voters that are "knee jerk reactionaries" voting as they are taught rather than how they believe.

2. The theory of "separation of church and state" has led some Christians to avoid politics. When Christians (or any other religion) separate themselves from the government they leave it to the other religions and afford themselves no representation. I believe that there is no separation of church and state provided in the constitution. The constitution does provide a protection for all religions from the government.

3. Christians should be informed and participate fully in their government just as they should participate in culture as a whole. By participate I do not mean go along with everything as it is. Sometimes participation means changing things or even revolution.

Thanks for the ranting space...DK

I can't recall the philosopher at present, but I think it was Voltaire, who said, "The more Religious a country becomes the closer it comes to barbarism." The main reason being that you can justify anything in the name of God. The first ammendment was written and intended to keep faith personal so that doing earthly business would be rational. No you cannot take religion out of the person, but you can compartmentalize religion and politics, which is what Jesus did when He said "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Your blog entry makes it clear what a cluttered mess things become when you try to place the two concepts into the same compartment.

Big Sigh

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of the word religious:

'relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity'

People can be separated from religion. If they want to, and they work at it (and in our current political clime, it's really, really hard), it's just that the religious cannot fathom such a state of affairs.

Greek Shadow, well put.

Sorry, Tripp, this may not have been the direction you wanted this to go. :)

Sunni, this is great!

Keep it up, y'all.

This is a very good dialog. Please do not take offence to the challenge.

Please name someone, who can be publicly researched, that has completely separated themselves form all forms of religion. I would like to research that person.

I can think of no one, especially in the light of the dictionary definition of the word, who holds no devotion to some kind of ultimate reality.

I agree that you can try to justify anything in the name of God. But, I disagree that people, of any religion, will buy the attempt if they are informed about their religion and their politics. Just as you can try justify anything in the name of humanity, science or Allah. Informed people will not follow like robots.

Lastly, in my opinion, politics and religion most certainly can be compartmentalized. I wish that politics were put in the closet more often. However, a religion that is compartmentalized is an ineffectual religion at best. And may not stand up to the dictionary definition at worst.

Again, please take no offence. I am enjoying the exchange and hope to learn from it. And thanks for the ranting space.
DK

"People can be separated from religion. If they want to, and they work at it (and in our current political clime, it's really, really hard), it's just that the religious cannot fathom such a state of affairs." (Sunni)

Therein lies a major disconnect in this debate. I agree that "the religious cannot fathom such a state of affairs." But I am not convinced that this is a fact that requires fixing.

Government can and has been separated from religion. Sometimes that's been really good - but we should also remember that one of the problems of communism (and I say this as one who believes in socialism) has been its suppression of religion. Communism needs to suppress religion because most religions do not recognize the government as their chief authority, and that is a problem that all governments must reckon with, not just communist regimes.

The thing is, while I may not be able to convince you that faith and politics are inherently bound up in each other, you will not be able to convince me that I should remove my faith from my politics. My faith teaches me that my sole allegiance is to God - through that allegiance and the teachings handed down to me in Scripture and tradition, mediated by reason and experience, I will know (or at least guess at) what I ought to think about particular political issues.

I don't mean that a particular religious authority gets to hand me my filled-out ballot or sign me up for some rallies and not others. I get to make those choices. But as I read the Gospel, and the Bible as a whole, it is very clear to me that my religious beliefs must dictate my political beliefs, not vice versa.

I disagree with a lot of how religion gets used in the political arena, and with a lot of the interpretations of Scripture used to justify political action. I don't think that's the life to which Christians are called. But I also think that for Christians, our identity as disciples must come before national identity or party identity or any other.

When Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's," I don't think he meant "put politics in one airtight box and religion in another." Jesus was a Jew, and Judaism involved issues of state and government - the election of the nation Israel. Jesus changed the way we look at notions like state and authority and so forth, at least for Christians, but I don't think it makes sense to interpret that passage as advocating for separation of religion and state. As I read it, God is still the authority - and it is God who decides what is Caesar's and what is God's to begin with. When Jesus was before Pilate, he denied that Pilate had any power over him that was not given by God.

If I am called, as I believe I am, to conform more and more to God's will, then my faith must dictate my politics. I must be very, very careful in discerning what God's will looks like - but it alone must be my ultimate authority.

Well this has turned into a lively discussion.
Sunni wrote in responce to my claim that there is ideological secularism: "Well, I protest. Secularism is, by its very definition a rejection or exclusion of religious considerations. It is not just an atheist's or agnostic's particular "faith."

Secularism asks that we look at what we know here in the earthly realm about how we interact with one another. "

Sunni your making my point even stronger. It is precisely this exclusion and absolute assertion that the earthly realm and human interaction can be best understood without refernce to God that makes it in fact not neutral ground but for all intents and purposes anti-religious. Your very articulation of secularism shows it to be antagonistic towards faith.
I do not say this to dismiss secularism. Certainly, one does not have to be religious. And, I did not mean to say that secularism was a religion, I said it can be ideological. They are not the same thing. And BTW I am not one of those religious persons who attempts to convince athiests and agnostics that they are religious and exercise faith. No, I want to claim that religion and faitth are different from atheism and agnosticism, thank you very much.
However, merely because one can separate from religion and Chruch can be separated from State, does not mean that demanding that people of faith compartmentalize and never mix their faith with their politics can be reconciled with the religious POV.
Also,I don't believe in coersion, so I am sorry if you read my comment as somehow trying to force you to have faith, wich from the Christian perspective is oxymornic: Faith is a gift it is ludicrous to force someone to accept a gift.
But that gets us off topic.
In any case I think one can be political from a basis in faith and religion without sucumbing to the temptation of forcing people to hold your faith. Ultimately I don't think religion is the problem but seeing religious institutions as if they are the state, or are state like. That is making a category mistake. However, ultimately for the Christian the state is not soveriegn but the creation of God, and thus ultimately accountable before the creator. The Christian (in my view) is to stand and remind the state of this fact, and to call it to true justice and mercy. That is to remind it of its true end before God.
Of course this concept would be anathema to a secularist.

First of all, in response to David above, having a conception of an ultimate reality of some kind and having a religion do not have to be the same thing. An atheist may believe that the ultimate reality is death and dissolution; one should not argue that this is the same kind of integrative and influential belief system of, say, a fundamentalist Christian and her/his view of ultimate reality.

And sure, there are people to research: Robert Ingersoll (who I mentioned before), David Hume, Douglas Adams, Noam Chomsky, Athur C. Clarke. Even Lance Armstrong (currently pedaling his way to victory in the tour de france) has been prominently vocal about his separateness from religion.

If you don't want to go with strict atheists, the lists grows by leaps and bounds (and what I'm talking about, people behaving in ethical human ways without the forced hand of organized religion is certainly going to include the agnostics, the old-fashioned deists, and, in fact, many new-aged, multi-faceted expressions of spiritual ideas): Voltaire, Whitman, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine, Edward O. Wilson, to name a few.

My argument is simply this: people can behave in rational, ethical ways toward one another and systems can support such behavior without the influence of organized religion. This is, in fact, what His Holiness the Dalai Lama is referring to in his book, Ethics for a New Millenium - some may choose to be ethical people through religious paths, but this is not the only way to ethics. And in light of politics, I think this distinction is vital. His Holiness presents the case that what humans need to support is an ethical system that stands apart from any religion, so that all may be able to agree and take part in it. Let's be honest, we know what this looks like - fairness, justice, and compassion.

However your religion chooses to explore and develop these basic human ethics is up to you and your system of belief. Fine and dandy. I may choose to attend a Buddhist retreat to have a greater understanding of how to be more compassionate in my life (whether or not I call myself a buddhist). You may choose to go to a bible study. Some meditate, some pray, some walk in the woods to contemplate the larger questions of life.

The point is, these are individual expressions. We don't really need religion to tell us how to behave, but religion, for some, may help people understand how to cultivate these behaviors more deeply. If you want to pray about a political decision you have to make, that's fine, but we don't have to pray as a country. And it makes me sick to my stomach to have a president so vocal about his so-called belief system especially when I see policies signed in his pen that go against the very religion he purports to be so devoted to. How much better to remove the religion and just stick with the policies. Having a "Christian" president seems to really be muddying the moral waters these days.

Personally, I split this discussion into two parts.

1. As an individual, my religion shapes my politics (and quite probably my politics shapes my religion, though I hope it is more the other way around). They are very much overlapping, because they are the expression of the same thing: my beliefs about the world and how my beliefs shape my action.

2. As a member of a poly-religious community, I am a secularist. I do not at all feel that secularists must be anti-religious (though some are). Ideally, a secularist is against the state establishment of any one religion.

I think that religion and politics are again overlapping, but that distinctions should be drawn clearly. There is a difference between my voting to nominate a deacon in the church and voting for a city council member. I will not continute attending a liberal Protestant church if its interaction in the public square is behind an individual, not a series of ideas (Don't tell me to vote for X, but you can articulate that my faith is against abortions, or denying contraceptives to poor people in HIV-prevalent countries, etc.)

I expect that a politician's actions will be shaped by his or her faith, but I vote for them based on their political, not religious ideologies. Of course, one often shapes the other. But they are NOT identical in the realm of the public commons, when looking at a community, not an individual.

And in answer to the question, "Why now?" I have several thoughts. First of all, this has been a common question for a very long time. Look at the involvement of the church in the debates over slavery and prohibition. Look at the debate over whether Kennedy could be president because he was Catholic.

Yet I do think the religious rhetoric has been turned up in the last few years--partly because it is rhetoric I don't like, and partly because our society is more diverse than ever and as such religious appeals can feel more and more like they exclude people. What to do? I don't know. I think that more voices rather than fewer are likely to be the best solution, however.