There is an interesting conflation of realities. Often I hear about private faith and public politics. But one of the things that I have become more and more convinced about is that faith is almost always public. This does not mean that I stand on a corner and recite the creed on Wednesday afternoons...though I may someday. Heh.
Aaaanyway, how can faith be truely private unless we utterly compartmentalize our beliefs and vote/make policy with a different set of guidelines. Meaning, I am a pacifist but if I vote for war hawks because I believe that faith realities and governmental realities to be that divergent then I am voting with a different set of guidelines or mores. Yes, there are ways to nuance this or conflate this, but there you go.
I think most people's faith is made public through the way they engage politics. They may engage the political landscape of this country in a variety of ways. This may be through whom they donate money, charities, foundations, congregations etc. This may be through whom they work such as large corporations, arts agencies, or small businesses. This may be through where they send their children to school whether that be public school, private, or homeschooling. Again, these are simplified, but the simple truth is that we are always guided by our beliefs, thus our beliefs are public. Even the event of a compartmentalizing these things is a reflection of belief.
So, why does this matter. Well, to beat the dead horse, if we are all voting our beliefs all the time, then what is the current debate in our country about?
I think it is about Creeds. I think we are renewing the desire in this country to vote with our religious creeds or lack thereof. I think that we are finally falling prey to exactly what the founding politicians warned us against. So, how do we battle back? Well, sending money to the local chapter of We Like The Sepparation may not be the best way.
I think it is time once again for those of us who claim differing Creeds start talking with one another again. We have somehow let our relationships dissolve, believeing for too long that our Creeds were private. But they are not and, as they are descriptors of faith and belief, will never be. so, a dialogue must be struck. It must be public. And it must be intimate.
What do you all think?
Posted by tripp at December 16, 2005 10:41 AMHeh. How many times can a self-avowed proud Baptist use the word "creed" in one post? :-)
I think the phenomenon, and in my opinion the error, is that voters are choosing to vote for a candidate who goes to the same kind of church they do, whether or not that person's platform in any way resembles what the faith he or she professes calls for the faithful to do. Witness, GWB.
If somebody I don't know tries to "discuss his creed" with me, it always (and I do mean always) comes across as an effort to recruit me. If somebody I *do* know tries to discuss his creed with me, there's more opportunity there for actual discussion, but less for any change of heart.
How to handle that dichotomy?
Posted by: Megan at December 16, 2005 11:35 AMI think a change of heart is not necessary. However, finding ways to live well together is a worthwhile pursuit.
I think we do this for the most part in this country. But it seems to me that the current political landscape, at least what the media is shedding its light on, denies what you suggest. It denies the possibility. It seems to me that Falwell, for example, has no desire to live with either one of us.
Now, if the President wants to live up to his oath, protecting the constitution and all, he might want to follow up with Brother Jerry and remind him that though he is free to speak his mind, he is suggesting an overthow of the current political order. It may be worth mentioning that.
Yes, faith groups may band together and vote their will. This was the foundation of the great slavery debates. But somewhere is can become dangerous...even treasonous. Strong words? Maybe. But history suggests otherwise. Somehow Jerry needs to learn how to live well with difference.
Posted by: Tripp at December 16, 2005 11:56 AMNote: Yeah, creeds are tricky. We Baptists say we ain't got one, but we split over them all the time. We just don't write them down or when we do we call them "Statements of Faith." Cheap semantics.
Posted by: Tripp at December 16, 2005 11:58 AMHey, would you e-mail me? I seem to have misplaced your e-mail address.
Posted by: Tripp at December 16, 2005 12:09 PMOK, my brain is a little clearer today.
In your first comment above, you wrote, "But it seems to me that the current political landscape, at least what the media is shedding its light on, denies what you suggest. It denies the possibility."
Point of confusion: what possibility do you think I was suggesting?
Apart from that, I've been thinking about the media presence of people of faith recently. I've had several real-world conversations in whch people expressed their frustration that moderate and liberal Christians aren't "speaking up," by which they seemed to mean, aren't showing up in the national media the way Falwell et al. are.
And I thought, which place should I be spending my finite time and energy -- trying for media presence, or collecting goods for the orphanage in Mexico that Shepherd of the Hills supports? Trying for media presence, or putting in an evening on the phone with a distant friend who's going through a hard time and needs some love? Trying for media presence, or volunteering at the food bank? Trying for media presence, or teaching drama at the women's prison?
There's nothing that says one can't do the work of Christianity and try for media presence. But I have only so much time and energy, and from where I stand, doing the work seems vastly more important than trying for media presence.
Posted by: Meeegan at December 17, 2005 03:35 PM"And I thought, which place should I be spending my finite time and energy -- trying for media presence, or collecting goods for the orphanage in Mexico that Shepherd of the Hills supports? Trying for media presence, or putting in an evening on the phone with a distant friend who's going through a hard time and needs some love? Trying for media presence, or volunteering at the food bank? Trying for media presence, or teaching drama at the women's prison?"
Pretty much.
There is a different dynamic to liberal/moderate Christianity that does not lend itself to great political punditry. So, the Christian Peacemaker Teams only make the news when someone is kidnapped or martyred. God's Politics was written by a liberal/moderate voice, but he only ended up having a shouting match with Falwell that served no one. It was actually quite embarassing.
www.sojourners.org is an interesting website.
Jimmy Carter is a liberal/moderate voice who is speaking out, but people think of him as a politician first.
The UCC had a TV ad that received national attention when networks refused to air it saying that it was too inflamatory.
They voices are out there, but as you suggest, resourses are more likely put elsewhere.
Posted by: Tripp at December 18, 2005 11:31 AM