Faith and Politics

[Peter Debelak]

When I drudged up this thread, I had this crazy notion that I could leave my own politics out of it…

Let me first say this: I have more respect for the person I disagree with on an issue who argues it with cohesive integrity that for the person who I might agree with who does so leaving inconsistencies in his wake. It’s a matter of discerning motives and intellectual honesty.

My difficulty, in short, with Christians invoking God in politics is that it is tremendously difficult to remain internally consistent with the Bible. The reason, I suspect, is that when it comes to government of any kind, God’s way is far more complex than our feeble minds can comprehend. And so, we do damage when we try to approximate it.

But this is not a call to stay out of politics (I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise - as I've been involved in most ways to Sunday). I also agree that if we are to engage at all in our political system, it must be from our beliefs as believers. But such an endeavor is fraught with danger-zones. The threshold for getting caught out in hypocracy is INSANELY LOW! The possibility of human Christians usurping “God’s will” as a blunt instrument to judge others is INSANELY HIGH! Importantly, it is a PUBLIC ENDEAVOR, which means onlookers will use it to judge the TESTIMONY OF CHRIST.

So, it is a tremendously delicate endeavor, if one is to attempt it. To some degree, I would say the burden on Christians to be thoughtful, fair, balanced and comprehensive, is FAR HIGHER than on any other citizen when engaging in politics. That is because of our claims to be speaking on behalf of our belief in Christ. If we are two-faced, or narrow minded, or too judgemental without countervailing love – that reflects on Christ’s testimony and the “softness” of unbelievers’ ears for the gospel.

Let me try to talk this out with the case-study of abortion…

If I was to try and conjure the “most Christian way” to protest abortion, here’s what it might look like:

To be sure, they would protest abortions themselves and try to get legislation passed to ban the practice. However, more than any other constituency group, Christians would be the biggest advocate of making sure that young mother’s life, health and success were paramount. Making sure that child had a good home. More than any other group, Christians would be advocating for a more robust adoption system (which actually might mean MORE government – heaven forbid), more educational opportunities for the mother and for the child, better health services for both.

That is, Christians working intensely and more than any other group to try to eliminate the need for abortions.

But that’s not what we see. What we see is an (understandable) protest of the practice itself, without apparent concern for how difficult and damaging it is for the mother and the child when the choice of abortion is off the table. When the other side is absent, the protests smack of self-righteousness, not justice or love.

The current public political stance of Christian groups on the issue is one of judgment without the follow-up of love.

When I think of the notion of Christians getting involved in politics, I think that NO OTHER GROUP should be able to hold a candle to the broadness, the inclusion, the forgiveness, the real-world help to others.

But we don’t get that. What I see is Old Testament approach to politics. I don’t see the New Testament involved very much in most of Christian political advocacy. Judgement, as if from God, without the robust follow-up of love and care.

Non-beleivers see that. And it matters.

Given how delicate Christian as Christian involvement in politics is, it seems far easier to damage Christ’s testimony than to advance it. That’s why, I advocate for leaving His name out of it, even while engaging passionately in politics. You can still get your “issue” passed, but you might avoid sullying Christ’s testimony in the process.

Am I any closer to clarity here?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I actually didn’t expound on my politics, and actually would hope no one would presume I am for/against this or that. I am NOT making the case that a particular stance on an issue is wrong. Only the manner in which and the arguments with which it is argued. Sense?