Christian Presidencies and God’s Politics
On Jim Wallis' “Two Fundamental Shifts”
When I began reading Jim Wallis’ “Two Fundamental Shifts” on his “God’s Politics” blog, I thought I was about to disagree. Early in his article, Wallis finds encouragement from the fact that “. . . Democrats now speak as much about faith and values as the Republicans do.”
Then my mind did a fundamental shift. I found the general tenor of the remainder of Wallis’ remarks more in line with a trenchant observation that he soon proceeds to make: that Martin Luther once stated that he would rather be “governed by a competent Turk than by an incompetent Christian.”
An Adjective-Free Presidency
Me too. I want a president – and not the “Christian president” that I heard, in a recent sound bite, that Huckabee would be. Eight years of Christian presidency, if we must call it that, has been more than enough. But neither do I want someone proclaiming him or herself a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic president. Where religion is concerned, I want a president who’s adjective-free. Because at best, what you get for your adjective are public piety-displays that pander to a segment of voters whom politicians know they can count on to mistake holier-than-the-competition talk for something more significant.
At worst, you end up with a president who uses an ego-validating idea of God to buttress his own “unwavering” sense of righteousness as he implements policies like preemptive war, torture, and inaction on heath care and the environment that allow corporate benefactors of the status quo to continue raking in short-term profits at the long-term expense of this nation and the larger world.
Politicized God-talk reveals nothing about a candidate’s leadership abilities and moral life. I was a kid back in the sixties, but if memory serves, in his public life outside of church, the Rev. Martin Luther King didn’t even halfway measure up as a God-talker as compared with the perhaps less reverend George W. Bush.
MLK’s God was the big God, the real One – the God whose greatness is so big and apparent that even folks who don’t use the word God can get behind anyone who’s working for that God. That God’s efforts are for the sake of the whole nation and the whole earth – and decidedly not aimed at the further enrichment and empowerment of the already rich and empowered at the expense of multitudes.
When I began reading Jim Wallis’ “Two Fundamental Shifts” on his “God’s Politics” blog, I thought I was about to disagree. Early in his article, Wallis finds encouragement from the fact that “. . . Democrats now speak as much about faith and values as the Republicans do.”
Then my mind did a fundamental shift. I found the general tenor of the remainder of Wallis’ remarks more in line with a trenchant observation that he soon proceeds to make: that Martin Luther once stated that he would rather be “governed by a competent Turk than by an incompetent Christian.”
An Adjective-Free Presidency
Me too. I want a president – and not the “Christian president” that I heard, in a recent sound bite, that Huckabee would be. Eight years of Christian presidency, if we must call it that, has been more than enough. But neither do I want someone proclaiming him or herself a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic president. Where religion is concerned, I want a president who’s adjective-free. Because at best, what you get for your adjective are public piety-displays that pander to a segment of voters whom politicians know they can count on to mistake holier-than-the-competition talk for something more significant.
At worst, you end up with a president who uses an ego-validating idea of God to buttress his own “unwavering” sense of righteousness as he implements policies like preemptive war, torture, and inaction on heath care and the environment that allow corporate benefactors of the status quo to continue raking in short-term profits at the long-term expense of this nation and the larger world.
Politicized God-talk reveals nothing about a candidate’s leadership abilities and moral life. I was a kid back in the sixties, but if memory serves, in his public life outside of church, the Rev. Martin Luther King didn’t even halfway measure up as a God-talker as compared with the perhaps less reverend George W. Bush.
MLK’s God was the big God, the real One – the God whose greatness is so big and apparent that even folks who don’t use the word God can get behind anyone who’s working for that God. That God’s efforts are for the sake of the whole nation and the whole earth – and decidedly not aimed at the further enrichment and empowerment of the already rich and empowered at the expense of multitudes.
Posted by Paul at 1:20 PM Permalink
27 Comments:
In all of the talk about our scary planet, people seem to have lost track of the opportunity Bush squandered to make allies instead of enemies.
Keshi.
I too prefer adjective free presidents when it comes to religion! If religion does more to divide than unite, it's not religion.
The democrats are realizing the value in this as well, taking to their own God-speak. I'm with you: I'd prefer an adjective-free president as well, but for a large segment of the public a candidate's religious identity is a dealbreaker.
KESHI: To me it’s surprising that this approach continues to work – that larger numbers of folks don’t immediately spot the insincerity, whatever their religious perspective is.
CYNIC: Name calling isn't commentary; any further such remarks, whether directed at me or others, will be deleted.
CARRIE W: It’s ironic as well as tragic that religion is often such a divisive force in the world.
JACOB: That’s what got my attention – that democrats are going in for the same sort of thing, as if, as the leader of a nation, you need scripture to justify, say, wanting to help the sick or poor. But maybe they have to play that game because the fact that it’s a game is not yet obvious enough to enough people.
Preach it, preach it, PREACH IT.
Something to think about, isn't it, when one considers that Adolf Hitler also claimed that God was on his side during WWII?
CARRIE: I would like to suggest that RELIGION does precisely that: divide rather than unite. RELATIONSHIP on the other hand, especially one based on Love, concentrates on that which unites us rather than on our differences.
And it's specifically an example of that potent political/"religious" combination - what a bad mix it is to render unto Caesar the things that are God's, so to speak.
"But neither do I want someone proclaiming him or herself a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Taoist, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic president. Where religion is concerned, I want a president who’s adjective-free."
- Beautifully expressed. I share these sentiments with you. The average citizen do not need a self proclaimed religious leader rather a leader whose religion is the universal values of humanity.
On another note, I have listened to your radio interview and I have liked what you expressed in it. You have spoken of passion to your fellow man and your sincere desire to establish a bridge of communication to all people of faith; this is the true spirit of Jesus.
Thank you
Katib
Now, as to the question of defining “God’s Will” in these matters, consider the Scripture that says that we are to pray for our leaders because they have been ordained by God. (Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.)
ARTHUR: Exactly – as long as the religious adjective isn’t used to define their presidency.
In quoting scripture to support your point of view, you touch on the sense in which the Bible is authoritative for Christians. Christians sometimes view it as inerrant – I think this term has largely come to replace the word literal. But either way, the view is that there is one correct way to understand specific verses, books, and the Old and New Testaments taken overall.
Delving into this is too much for a thread, but it’s an important topic. A good book on this is James Barr’s The Scope and Authority of the Bible. It’s short, readable, and what’s best is that Barr himself originally took an inerrancy position, so he has lots of empathy and understanding of it though in the end he finds it untenable. His extensive knowlege of the Bible means his book is filled with specific examples from scripture of the points he makes.
And I know that "those" types of people are not really typical of the religious, but it sometimes seems that fundamentalism (from which those people do spring) is on the rise, and that the fundamental voice grows ever stronger in power. And it saddens me.
So it pleases me and enheartens me to hear another voice singing out against them.
Thank you.
“…what you believe will affect every part of your life, even the public spectrum.” Thanks for the provocative thought, I think I feel another blog post coming on! Not sure yet…
RACHEL: I’ve had similar thoughts. I think part of it is that while progressives have things in common, they’re a diverse group that includes people of non-Christian faiths and with no faith affiliation. Christians on the far right speak much more with one voice, an effect enhanced by deliberate political mobilization and, frankly, imo, quite a bit of political manipulation with misinformation and oversimplification of issues from its leadership.
I am one of those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, while acknowledging that it, (as we know it,) is not always accurately translated.
I am not impressed with "scholars" who continually try to prove otherwise. I am conversant with some of their works, and they have never managed to pursuade me of their arguements.
There is much in The Bible that is metaphorical, to be sure. And there are also poetic works, and historical data that remains unverified, but those parts that have been verified have proven to be accurate and reinforce the probability that the rest of it is also verifiable.
Christianity has to be the only belief system, (for lack of a better word,) in the world, in which the Book of Instructions for living a life according to one's beliefs is constantly being questioned as to its validity, - usually, if not always, by those who do not believe in it to begin with.
I am not suggesting that one accept blindly what the Bible says. God did, after all, give us an intellect for a reason. However, checking it out and studying it is very different from continually questioning its validity.
There comes a time when a little bit of Faith is necessary as well, and if one does not have that, then it is pointless to try and pursuade him/her of anything Spiritual.
The basic idea is that all persons surrender some part of their personal powers to a leader or a set of leaders who rules on the basic of that collected power. So the cleanliness of the power of the leaders depends on the cleanliness of the power which was given to them.
The cleanliness of personal power depends on the ideals and the value system that give shape to the personal power. Very few can derive their ideals and value system from abstractions. A great majority of people depends on second hand morality. They need institutionalized handouts to hold them together. The path to abstract knowledge is creative negation that keeps aside particulars in favor of general principles. Those who indulge in negation without creativity becomes just social nuisances that smell (often their mixed up values don’t permit them to even take a decent bath).
So if you allow the demos to choose the president has to be with some sort of a religious tag. Only his level of tolerance and power of understanding other religions will differ.
One solution perhaps is to acknowledge that power is purely a mundane concern. It is about the business of being. So why not evolve a system where only business values are at play. That might keep dubious Dubyas at bay.
Blessings,
Lance
www.lancessoulsearching.com
What we are all looking for is honesty, truthfulness, & a real desire for furthering the cause that is mankind. This is the appeal of Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, & other great freedom fighters. Even us atheists can key into that. Unfortunately, the prevailing elements in politics are as you say ego-validating...
UP WITH PEOPLE!
Personally, I was impressed by the faculty at U of Chicago – they come from all denominations, mainly Protestant; are almost all practicing ministers as well as professors; certainly see the Bible as valid and are people of faith; and they’re tops in fields that pertain to biblical scholarship like ancient languages and literary analysis. Studying at UC includes receiving insight into the methods they use, not only the conclusions they reach.
I’m certain that Harvard and Yale are similarly staffed. Along with UC, the faculty at these schools includes the best biblical and religious studies scholars the US has to offer. I’m not aware that any believe in inerrancy - the idea is demonstrably false. I’d again cite Barr’s book. Also, the RSV, at least at the time I was at UC, had lots of material that gave insight into scholarly methodologies. (By now it’s the NRSV – New Revised Standard Version – considered the most accurate translation.)
Often, Christians not only find they have to reject inerrancy because it's contradicted by readily available knowledge about the text, but wonder why so many other Christians attach importance to the inerrancy idea.
AVGW: Much of your comment seems to me to elaborate on Crystal’s, and I may take it up next post. Here I’ll just venture that from what I can see, the primary corrupter of US governance is the determining influence (via large political campaign contributions and lobbying access) of big business and wealthy individuals on who gets to run for higher office as a financially viable candidate.
And that your phrase “Dubious Dubya” ought to be printed beneath his image on any paper currency that ever comes out in his honor. If it were up to me, I would insist.
LANCE, thanks for stopping by –
CONCERNED CITIZEN: To your point, is it just me or in recent years does it appear that the average citizen is more enlightened than the average head of state??
MARK, thanks. It seems to me that having the kinds of insights you try to help people with on your blog – which are perfectly consistent with morality as advocated in religion – bring people to act beyond self-interest more reliably than what conclusions people come to concerning how the earth was made, who the greatest prophet was, whether Jesus was the Messiah, whether reincarnation occurs etc. While religious beliefs can help and encourage those who hold them, I don’t see how knowing that candidate X embraces or does not embrace a given theology informs us about how the candidate would behave in office.
I love your site Paul. Your message resonates a hope in it's own right. As a liberal Christian who strongly supports the seperation of church and state I feel lost at times defending my position that God is not about tax cuts or denying SCHIP funding for child health care. God is not about nation building or oil revenues but about doing our best to live in His image, lifting up the those who are forgotten around us and treating others with the dignity that we desire shown to ourselves. It's not often that I blog roll another site after one visit but I'm hooking you up right away. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on your book too. Thanks for visiting the Red Hog Diary yesterday.
Your site looks like a lot of fun and I've added it to my links. Bet you've read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance . . .
If anyone else has linked me and I haven't reciprocated, please let me know. Also, I've added a couple people under "New" on my blog roll who haven't reciprocated, so please do if you're so inclined -
Religion does separate on a spiritual basis and those that are offeneded are offended because they are gulity themselves. While religion separates on spiritual basis, secular humanism kills. Thats why we have abortions and the likes.
I don't think it's possible to get rid of identity, but it can be improved on - as in the idea of "losing one's life to find it."
Yes, taking offense is best to outgrow.
I think the cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancies. Not all Christians, by any means, oppose abortion in all circumstances. In fact I believe most approve of it in some circumstances.
Not sure what secular humanism is - it's such a broad idea. It sounds like it would include everyone who doesn't believe in God, but that could be anyone from, I don't know, a violent criminal to someone who works helping the poor.
Post a Comment