politics

Either Or

Frank
You cannot be compassionate without accepting.
You cannot serve without enabling.
You cannot forgive without being tolerant.
You cannot challenge without judging.
You cannot preach the Gospel without condemning.
You cannot promote something without opposing something else.
Religion divides, politics unites under causes.
Politics divides, religion unites under causes.
You cannot follow Jesus without voting _________

Do any of these seem unreasonable to you? They all sound perfectly logical and have just enough truth to believe. But they are all lies that Satan has used to have us argue that either politics and religion are one in the same or that one cannot have anything to do with the other. And we buy into the lies and divide our churches and our society along lines drawn by politics.

I was browsing through a couple of websites last night, from each side of the political aisle, both claiming to be Christian. I could not believe the hate and divisiveness that permeated every topic, every discussion. Each side assumes that you cannot be for a Social Justice gospel without voting a certain way, nor can you be against immorality in our culture without voting a certain way. Is it possible to  be compassionate yet still hold a high standard of morality?

One side argues that Jesus hung out with sinners, never preached about politics, and had in his small group of apostles an insurrectionist and a swindler. Oh and of course, his first miracle involved alcohol.

The other side argues that Jesus preached morality and religious purity and called his followers to repentance.

Why can’t both be true? So long as politics gives us a choice of either/or between two candidates, we assume the same applies to our religion. Jesus didn’t preach about politics even though he lived under an empire that promoted infanticide and embraced homosexuality because he cared more about how we live than how we vote. Any one of the Gospel writers could have added commentary to fit their political views but they didn’t. God gave his Law to the Israelites not to make them morally superior, but to separate them from the world around them. So following Christ is about how we live, separate from the world’s values; not about how we vote or what social cause we embrace.

But this does not mean to throw away your politics, rather it is a call to not put your faith in it. Instead put your politics into action:

  • Are you pro-life? Then love the unwed mother, accept her when her family rejects her.
  • Are you for the sanctity of marriage? Then remember the commands to keep the marriage bed pure, the definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13, that marriage is as much about love as it is respect and that divorce is as much, if not more, a threat to the traditional family as gay marriage.
  • Do you preach against the immorality in our culture? Then preach against every sin, from gossip to gluttony, with the same amount of bile and venom you spew against the gay community.
  • Do you embrace and accept homosexuals? Then remember that although Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery he commanded her to leave her life of sin.
  • Are you compassionate towards the downtrodden, doing what you can to heal? Recall Jesus’ words to the man healed by the pool to stop sinning or something worse may happen.
  • Do you believe that our nation is a Christian nation? Then remember that you are citizens of Christ’s Kingdom first and that the first command of the Kingdom of God that Jesus ushered in was to repent.
  • Remember that someone’s station in life may have come about because of sin, yet it is an opportunity for the work of God to be displayed.
  • And before you judge the speck in another’s eye, remember the plank in your own.

Unlike politics, following Jesus is not an either/or proposition; it is all or nothing.

Legacy

Frank

Chuck Colson passed away over the weekend. Christian conservative, founder of Prison Fellowship, former Nixon aide and Watergate conspirator… the reflections on the man, his faith, and his legacy take many different views depending on where one falls on the faith and politics spectrum. Here’s just a small sampling:

  • Frank Schaeffer: An Evangelical Homophobic Anti-Woman leader passes on
  • Christianity Today: Remembering Charles Colson, a Man Transformed (among others)
  • The Christian Post: Christian Leaders Remember Their Hero Chuck Colson Among Media Skepticism (among others)
  • Get Religion: On Chuck Colson: Can Reporters See Past Watergate?
  • Internet Monk: Eulogies and Dyslogies for Charles Colson

I don’t really have much to add; I didn’t know the man and was born in the aftermath of Watergate. My politics in general aligned with his, though I bristle at the notion of a Religious Right. I included Schaeffer’s controversial post above to point out that not everyone sees the man the same way and politics often cloud our perspectives.

The legacy I want to focus on however, has nothing to do with politics per se. I knew the name, and associated it with the Religious Right, but it wasn’t until I started to listen to his daily radio program, Breakpoint, that I really began to take notice. When I started this blog, Colson’s words from his program and from his colleagues on his website, were in the back of my mind when I named it Public Christianity: The Opposite PC. You may have disagreed with Colson’s politics, but it would be hard to argue against his ministry to engage the culture around us with our faith. In fact, I kept links to his website alongside Sojourners to encourage that engagement, regardless of political affiliation. (And I’m sad to see that SoJo has yet to post anything on Colson’s passing)

So Colson has passed on. Eric Metaxis, author of the best-selling book Bonhoeffer: Paster, Martyr, Prophet, Spy now takes on his radio program. Fitting, as Bonhoeffer is another who felt the fire of the Holy Spirit to engage his culture with his faith. So that torch has been passed to the next generation. How will we engage our culture in Colson’s wake? Will we protest and picket? Will we “get out the vote”? Or will we live out our faith actively in our daily lives, exhibiting the love of Christ and his call to discipleship to those around us through ministries such as Prison Fellowship? Will Colson’s legacy ultimately be political, or will it be transforming?

The Devil Made Me Do it

Frank

A few days ago my son told me how he made a decision at school not based on simple right or wrong but whether or not I would get mad at him. Even more, he said he thought Satan would have made me mad at him.

First I wanted to encourage him not to be afraid of me getting mad at him and had a deeper talk about right and wrong. But I wanted to dig deeper on what he meant by saying Satan would make me mad at him. Amazingly he recalled a conversation we had months ago when he asked me if Satan was real. I think this was around Halloween and he was afraid to go to bed. So I described how Satan wasn’t some monster that would come to us in the night to harm us, but instead he gets in our hearts to trick us into making bad decisions. He dropped it then and peacefully went to sleep, so I was surprised to hear this come up now.

Satan is a tricky subject to tackle, especially for a seven year old. Even believing adults struggle with the notion of a fallen angel running around causing us to do bad. On one extreme some will blame everything on Satan, from catching a cold or a series of red lights that makes one late for work to serious sin and addiction. The other extreme considers Satan “an idea” that represents all that is evil. Of course the truth is somewhere in between. But to someone not as devout in their faith, either notion makes Satan sound more like the boogeyman than the real spiritual force he is.

It is with this latter attitude that the media has approached Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s  comments from 2008 where he stated that Satan had his “sights on” America. To the infamous Main Stream Media, someone who believes in Satan is as foolish and naive as someone who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But according to this MSNBC news piece, a 2007 Gallup poll and a Harris poll in 2009 show that most Americans (7 in 10 and 60%, respectively) believe the devil is real. Yet a 2009 Barna survey of self-identified Christians (versus the broad swath of Americans in the other studies) shows that 59% either agree or somewhat agree with the description of Satan as an idea or symbol of evil versus an actual living being.

While on the surface, it looks like these polls are contradictory, the devil is in the details. In the first two, people we asked simply if they “believed in the Devil” where Barna gets more specific. In that context, Barna found that 92% of those polled believe in some notion of the Devil.

Of course none of this data is relevant in choosing whether Santorum should be the president. Yet it highlights the diversity in the nuances of our faith. There is no broad-brush “Christian” in America that can be painted into a single corner politically no matter how much the media may try.

But I digress. I’m interested in you; what do you believe about Satan? Is he real or symbolic?

When’s the Swimsuit Competition?

Frank

Another day another debate. Another week another primary…

Is it too early to say I’m already burned out by this election cycle? Once upon a time, politics used to get my juices flowing. In the early days of this blog, I posted more about how our faith should intersect with our politics than just about any other subject. But now I read the headlines, follow the news, watch all the attack and advocacy ads and I’m left to say simply, “meh.”

Maybe it’s because none of the candidates particularly excite me. Or maybe it’s because there’s no hot-button issue to focus my attention on. But neither of those are true, I just don’t get as wound up over politics anymore.

Maybe I’ve become disillusioned and jaded. Cynical might be a better word. I admit that in watching these primaries and observing how the media treats the election cycle I’m expecting the swimsuit competition any time now.

Because isn’t that what this really is, a popularity contest to see who “looks the part”? I’m reminded of the story of Samuel anointing David:

“When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, ‘Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.'” But the LORD rejected him.

“Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, ‘The LORD has not chosen this one either.’ Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, ‘Nor has the LORD chosen this one.’ Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, ‘The LORD has not chosen these.’” (1 Samuel 16:6,8-10)

If you know the story, you know I’m leaving out a key verse. I’ll get to that in a moment. But put yourself in Samuel’s shoes. He’s looking at each of Jesse’s older, stronger, more kingly sons expecting at least one of them to be God’s anointed. He was looking for the one who “looked the part”. Yet instead God chose young “ruddy” David who wasn’t even invited to this party and was left to tend sheep.

Why him and not his brothers? God answers, “Do not consider his appearance or his height… The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (v 7)

In politics, just like anything else, first impressions are made by how one looks and what one says. But God doesn’t look at any of those things. He looks at the heart. Imagine how different presidential elections would be if we judged the candidates based on their hearts? (Of course this assumes there could be some way to know.)

I trust the sovereignty of God in the selection of our political leaders. But I don’t trust people stained by the Fall to make a wise choice based on anything other than appearance. And because of that, I just can’t get excited about this election year.

How about you, are you a political junkie? How does your faith influence your politics? Do you find yourself judging more on appearance, or more on heart?

Imaginary Line

Frank

(I might be the only blogger in the universe not writing something this morning about Steve Jobs.)

Where is the “wall of separation” between Church and State? In the past week there have been some headlines that show that the line is arbitrary and constantly on the move.

Last Sunday was the “Red Mass” in Washington, DC traditionally done before the Supreme Court starts their session. This is a tradition that goes back 58 years. (though the Red Mass isn’t limited to the US government, the actual tradition dates all the way back to 1245) But wait a minute. Aren’t the Justices the ones who decide where the aforementioned line should be drawn? And here aren’t they participating in a religious ceremony explicitly tied to their governmental role? Interestingly, two of their first cases are Separation issues: a 10 Commandments display and applying the Americans with Disabilities Act to ministerial employment decisions.

The same Sunday, not coincidentally, was “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” (No, I’ve never heard of it either) where some ministers were preaching explicitly political sermons, sending the IRS their recording, and daring them to take away their tax-exempt status. The problem is, the whole 501(c)3 designation as a non-profit is very misunderstood. This status isn’t limited to churches, but any non-profit. So say a charity cannot explicitly endorse a candidate because he or she may support the cause of that charity. The same is true of a church. But it does not forbid the church from preaching on social or political issues consistent with their doctrines. They just cannot actively endorse or campaign for a particular candidate or ballot issue. This is why churches were allowed to rally their congregations in support of California’s Proposition 8. Churches are perfectly within their right to assemble political support or opposition. They are only not allowed to endorse specific candidates or political parties from the pulpit. Important note, churches conducted similar activities to abolish slavery and advance Civil Rights. If churches were not allowed to even speak on social or political issues then each of these movements would have died out.
Meanwhile, a student in Northern California was docked points on his grade for saying “bless you” in class. Of course the religious crusade came out to cry persecution! But wasn’t necessarily the case. When you read the story it becomes clear it had more to do with disrupting the class than anything else (though the teacher’s explanation left a lot to be desired.) besides, who didn’t fake a sneeze in school just to get the whole class to start a string of “bless you”s? Keep in mind however, that public schools are an arm of the government.

Finally, California passed a bill banning the banning of circumcision. (if you’re confused by the double-negative, you’re not alone; MSN’s homepage originally linked the article with the headline “California bans circumcision”) This was in response to the city of San Francisco trying to pass such a ban. Never mind that the Courts struck that effort down. California feels the need to be redundant to pass a law to affirm what the Court already decided. Of course, the reason for striking down SF’s law was that the government cannot restrict an explicitly religious practice (though not all are circumcised because of religious views). Hmmm, I wonder how the court cases are going against The Church of Reality (or Cognizance in some places)?

Ok, so after reading the above can you honestly tell me there is an explicit wall of separation between Church and State? Or is it more of an imaginary line?

Flashback Friday: Origins

Frank

To make up for not being online hardly at all this week, I’m offering a two-for-one special: a Flashback to my very first post plus a little more about me.

Believe it or not, this blog started as a chain email. You know the kind: “the world is going to hell in a hand basket so forward to 100 people or you don’t love Jesus!” Honestly, I was tired of getting those. The straw that broke the camel’s back (or caused my inbox to exceed its limit) was one I had received a dozen times already about not praying at school being the reason our country is in the state it’s in.

I thought about that for a moment. Is the lack of prayer in schools the problem with our country, or is the problem the hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of so-called Christians who think their religious duty is limited to showing up on Sunday (when there’s not a game on or the kids don’t have a soccer tournament) and forwarding religiously-themed emails? I was amazed that I had received this very same email so many times from so many different people.

So I wrote my own, complete with “forward this or make baby Jesus cry!” I wrote about how is it that 85% of Americans call themselves Christians yet… divorce rate is greater than 50%, more people are in prison per-capita than any other industrialized nation, x-number of abortions a year (I should know that number off the top of my head, does that make me a bad Christian?), more children are born into homes with a single parent than are born to two-parent homes (recent stat, but seriously???), and on and on.

I was curious if I’d ever see that email forwarded back to me. Honestly I doubt anyone I sent it to forwarded it on. Too much fire and brimstone. But it got me thinking how the internet could be used as a ministry tool and how individuals were empowered to voice their message to the faceless crowd. I thought a lot too about what kind of message that should be. I had just started following a couple of blogs and saw the community created around the shared convictions and open discussion. Maybe there was something to this. So what’s the message?

I realized, looking around at the Christian-consumer landscape, that generally Christians have isolated themselves on social islands. They like what the Christian marketplace tells them to like (Fireproof!) and vote for who they are told to vote (Palin!). Now that’s a broad-brush and not really fair, but that’s how I felt at the time. Add to that the divisions between churches (I’m right, you’re wrong and going to hell for it!) creating other islands in this ocean of culture, and I choose to write about that. Current events. Politics. Even throw some Bible in there. Of course, it’s evolved since then, but here I am almost five years later still shaking my head at what I see out there (while thankfully spending more time concerned about what’s going on in here, plank in my eye and all).

Something else, since it keeps getting asked, here’s the story behind “fatha frank”. I was raised Catholic, for one, and was almost guilted into going into the priesthood. When I was baptized in a campus ministry, I was in grad school, making me one of the oldest students in that ministry (older than our campus minister, in fact). Between those two I got dubbed “Father Frank” by a few friends. When I set up my accounts and online identity, I wanted to keep the name, but I didn’t want strangers (since I was going to post openly to anyone on my blog) to think I was an actual priest, so I changed it. In fact, a friend and I came up with it at the wedding reception of another friend of ours. So blame him.

So now you know a little more about me, tell me something I don’t know about you.

And for entertainment purposes only, here is my very first post:

What the World Needs Now

Is another religion/politics blog, like I need a hole in my head! (sung to Cracker’s, “What the World Needs Now” [ed note: actually the song is called “Teen Angst”) So why me? Why this blog? And if you’re here because of a blog search, I’m sorry! There’s not much content yet, but I’m working on it.

A couple of years ago the world was introduced to a new term, “values voters,” a segment of the population that (gasp!) voted their conscience. It didn’t take long before this “new” segment of Americans became commercial, worldly, co-opted by special interests, and the new pop-culture buzzword. Since the ’04 election some ministers have become politicians, ministries have become special interests, and being a Christian became more about how you vote than how you live. Now we’re on the dawn of mid-terms, and both sides are fighting to capture the value vote.

So what makes me different? After all, aren’t I buying into the system by becoming yet another religious/political blog? That’s exactly why I’m doing this. To be different. While I’m not ashamed of this being political, I want the dialogue (or would a blog be more of a monologue?) to be more deep and broad than, “W sux!” or, “W rox!” I also want this to be more than just politics, but also how religion ties into pop-culture and what we can learn from what’s going on in the world.

The links to the right are a work in progress. So far “resources” are related to the topics I post about, while “blogs” are brothers in Christ whom I respect that post on their convictions and their life. You might notice some of the links look like they don’t belong (ACLU????). But I’ll talk about that next time. So please come back!

One of These Kids is not Like the Others

Frank

From the latest Family Christian mailer:

Sarah Palin, present poster-child of the politicized American Christianity (TM) persecution complex. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, perhaps the 20th Century’s best example of faith under persecution who was imprisoned and later hung for his convictions. (I’m still trying to wrap my head around how Sarah Palin is an example of “faithful perseverance”)

On the surface, they are both very similar. Both are tied to movements that insist Christianity should oppose cultural and governmental moral decay. However, that’s where the similarities end, unless you liken our current administration to Nazi Germany (and those who do, really, really need to brush up on their history). Christians in America are under no threat of imprisonment or death for our beliefs. Our government is not conducting a systematic slaughter of a specific segment of our population, which would be worthy of opposition. And no, I’m not going to relate abortion to the Holocaust; a person’s choice, whether we agree with the laws allowing it or not, is still the decision of the individual, independent of the government. And no political leader is elevating themselves as a leader of the church, which would also be worthy of opposition.

Wait. That is happening, albeit subtly. This advertisement demonstrates it. Here is a potential presidential candidate being promoted by a Christian bookstore. She’s not the first. I’ve seen books by Gingrich, Bush (Sr and Jr), and Huckabee displayed right in front next to Joel Osteen (if that’s not a clue, I don’t know what is). Yet I’ve never seen any books by Jimmy Carter, President Obama, or others from the Left side of the aisle promoted in such a way. No, they’re not leading any church, but they are leading public opinion, especially those on the religious right.

I strongly believe our convictions should guide our politics, whether it’s Left-leaning Social Gospel or Right-leaning Family Values. However, our politics should not shape our convictions. While the secular world argues to keep faith out of politics, I argue we need to keep politics out of faith. And that includes bookstores.

“Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.’“ (John 18:36)

Flashback Friday: Movements and Messiahs

Frank

***Originally posted February 20,2010, as the Tea Party started to gain momentum. Reposting this week after the elections on Tuesday that the Tea Party is either getting too much or not enough credit, depending on your point of view. Regardless, Christians need to be wary against putting too much faith in any political movement.***

The Tea Party movement has gotten a lot of press recently, from being credited for Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts to CNN doing a week-long look into the movement prior to its first “national conference” to the recent article in the New York Times. The biggest questions being asked are will this amount to a third party and/or how much influence will this group have on the Republican Party?

Sounds a lot like what was being asked about the fledgling Christian Coalition thirty years ago. Like the Tea Party, the Christian Coalition was initially focused on local involvement from people with little or no prior involvement in politics (at the time conservative Christians). Eventually their influence grew to such an extent that they are now blamed for everything wrong with the Republican Party. Egos, internal politics, and the idol-worship of fame eventually led to this movement’s downfall.

Another similarity is the lack of unity or homogeneity among the grass-roots supporters. There is no definition of a “Christian voter” that applies to all Christians as Jim Wallis so accurately pointed out in his book, God’s Politics, Why the Right Gets it Wrong and Why the Left Doesn’t Get It (the subtitle sums this up the best). At the same time, the media has been unable to nail down a universal platform that applies to each Tea Party other than the expected discontent with the current administration. Some want a new party, some want an overhaul of the Republican Party. All want a smaller government, but there is disagreement how. Again, sounds a lot like the “value voter” broad-brush the media tried to invent after the 2000 election.

Tea Party organizers would be wise to study the history of this group as it appears they are going down the same road. We, as Christians, would also be wise to remember our folly with the Christian Coalition and not be enticed by the promise of any political Messiah as there is only one true Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. (2 Timothy 2:4)

Our commanding officer is God, not country nor political party. And our battle is not political but moral and the prizes are not votes but souls. We will never be the salt that Jesus calls us to be as long as we are only striving to score political points.

Flashback Friday: Mud Slinging

Frank

***Originally posted October 31, 2008 prior to the last major election. Reposted as we have the mid-terms right around the corner as a reminder that no matter how much things change, things stay the same. You might as well replace Kay Hagan in this post with Christine O’Donnell and “godless” with “witchcraft“. Two years ago it was a “godless” Hagan, this year is the “witch” O’Donnell, I shudder to think who the target will be next year as some corners of the religious establishment continue to try to seize power politically. Personally, this isn’t about any particular political stripe, but we need to seriously examine the level our politics, and our religion, have stooped down to.***

The North Carolina Senate race is a tight one, and like most races this season no one wants to talk issues but everyone wants to sling mud. In this case it’s Liz Dole, who I just lost all respect for, putting out an ad against her opponent, Kay Hagan, accusing her of being “godless.” This article includes a link to the videos and hers is definitely over the line. If I didn’t know better (and most voters don’t) I’d think the voice that says repeatedly “there is no God” was hers. But then I read the article and find out that she’s an elder in her church and teaches Sunday school. Hagan responds with an add of her own calling out Dole for “bearing false witness” and follows that up with a lawsuit against Dole.

Have we sunk so low that this is the substance of our political debates? Do you base your vote on who is most religious, has the most faith, is the most righteous? If so, you might as well stay home because we are all sinners and Jesus reminds us that “no one is good but God alone.” (Mk 10:18) That’s not all we need to be reminded of.

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!


The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. (1 Cor 6:1-8)

“Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs…” (2 Tim 2:3-4)

They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the same way political power corrupts politically and drives out whatever spirituality was there to begin with.

Flashback Friday: Jesus is my Campaign Manager

Frank

***Originally posted 10/23/08. Posted today in light of a radio station pulling support for a Christian music festival for inviting Jim Wallis as a speaker in addition to my debate with Sojourners on Twitter and in my post on Monday.***

I made the mistake last night at church talking politics with one of my friends. Actually, she brought up how she can’t wait for it all to be over; she’s tired of hearing the same arguments over and over. Then she said something that totally boggled me. She commented on how Jesus never talked about abortion or homosexuality. Now I understand where she was coming from. The Religious Right is too narrowly focused on these issues above all else. But the case she makes doesn’t apply to her point. She commented on how the world was more “jacked up” in Jesus’ day, yet he didn’t bring up these issues. The Romans practiced infanticide, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Homosexuality was common in pagan worship and temple prostitution, but Jesus didn’t say anything against it. Well first of all, Jesus ministered to the Jews who lived in and around Jerusalem. He never went to Rome or Corinth or associated with Greek prostitutes. So why would he bring these subjects up? But here’s a twist on the argument. Slaves were present all around Jesus’ ministry. In fact, the Old Testament gives instructions regarding slavery. And Jesus never said a word about the practice. Should that mean that slavery is not a religious issue of concern to Christians? Someone should’ve told that to William Wilberforce.

I mentioned that and she side-stepped it by then saying that Jesus never preached politics anyway. Well yes, and no. His comment on “giv[ing] to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” was both a theological and political statement since Caesar claimed divinity. At the same time, he didn’t take any side to the dismay of the religious leaders. The same was true when Jesus instructed his disciples how to pray by saying “Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” The first comment personalized the God of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which would’ve upset the religious leaders, but followed that up by praising his name which usurped the divinity of Caesar. If anything, his politics were indirect. But because he wasn’t the political leader many thought the Messiah should’ve been, it was easy to entice Judas to betray him.

The extension of my friend’s argument, that she didn’t mention, was that Jesus preached about the poor more than anything else, so that should be a political priority. I don’t disagree, except for the political aspect of it. Jim Wallis, in his book God’s Politics, dedicates a section in his first chapter titled, “The Political Problem of Jesus” and then goes on to turn Jesus’ teaching into a political argument. This is where I disagree with him. I don’t believe that because Jesus said to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” that that should apply to foreign policy. That is a personal command. Not a political one. And there’s a difference between being under attack and persecuted. But he argues that if a political leader claims to be a Christian, then they should apply that to their politics. I agree that faith should guide morality applied through politics. But to apply faith directly to politics turns this pluralistic country into a theocracy, which I believe Jesus would’ve opposed. A political leader needs to consider the big picture and the good of the country and balance that not against, but rather on, their faith. In other words, their faith should be the fulcrum of their lever, not one side of the balancing act.

Back to the personal aspect of Jesus’ teachings. His commentaries on the poor, lack of explicit political stances, and teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven are personal, not national. So we can’t apply “love your enemies” or “blessed are the peacemakers” to policy. That’s not to say I’m pro-war. But whether or not to go and participate in war is a personal decision that would have to be informed by a personal faith. Whereas the decision to engage in war on the national level must be policy driven. At the same time, I believe our Freedom of Speech also obligates us to speak out against war if our conscience leads us to.

This would then imply that a Christian politician cannot effectively hold an office and still keep Jesus first and God above all. And I think there’s truth to that. That’s why I’m suspicious of any politician who says I should vote for him or her because of their faith. And that’s also why I don’t expect our moral problems to be “fixed” via politics, but instead through individual Christians actively living out their convictions.

As for abortion and homosexuality, I told my friend that sin is still sin. That doesn’t mean that morality at that level should be legislated. But if my vote gives me a voice, I want to cast it to make a statement of my faith. And that is what I will continue to wrestle with up to, and beyond, November 4.