With God On Our Side, Part II
Commenter "Scott" left an excellent summation of the dilemma I, along with many other people of faith of both political stripes, face:
The problem with religion and politics is that both reside in some essential aspect of our being. The more that a person cares about one, the more likely it is that they will also care about the other. Politically liberal folk will generally drift to less rigorous faiths, or deny the faith completely. Politically conservative folk will drift to more conservative faith. And vice versa. A person's religious convictions will generally influence their political thought...The political choices for a Christian are pretty well defined along this line. How does a person who accepts biblical morality vote for platforms that want constitutional protection for every perversion known to man (hyperbole intended.)? And how does a biblical oriented person accept a foreign policy that refuses to confront, or at least recognize, that Communism or the current Islamic terrorism is determined to destroy us because we are Christians?
I agree.
And faith - my own, as well as in a larger sense - does affect where we fit in this world.
But I'd like to think it's an individual thing.
As I mentioned Monday, I am:
- A Christian, who has decided to remain...
- A member of the Presbyterian denomination, for theological rather than social or political reasons, and...
- Uncomfortable with mixing politics and faith - more so with mixing politics into faith - even though I am...
- Someone whose faith was a key part of becoming a conservative in the first place - ironically and perhaps counter-intuitively, more on the fiscal and foreign-policy sides than in terms of social conservatism, although I am a conservative libertarian on social issues.
The conundrum reared its head this past Easter. I took the kids to a large Presbyterian congregation in Saint Paul - one I've attended several times, although opted not to join, partly for logistical reasons, and partly...
...well, we'll get to that.
The church has a new paster ("new" since the last time I'd attended, anyway), and this was the first time I'd heard him preach. That's almost always a pleasure in the Presbyterian church, by the way; among mainline Protestant churches, the Presbyterians seem to put the most emphasis on having sermons and scripture messages that are both intellectually engaging and well-delivered. What can I say - Dad was a speech teacher. I give speaker points. I've never known a denomination to draw so many excellent orators who also engage the brain of the thinking, curious believer. I say this to separate them from the preaching of the charismatic, spirit-heavy Evangelical churches; Mac Hammond at the Living word megachurch is a master at this, by the way; mesmerising, intense, mixing judicious humor in with the fire, brimstone and salvation. The four times I saw Hammond preach, it felt like spiritual Chinese food; I left feeling good, but not...quite...full. There's an intellectual satisfaction to a good Presbyterian sermon that has no equivalent, for me, in any other denomination. Your mileage, of course, may vary, but that's what I'm down to after thirty years of looking.
The new minister'd done a great jobs with some things. The once-anemic choir was superb. His predecessor had used, among other things, Powerpoint for some of his sermon points - which, to me, is a lot like incorporating goats heads. Anyway, the slides were gone.
One thing that remained was a heavy-duty slathering of politics. The new minister poured it on, in spots - taking time in the sermon, the congregational prayers and his other comments to take stabs at not just the Iraq war, but at tax cuts and "get-tough" sentencing guidelines.
The Assistant Pastor - a dour, frizzy woman who'd been at the church for almost a decade if memory serves - stepped it up, using her pulpit during the Scripture reading to attack the war and, along the way, its supporters.
I sat with my kids, and thought - "How badly do I want to have to defend my political beliefs - which I try to keep more or less separate from my spiritual life, yet which are also informed by them - while trying to worship and find some sort of fellowship with God? For that matter, how much do I want to have a spiritual pastor (in the original Latin meaning of the term) who's going to actively undercut what I teach them about The World at home? Don't I have enough headaches dealing with that in the school system". It's not like dissent threatens me - if political differences bothered me, I'd never visit my mother, for crying out loud. But is there a reason for actively assaulting, mathematically, at least a third of your potential flock?
I sent the pastor an email with those concerns in it (which currently exists only on my broken home laptop).
The pastor - who will remain unnamed, along with his church - responded.
Thanks for your thoughtful email.
Sorry it has taken me so long to get unburied from an Easter backlog.
My sense is that we have a pretty strong contrast in how we understand the connections between faith and politics. Rather than argue my case that political
issues belong in the pulpit (though not the naked partisanship that characterizes so much of our civil discourse these days), I will simply acknowledge that we do talk about the political events and issues that effect people's lives.
Fair enough...
...except that the discussion itself was "nakedly partisan"; Iraq bad; taxes good.
...I believe part of the role of the church is to bring people together on important issues for respectful dialogue, education and action. (O.k. I am heading into making my argument :)
Right. Absolutely no argument there. None at all.
I'll leave aside whether the presentation of the issues in the Easter service was "respectful" or "educational"; it seemed to be given more as a statement of incontrovertible fact, if you're a believer. And again, I'm not one who shies away from a good debate; I mixed it up but good with at least a couple of former pastors on a variety of issues, and everyone came away the better for it.
And it's not like I can blame the guy for working the room; among the congregants are a number of very prominent DFL activists, people who ooze and froth politics from every pore.
So church supposed to be a feel-good pep rally for the politically-obsessed?
If so, fine.
It just didn't seem as much like an Easter service as mutual reinforcement - a political benediction, if you will.
And I don't even like it when I'm the one being mutually reinforced in church.
Of which more on Friday.
Posted by Mitch at
August 2, 2006 12:53 PM
| TrackBack
I grew up in the Presbytrian church. It was fine and so was the Pastor. If we still lived there, I could possibly still attend, but it would depend on a lot of things. After being born-again 29 years ago (yeah, angryclown's going to have fun with that), we have attended mainly Evangelical churches (exception: Congregational). Now we're Baptists and it's the perfect fit. Our Pastor mentions the war only in prayer for those fighting it and the leaders of the nation to make wise decisions. Period. And this is supposed to be one of those Christian denominations of the far-right religious wackos where they're supposedly too mixed up in politics and should have their tax-exempt status removed. Ha...I'm willing to bet LOTS that is a more apt description of the liberal mainline denominations. Your example is classic, Mitch.
Although, at one point leading up to the last presidential election, someone asked for prayer for President Bush concerning re-election. We had one guy in the congregation (he's married to a French teacher) stand up and ask that we pray for the other candidate as well. My husband was leading the requests for prayer and he didn't miss a beat saying, "You're right. He needs prayer!".
Posted by: Colleen at August 2, 2006 01:09 PMi like this little series you are working on, however, I was a little frightened by this quote, "And how does a biblical oriented person accept a foreign policy that refuses to confront, or at least recognize, that Communism or the current Islamic terrorism is determined to destroy us because we are Christians?"
Not being Christian I can not answer this question, but do a majority of Christians really believe that radical Muslims are waging a holy war again Christianity?
Posted by: Fulcrum at August 2, 2006 04:11 PMI've been in a similiar situation and feel very stongely that you are wrong to stay in a church lead by political liberals.
I left the Evangelical Lutheran Chruch in America due to left wing politics and what I preceive as anti-semitism by the top leadership:
-Set aside a Sunday to bash Israel
-Praise of Arafat by church leaders
-Recently passed a resolution that compared the US to Nazi Germany
-Has partnered with organizations that are trying to convince people not to enlist in our armed services
-Had a link to the ACLU for a while on part of their website
-And the kicker, partnered with MoveOn.Org in the fall of 2004.
Western liberal Protestant churches are not good things in my opinion. Don't stay hoping it gets better, don't sit quietly, and don't give money.
Posted by: Dave at August 2, 2006 06:14 PM"do a majority of Christians really believe that radical Muslims are waging a holy war again Christianity?"
Perhaps not a majority. But any that are aware and paying attention surely do. Fulc, those "radical Muslims" do not not distinguish between Christians, Budhists, Hindus, atheists or liberal Democrats. If you're not them, you ARE the enemy.
Study Madrassa for a while. Learn the true meaning of Islam, Dhimmi and Shari'a.
Posted by: Kermit at August 2, 2006 08:03 PMAnd Dave, we must reform from the inside. Remember. "it's the sick that need the pgysician, not the healthy".
Dave, in a word YES
Posted by: Silver at August 3, 2006 07:39 AMI'm not at my church to receive political or personal validation, but to learn about Christ and how to fulfill God's plan for the world.
There is no church I can think of that wouldn't cause me to cringe in embarrassment at the antics of its hierarchy. Now if I find myself at a church where the pastor can't stop saying stupid things, or the congregation insists on doing stupid things, that's a problem. But neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the Presiding Bishop (who gave a homily on "Jesus Our Mother" at her installation - I sh*t you not) represent me in any real way. They are the face of the church to outsiders, and that's going to hurt attendance (or ensure that I'm surrounded by silly people). But my church is about communion and inclusion, and all the other stuff is temporal. I don't know the position of my friends at church on "Jesus Our Mother" and I can't think of why it would matter. We've got more important things to do.
Posted by: Brian Jones at August 3, 2006 10:06 AMMaybe it's different with Presbyterians, but with Lutherans there are several choices. Missouri Synod, AALC (headquartered in Mpls), independent Lutheran churches. It's not that hard for me to stay in the same faith but not be part of an organization that thinks Bush is the devil and Arafat was a hero.
My biggest complaint is that there are many individual congergations that are conservative, but with all due respect to the members (including my parents), they are clueless. They think it's still 1940 and they belong to an old Norwegian-American church. The top level leadership does all this nasty political stuff, but keep the traditional congergations in the dark. They just keep accepting their money. I doubt if my very pro-life parents even know that their church pays for the abortions of their employees.
Posted by: Dave at August 3, 2006 11:05 AM"Brian Jones" said: "I don't know the position of my friends at church on "Jesus Our Mother" and I can't think of why it would matter. We've got more important things to do."
Rolling around on the floor? Handling snakes?
Posted by: angryclown at August 3, 2006 11:28 AM"Andryclown" clowned: "Rolling around on the floor? Handling snakes?"
Sitting up straight with a dour look on their faces. Eating lutefisk and lefse.
(I should know. I'm a scandihoovian lutheran as well.)
Posted by: Bill C at August 3, 2006 11:58 AM"Angryclown", not "Andryclown". Sorry for the typo.
Posted by: Bill C at August 3, 2006 12:02 PM(Altho I wouldn't kick an Ali Landryclown out of bed for eating circus peanuts)
Ya got me, Angryclown. What was your first clue? "The Archbishop of Canterbury?" That's a dead giveaway. He was up to 6 rattlers and a coppermouth last I heard.
My Mom reports that she sat next to her (Methodist) pastor's wife last Sunday, and the woman substituted "evil" for "Israel" during corporate prayers. Enlightened!
Posted by: Brian Jones at August 4, 2006 09:25 AMCorporate prayers are right up your alley, eh "Brian Jones"?
"For the CEO's, the polluters, the lobbyists and special interests, and for all of your flock who fleece others in the flock, Lord, hear our prayer."
Posted by: angryclown at August 4, 2006 01:32 PMPresbyterian?
That's the American version of the Anglican Church, which was founded by Henry VIII on the premise to excuse his adultery and murder of his numerous wives and which was cemented by his daughter Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen," as a counter-point to the Virgin Mary, despite the fact that Elizabeth had at least four illigimate children (unlike Mary).
Question: Was the Presbyterian Church founded by Jesus? No. Therefore there is no theological rational, "rather than social or political reason," to presume the superiority or credibility of said faith.
Further Question: How then can Presbyterians consider themselves Christian?
Answer: They cannot.
Just spit-balling.
Posted by: GawainsGhost at August 5, 2006 10:59 AM"The pastor - who will remain unnamed, along with his church - responded."
Responded - like the typo laden e-mailers you blogged about I'm sure...
Posted by: Doug at August 5, 2006 01:17 PM7ef9b4e493edc3af154065b633f3c46a reikivenetosubmitsite http://3.peccatatolle.com/rivistadellesocieta/ romaniavacanza benharpertherewillbealight http://15.nonprende.com/trucchisoluzionesignoreanelloduetorri/ whisky statiunitiarrivare http://16.cospettoetterno.com/iniezionemateriaplastica/ autoascoppiomodellismo daniellasarahyba http://9.internastampa.com/canzonesanremo/ obiettivofoto abbigliamentodainese http://13.internastampa.com/casevacanzaaffittovaldarnocollina/ cavoadattatore produzioneprodottoantiinvecchiamento http://10.nonprende.com/casetower/ bmw316 cuccepercaniresina http://19.colpidiventura.com/finanziamentoaulla/ adrianmutu ilaryblasy http://18.colpidiventura.com/volobigliettoaereo/ posizionamentocompetitivobcc f005eb0fc8b9ed3938637eb9ead63ec2
Posted by: Layton at August 6, 2006 01:15 PM"Question: Was the Presbyterian Church founded by Jesus?"
No, the Christian church wasn't founded by Jesus either.
"How then can Presbyterians consider themselves Christian?"
Um, by accepting Jesus of Nazareth as God in the flesh and acknowledging his sacrifice as atonement for their sins?
Posted by: Kermit at August 6, 2006 02:52 PM"Presbyterian? That's the American version of the Anglican Church"
Man, leave it to a Mackerel-Snapper to come up with the most ignorant opening sally of the year. I think you're trying to insult the Episcopalians, my romish friend. We're just laughing at you, though.
Posted by: Brian Jones at August 7, 2006 08:10 AM"Presbyterian? That's the American version of the Anglican Church"
What Brian said.
The Presbyterian Church is nothing at all like the Anglican church; its origins are in the Reformation, and had nothing to do with Henry VIII. It had no relation whatsoever to Henry or Elizabeth - it was a Scottish Calvinist movement.
"Question: Was the Presbyterian Church founded by Jesus? No."
I'll dignify that statement (unnecessarily) with a question in response: Show me any biblical imperative to worship in a church that Christ physically founded.
(And if you can find one, then we'd all better hightail it over to the Greek Orthodox sanctuary nearest us all, huh?)
" Therefore there is no theological rational, "rather than social or political reason," to presume the superiority or credibility of said faith."
Who said anything about "superiority"?
As to "credibility" - well, the Presbyterians have added less post-facto BS to the teachings of Christ than pretty much any denomination I can think of. Which is why "said" church has a lot *more* credibility than most, to this believer.
"Further Question: How then can Presbyterians consider themselves Christian?"
Because Christ is our lord and savior.
"Answer: They cannot. Just spit-balling."
Show me any biblical support for that, er, self-inflicted spitball wound.
Posted by: mitch at August 7, 2006 10:58 AMDrive-by spitballing. Film at 11.
Here's a question for those of you shooting with a little stronger ammo:
What goes through your head when you pass a house of worship?
1. "Man, I hope somebody's finding God in there. It's such an awesome experience and makes the world a better place when it happens."
2. "Those deluded fools. Hope they enjoy HELL!"
3. Somewhere in between 1. and 2.
Me, I'm mostly a 1. Who am I to judge how God chooses to approach other people?
Posted by: Brian Jones at August 8, 2006 11:12 AM