Faith and Politics

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another example is Rick Warren. There is probably no more influential advocate for Christian charitable serving in the world today. He is succeeding in changing the face of the Church. (Probably to one you would like better, Peter.) But do you think the media gives him credit for this? I haven't seen it. They grudgingly respect him but still warily watch him. Why? Because he's still fairly conservative and an abortion opponent. And when he says anything political they don't like, you can bet they aren't going to call attention to his charitable efforts. They are going to try to paint him in a bad light. I know because I've seen them do it.

Imagine if Larry Ficklin (see last post) had not been a Christian pastor, but a gay artist. Do you think the media, had they caught wind of that, would have missed the chance to trumpet his name far and wide? Had that been so, you can bet you would have heard of Larry Ficklin.

The media's message would have been "See? Gays can be great people, too. Don't you feel bad for being prejudiced against them?"

Do you think they are looking to trumpet the same about Christians? Nope. So maybe what you "see" about Christians has more to do with what the media reports than what's actually going on.

I'm not for stridency and self-righteousness. But to say Christians should refrain from political advocacy because some are that way is an over-correction, IMHO. That's playing right into the hands of the bullies.

This is the type of discussion I was at least trying to be careful not to get into. I've tried to make clear, over and again, that I'm not debating a particular stance on an issue - or a platform. Indeed, just so we're clear, I am against abortion. I have debates with pro-choicers on it all the time. I do not know a SINGLE argument for "pro-choice" which does not ALSO justify infanticide (e.g. "you're poor and can't care for the child? Well, there's poor people with 2 year olds. Is it okay for them to kill their child?"). I just try to stay away from stamping my arguments with God's approval. There is a strong moral argument against it - yes, one that comes from my conscience and faith - which doesn't need to reference my faith as a premise.

(I will admit, though, that I feel a little bit like I'm showing my "credentials" right now...)

I definately don't want to discuss media bias or platforms. Lord knows once this discussion starts happening outside of a Bible-based audience - it's no holds barred what people will do. I'd rather not shift the discussion to being based on our shared citizenship, as opposed to our shared faith. Doing so would be to abandon what I'm arguing for.

So, I have to make a distinction I've made many times over. Christians can be active in society through private action or they can be active in society through public, political action. I know that thousands (millions?) of Christians are engaged in private action - through church ministry or counseling or soup kitchens or Darfur or Katrina - the list is endless. Those are PRIVATE acts (i.e. non-government). I have never once in all these posts advocated that Christians shouldn't do these things. In fact, I have no problem Christians saying they are called by God to do them. That's a ministry. Throughout history the gospel has spread most effectively when Christians set up hospitals, schools etc...

My last post was describing the PUBLIC AND POLITICAL stance on abortion. That is, Christians pursue LEGISLATION to ban abortion. What I claimed was missing - and I could be wrong - was an PUBLIC AND POLITICAL follow-up to ensure young mothers and otherwise unwanted children are taken care of.

I was not claiming that individual/groups of Christians do not do charitable works for mothers and children. I was claiming that I didn't see those efforts in any PUBLIC AND POLITICAL agenda.

If you say its okay for Christians to get involved in politics as Christians, then have a political agenda that reflects the full scope of your Christian beliefs.

If you claim that you want to ban abortion AND claim that you are concerned about the future welfare of the mother and child, then what POLICIES are you advocating for to that end? Are you holding rallies protesting the reduced funding for Child and Family Services? Are you advocating for expanded health-care coverage for a poor young mother and her new child? Or is this for the "invisible hand of the market" to take care of?

What is the ratio of Christian lobbyists working to ban abortion versus working to get legislation passed that would alleviate the perceived "need" for an abortion - such as exanded foster care, adoption services, education, healthcare? If it was a lopsided ratio, wouldn't this concern you and make you wonder about the claims being made? Unbelievers certainly wonder about that.

But my broader argument doesn't need to make its point through the abortion example. Perhaps it would have been better to use an example of liberal Christians - since my argument applies equally to them.

In fact, from my experience and study, one of the biggest abusers of invoking God's name or a "spiritual cause" in politics was Ceasar Chavez who helped found the Farmer Worker's Movement. Many on the left consider him a "saint," right up there with Martin Luther King. Indeed, he likely thought of himself as one. But the extent of his usurping spiritual principles in the service of his cause knew no bounds. And because of this he was "covered," regardless of who he hurt (very much like WL in that way). But keep in mind, he rooted his arguments in Christian arguments, and felt he was "called" to do what he did.

It is unnerving when either side does it. I'm a fan of getting the goose and the gander a new profession.

Peter