politics

Not The Smallest Letter

Frank

The title is taken from Matthew 5:18 which reads, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (The smallest letter is a translation of “not one iota”, which is a figure in Hebrew that looks like an accent or apostrophe.) A lot of people point to wars, famine, natural disasters, and our increasing wickedness to claim that we are in the “end times”. I’m not one of those, but you could add all the hand-wringing over Bible translations to push personal agendas. I read about this before, but showing up in the headlines yesterday motivated me to write about it today: there is an effort to re-translate the Bible to remove “liberal bias”. As if the Main Stream Media wasn’t enough of a strawman enemy of the Right, you can now add “professors [who] are the most liberal group of people in the world, and… who are doing the popular modern translations of the Bible.” Riiight.

They want to remove, or at least re-translate such controversial passages as “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” from Luke 23:34 even though my Bible contains the footnote that “some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.” There’s no mention if they also want to take out the last several versus of Mark or the story of the woman caught in adultery which are also not found in the earliest manuscripts. If we’re not smart enough to make note of these footnotes, then maybe they should call this translation “The Bible for Dummies.” Oh wait, nevermind, that’s already taken.

There’s more to this though than trying to reflect the original intent of the Biblical authors. There is an admitted political agenda.”The phrase ‘theological conservative’ does not mean that someone is politically conservative,” says Andy Schlafy, the person behind this. I hate to break it to Andy, but Christian does not mean Republican either.

This is nothing new. There was a big fuss a while back over translations trying to make references to God more gender neutral. The Jesus Seminar color-codes quotes of Jesus by how likely they think it was he actually said it. Thomas Jefferson re-wrote his own version of the Gospels taking out anything “supernatural” like all of his miracles and the resurrection. And Martin Luther wanted to remove the entire book of James because it didn’t agree with his theology.

So I don’t take offense to this, but I would advise Mr. Schlafy and everyone else contributing to this (they’re editing it like a wiki) to consider the following passages (pick your favorite translation if you must, these are all NIV):

“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19) While this specifically applies to John’s personal vision recorded in Revelation, it shows how serious God takes his Word.

“This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24) A “testimony” is more than just writing a biography and is even more than being a witness in a legal case. The author, in this case John, was admitting here that if anything he wrote wasn’t true he should be put to death by being stoned. I wonder if Mr. Schlafy would take a similar stand for his truth?

“As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:10-11)

God’s Word has a purpose and I’ve already demonstrated how seriously he takes it. I would not want to be one who stands in the way of God’s Word not accomplishing what he desires.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17) The Bible is used for “teaching” making translators therefore “teachers.” And there’s specific warning against aspiring to teach: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” Ironically, taken from the book of James.

Love Your Enemies

Frank

I was going to post about this when I first read about it, but listening on Air1 this morning reminded me of the pastor in Arizona who is praying for President Obama to get cancer and die like the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I don’t know where to start other than grieve that many who call themselves Christians agree with him. One, in fact, brought a gun to one of the President’s town-halls on health care. A caller to Air1 said he didn’t “necessarily agree” with the pastor, but “sees nothing wrong with praying that God will remove evil from high places.”

So here we see the problem with mixing religion and politics- the label of opposing political beliefs as ‘evil’. However, the Bible tells us this is not the case. Paul, writing to the church in Rome wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Rom 13:1) Keep in mind, Paul is writing to the same church that within a generation would be dipped in tar and burned alive to provide lighting in the Colosseum while their brothers and sisters in Christ were fed to lions. This church existed under a government that practiced infanticide and did not value what we’d call traditional marriage. Yet Paul says even this government is established by God.

Well just because we ‘submit’ to those authorities doesn’t mean we have to agree with them. Of course that’s true. But disagreeing is a far cry from wishing death or even calling someone evil. Even if our president (or anyone else for that matter) was truly evil in his entire being (can anyone really believe that?), how should we treat that person? Again, Paul gives the answer to a Roman church who justly feared for their very lives.

“Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:19-21)
And earlier, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Rom 12:17a)

The caller this morning said he wasn’t afraid of being called crazy for standing up against evil and even went so far as to suggest those who don’t are ‘watered down’ Christians. Well there are a lot of instructions in the Bible on how to deal with evil that we can turn to. I personally like this one from Jesus and I’d recommend Pastor Anderson reads it: “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Though I admit that’s a bit of a cliche. But interestingly most of the time when Jesus is talking about evil, he’s talking about our very own hearts. In other words, we need to check ourselves.

But there’s more. Again Paul writing in Romans after describing “all kinds of evil” in Chapter 1 begins the second chapter by writing, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Rom 2:1)

If you want to be militant, you could look at the “armor of God” in Ephesians 6 where we read, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12) But even here, the struggle “is not against flesh and blood” and the evil forces are spiritual, not physical. So we use weapons “not… of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:4ff).

But again, this battle is personal. We do not fight on others’ behalf. “Our struggle…” When it comes to facing evil personally, we are instructed to “flee the evil desires of youth…” (2 Timothy 2:22) to “get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent…” (James 1:21) “do not conform to the evil desires you had…” (1 Peter 1:14) to “turn from evil and do good…” (1 Peter 3:11) to “not imitate what is evil…” (3 John 1:11) and to “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7) for “the Lord will rescue [you] from every evil attack.” (2 Timothy 4:18)

I see nothing in here that advocates fighting evil in others or wishing harm on anyone. It’s a shame that a pastor (the word means shepherd) is spreading such false doctrine. But we shouldn’t be surprised. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

Love Your Enemies

Frank

I was going to post about this when I first read about it, but listening on Air1 this morning reminded me of the pastor in Arizona who is praying for President Obama to get cancer and die like the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I don’t know where to start other than grieve that many who call themselves Christians agree with him. One, in fact, brought a gun to one of the President’s town-halls on health care. A caller to Air1 said he didn’t “necessarily agree” with the pastor, but “sees nothing wrong with praying that God will remove evil from high places.”

So here we see the problem with mixing religion and politics- the label of opposing political beliefs as ‘evil’. However, the Bible tells us this is not the case. Paul, writing to the church in Rome wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Rom 13:1) Keep in mind, Paul is writing to the same church that within a generation would be dipped in tar and burned alive to provide lighting in the Colosseum while their brothers and sisters in Christ were fed to lions. This church existed under a government that practiced infanticide and did not value what we’d call traditional marriage. Yet Paul says even this government is established by God.

Well just because we ‘submit’ to those authorities doesn’t mean we have to agree with them. Of course that’s true. But disagreeing is a far cry from wishing death or even calling someone evil. Even if our president (or anyone else for that matter) was truly evil in his entire being (can anyone really believe that?), how should we treat that person? Again, Paul gives the answer to a Roman church who justly feared for their very lives.

“Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:19-21)
And earlier, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Rom 12:17a)

The caller this morning said he wasn’t afraid of being called crazy for standing up against evil and even went so far as to suggest those who don’t are ‘watered down’ Christians. Well there are a lot of instructions in the Bible on how to deal with evil that we can turn to. I personally like this one from Jesus and I’d recommend Pastor Anderson reads it: “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39) Though I admit that’s a bit of a cliche. But interestingly most of the time when Jesus is talking about evil, he’s talking about our very own hearts. In other words, we need to check ourselves.

But there’s more. Again Paul writing in Romans after describing “all kinds of evil” in Chapter 1 begins the second chapter by writing, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Rom 2:1)

If you want to be militant, you could look at the “armor of God” in Ephesians 6 where we read, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12) But even here, the struggle “is not against flesh and blood” and the evil forces are spiritual, not physical. So we use weapons “not… of the world” (2 Corinthians 10:4ff).

But again, this battle is personal. We do not fight on others’ behalf. “Our struggle…” When it comes to facing evil personally, we are instructed to “flee the evil desires of youth…” (2 Timothy 2:22) to “get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent…” (James 1:21) “do not conform to the evil desires you had…” (1 Peter 1:14) to “turn from evil and do good…” (1 Peter 3:11) to “not imitate what is evil…” (3 John 1:11) and to “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7) for “the Lord will rescue [you] from every evil attack.” (2 Timothy 4:18)

I see nothing in here that advocates fighting evil in others or wishing harm on anyone. It’s a shame that a pastor (the word means shepherd) is spreading such false doctrine. But we shouldn’t be surprised. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

Why it’s a Bad Idea to Mix Policy with Religion

Frank

(more playing catch up)

First example, the recent release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. On the surface the decision for release sounds reasonable given the circumstance. And you could argue that it’s better to err on the side of compassion (you only need to point towards the debate over the world’s view of the US during the Bush administration to see how important “good will” is to many). However, the pomp and circumstance when he landed in Libya tells the rest of the story. I don’t know if there was a backroom deal or not. But by releasing al Megrahi, the UK gave Libya a bargaining chip and a boost to their own patriotic ego. In that context, I don’t think the cost was worth the price of being compassionate.

In the second example, a family is denied adoption because they are atheists. There’s nothing about this case that makes sense to me, from the family waiting 17 years after their first adoption to adopt again (I’m sorry, but for personal reasons I take adoption very seriously), to the legal statute being used to deny this second adoption. It is an interesting statement in the state Constitution, but if applied broadly would give child-welfare agencies the right to remove children from non-believing households. Where do you draw the line? If a family misses church two Sundays in a row, can the state take custody of their children? That’s as ridiculous as that right being applied in this case. You could even go so far as to call this judge an “activist judge”, but that rhetoric only comes from one side of the spectrum. So it’s unlikely you’ll see this decision derided by those who rail against judicial activism.

In both cases, the prevailing religious motive has some merit, but the application is not thought about broadly or long term. Religion has no place guiding policy. There, I said it. However, religion informs morality which can, does, and should guide policy. Yet the application needs to be weighed against the broader context of a democratic, pluralistic society. The problem with either the Religious Right or Religious Left is that this thought process is in the wrong order. For the religious politician, politics informs religion which then guides policy. Note how this is circular. The Christ-like way should look like this instead: morality informs religion (see the change in order) which guides action. The notion that morality defines religion, not vice-versa, is foreign to American Christianity ™ and thus confuses the religion-in-politics debate.

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

Why it’s a Bad Idea to Mix Policy with Religion

Frank

(more playing catch up)

First example, the recent release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. On the surface the decision for release sounds reasonable given the circumstance. And you could argue that it’s better to err on the side of compassion (you only need to point towards the debate over the world’s view of the US during the Bush administration to see how important “good will” is to many). However, the pomp and circumstance when he landed in Libya tells the rest of the story. I don’t know if there was a backroom deal or not. But by releasing al Megrahi, the UK gave Libya a bargaining chip and a boost to their own patriotic ego. In that context, I don’t think the cost was worth the price of being compassionate.

In the second example, a family is denied adoption because they are atheists. There’s nothing about this case that makes sense to me, from the family waiting 17 years after their first adoption to adopt again (I’m sorry, but for personal reasons I take adoption very seriously), to the legal statute being used to deny this second adoption. It is an interesting statement in the state Constitution, but if applied broadly would give child-welfare agencies the right to remove children from non-believing households. Where do you draw the line? If a family misses church two Sundays in a row, can the state take custody of their children? That’s as ridiculous as that right being applied in this case. You could even go so far as to call this judge an “activist judge”, but that rhetoric only comes from one side of the spectrum. So it’s unlikely you’ll see this decision derided by those who rail against judicial activism.

In both cases, the prevailing religious motive has some merit, but the application is not thought about broadly or long term. Religion has no place guiding policy. There, I said it. However, religion informs morality which can, does, and should guide policy. Yet the application needs to be weighed against the broader context of a democratic, pluralistic society. The problem with either the Religious Right or Religious Left is that this thought process is in the wrong order. For the religious politician, politics informs religion which then guides policy. Note how this is circular. The Christ-like way should look like this instead: morality informs religion (see the change in order) which guides action. The notion that morality defines religion, not vice-versa, is foreign to American Christianity ™ and thus confuses the religion-in-politics debate.

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

The Wages of Sin

Frank

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Tomorrow the largest federal tobacco tax increase in history takes effect as the tax on a pack of cigarettes goes from $0.39 to $1.01. This “sin tax” is expected to raise $33 billion towards health care expansion for children. This continues a trend to tax specific products to pay for social programs. Even the state of Nevada was considering taxing prostitution to make up for shortfalls in their budget.

There are three choices to politically curb social vices, legislate/regulate, tax, or use the bully pulpit as a platform for change. Social conservatives have traditionally taken the legislate/regulate route, while taxing is more palatable to social liberals. Sadly, we rarely see anyone use their political power to address vices. Nancy Reagan’s campaign to “just say no” is the most obvious, and maybe even the most recent, that I can think of (up until only recently, following the over-hyped “value voter”, other issues such as health care, immigration, and so forth have seldom been approached as social ills).

The irony of course, is that while so many cry foul whenever someone tries to pass legislation to curb something like abortion which infringes on a woman’s right to choose, few voices are heard when something like cigarettes are excessively taxed. And unless I’ve missed it, people still have the right to “choose” whether or not to smoke. You could argue that these aren’t morally equivalent, but we’re not talking morals here- we’re talking legal rights.

Not that it matters anyway. Every vice could be taxed to the point of being prohibitively expensive, regulated far beyond mere inconvenience, and outlawed with the strictest penalties and people would still choose to indulge in their favorite sin. It is, after all, in our nature. The only way to effectively curb a social vice is to address it on moral grounds. That cannot be done from the ballot box, but from the pew; not during an election cycle, but every day; not from an elected leader, but from our own Christian example.

Of course we all know the real “sin tax” is the eternal penalty to be paid for our sins. Thanks be to God for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who paid that tax in advance for us.

Signs of the Times

Frank

“You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” (Mt 16:3)

It’s been a while since I’ve hit the topic of politics. I’ve been trying to give our new administration the benefit of the doubt as they are getting settled. But the news yesterday moves me to post my thoughts and feelings. First up was President Obama’s presidential order overturning former President Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. This is a divisive issue, even among Christians as this article notes. Despite your theological position on when life begins, this debate is senseless and frustrating. On the one hand it could be argued that the embryos would be destroyed anyway, while on the other hand one could point towards the many advances made without using embryonic stem cells (off the top of my head, I think of the case of growing a jaw bone and stem cells from skin that mimic embryonic cells). Moreso, you could express frustration that one of the pioneers in the field of embryonic stem cell research was a fraud, or that California passed a $3 billion bond for stem cell research helping to precipitate the financial crisis we presently find ourselves in. With those thoughts in mind, this recent move by the President seems nothing more than grandstanding.

Meanwhile, the President is also planning to rescind the previous administration’s “conscience clause” which allows doctors, nurses or pharmacists to choose not to participate in procedures that violate their conscience. While this sounds reasonable, this clause has been used as a straw man for everything wrong with the “theocracy” of the Bush Administration. But it just reinforces existing law granting “reasonable accommodation” in the workplace. (This is the law that keeps you from firing someone practicing Islam, for taking breaks during the day to pray towards Mecca.) The intent however, was to solidify that protection with regards to medical procedures. An example of its impact would be a pro-life ultrasound technician being called to assist in an abortion. And it’s not as if this would deny anyone the care they’re seeking, just that that person would have to receive it from someone else. I don’t buy the severity of the examples cited in the linked article above. You can always go to another pharmacy, and there’s usually more than one doctor in a hospital. Again, this just appears to be the President playing to the extremes in his base.

I was hoping this president, who ran on the platform of “Change You can Believe In”, who claimed to usher in a new era of politics in Washington, is playing politics as usual. There’s a consequence, of course. Drawing battle lines on issues sure to divide people on the basis of their religious convictions is asking for trouble (and to be fair, the previous administration was guilty of this as well); it forces people to take a side and not seek a middle ground. That then, usually extends to churches and religious leaders who love to hear themselves talk about the eroding morals of our society. And the layperson is caught in the middle, politics or religion? And with the recent history of how well the Religious Right has fought these battles in recent years, many are turned off of religion all together.

So despite the state of the economy, it’s not much of a surprise to see that fewer and fewer are considering themselves religious and that more and more prescribe to no faith in particular. What is sad is that the oft-quoted stat of 85% of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped to 76%. Have that many turned away from Christ for the sake of politics? I pray not, but the possibility breaks my heart.

This news, this early in the new administration, doesn’t fill me with hope. In fact, I don’t see the next four years going particularly well for the faithful. It will be that much harder to practice our faith in public, and that much more offensive to proclaim that faith to the non believer.

***update***
I didn’t read the fine print on the stats above. Apparently although the total number of Christians as a percentage as decreased, the numbers in fundamentalist and evangelical churches have increased. Which I think solidifies my point- this ongoing culture war is either driving a wedge between people and faith or is driving them to the extreme fringes within their faith.

*** update 2***
Here is a very good article from Slate that demonstrates how hard it is to maintain consistency in the pro-life debate. You may not agree with the premise of the argument, but it highlights the validity of the Catholic Church’s ‘Culture of Life’ that is not limited to abortion, but extends to aging, the death penalty, and war.

High Hopes

Frank

’cause he had high hopes, he had high hopes
He had high apple pie, in the sky hopes

All problems just a toy balloon
They’ll be bursted soon
They’re just bound to go pop
Oops, there goes another problem kerplop

-Frank Sinatra, High Hopes

Did you take Tuesday off or skip away to a TV to watch the inauguration? My local paper was filled with stories of people gathering in homes, barbershops, and churches to watch this historical event. Many were described to be in tears. There was even an interview with the granddaughter of a former slave about how she thought she’d never see this day.

The significance of this new administration with regards to our racist past, America’s melting-pot multiculturalism, and the saying that anyone in this country could become president finally being proven true is valid and worth reflecting upon. But there was another reason so many were tuned in Tuesday- an end to the policies of the past eight years in the face of global crises we face. Barak Obama was elected on a platform of change. His biggest supporters spoke frequently of hope. So with this new administration, expectations are high as crises abound. He faces war, a collapsing economy, a divided electorate, and an incompetent legislature. It may be too much for one man, let alone two terms.

Deep down in our hearts, we all want to change the world for the better (or to better us). President Obama is no different. But we must be cautious of too much hope. After all, ‘hope springs eternal in the human breast. Man never is, but always to be blessed.’ The first part is quoted often and gives a sense of warm-fuzzies. But when you include the second sentence the poem takes on a different meaning. We always hope because we never ever can get what it is we’re hoping for. Change? Keep hoping. The political establishment is well defined, there will always be wars over land, resources and power, there will always be someone in need, and people will never agree on everything.

It helps to have hope aimed in the right direction. “In his name the nations will put their hope.” (Mt 12:21) “And again, Isaiah says, ‘The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.'” (Rom 15:12) Jesus is our hope and our salvation. Everything here is just a mist.

To keep things in perspective consider:

The poor you will always have with you… (Mt 26:11)
When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed… (Mk 13:7)
My kingdom in not of this world… (Jn 18:36)

Are you optimistic about this new administration? Elated, encouraged or excited? Or are you skeptical? Discouraged, disgruntled, or disappointed? Whichever side of the isle you’re on, whatever color your state, whatever direction your political winds blow remember the words of Jesus above. Obama is only a person with a title, in a position created by people as flawed as we are. Our hope is in Christ alone.

Jesus is my Campaign Manager

Frank

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. He 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.