She also commented that she came from a tradition that didn't feel comfortable with wearing its faith on its sleeve. That passing comment by the candidate evoked a round of applause, which in itself made me feel less than comfortable.
Here's why.
Christian faith is an inherently public thing. "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others," Jesus says in Matthew 10:32-33, "I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven."
Jesus calls His followers to "make disciples" by sharing the Good News of forgiveness of sin, a reconciled relationship with God and others, and a new and everlasting life to be had by all who believe in Christ. This is what Christians call the Great Commission.
Christians, even those who are reticent or shy, believe that to hide our faith in Christ is like refusing to help someone who's drowning. Life, the Bible teaches us, comes to all with faith in Christ and once one has appropriated the new life that comes through faith, Christians want to go public and help others know Christ.
To not be public about our faith then, is something which Christians believe is wrong. Jesus teaches: "No one after lighting a lamp hides it under a jar, or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light" (Luke 8:16).
Nonetheless, I think I understand why the audience who heard Clinton say that she came from a tradition uncomfortable with public discussion of faith applauded.
I believe it's because for twenty-eight years now, spokespersons for the so-called Religious Right have hijacked the good name of "Christian," advancing their own particular political philosophy and claiming that all good Christians agree with them.
Well, I'm a fairly conservative evangelical--albeit a Lutheran--Christian. I believe that the Bible is the definitive Word of God. I believe that there is salvation in Jesus' Name alone.
But I don't believe that there is a clear Christian political agenda. As I've said before, it's impossible to draw a straight line between the Bible and a particular political philosophy.
For example, there are Christian people who agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin but don't agree on whether the states should institute some sort of civil union or even gay marriage laws.
There are Christian people who agree that abortion is a great evil. But not all of them want to make it criminal for a woman who's been raped or whose life is in danger to seek an abortion.
There are Christians who believe that Genesis is true, but don't think that the Bible is or ever claims to be a book of science.
Above all, there are Christians who pray, worship, read God's Word, and seek God's guidance and don't agree politically with James Dobson or Pat Robertson. (Or with the liberal Christian pastor, Jim Wallis, either.)
I believe that Christians should go public with our faith in Jesus Christ. And I hope and pray that Jesus Christ guides me in all my decision-making, including in how I vote.
But, except when it is incontrovertibly clear which candidate God might prefer or what legislation God likes, Christians who speak out on public issues should be quick to say, "This is only what I think. God may not agree."
Political idelogues who claim to speak on behalf of God or Christian faith are making it difficult for those of us in the Church who are trying to do the real work Christ gave all Christians to do. Jesus described our task very simply:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20).[Go here to find the eight installments of my series, How Christians Might Think About the 2008 Presidential Election.]
6 comments:
Mark- I want to agree with the sentiment of your post, but I wonder. When are things incontrovertibly clear? If you can figure that out, please let me know!
Also, isn't it true that besides proclaiming the gospel there is plenty of other stuff to do- stuff with moral consequences? And if it's not talked about in church - and I don't know if it should - where are we going to learn it from? As someone who has in the past few years rejected a more quietest/non-partisan/non-interested stance in politics, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. If one's arguments are weak, it's easy to dismiss political Christians as insincere or overbearing. We need to know why we do things.
I have found First Things very helpful in this regard. Good post worth more discussion.
I get annoyed when the spirtual gifts are passed out and not used. If you have the gift of knowledge, wisdom, prohecy, tongues, evangelism, anything, USE IT. God doesn't pass out the gifts to have them remain idle. They are intended to be used. Whatever your contribution, Christianity should be a verb not a noun.
I was raised by Catholic parents with a social justice agenda. My dad didn't care how much anybody prayed. If you weren't feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and ministering to the imprisoned, you were not doing the work of God. Prayer is not meant to be our only communion with God. Our works are meant to speak volumes about our lives as christians. As Fr. Bill says, we are meant to be "Jesus with skin on."
Back in the days of knights and ladies, lovers would wear their hearts on their sleeves by sewing one sleeve a contrasting color or pattern to their attire. Their lover's sleeve would match theirs. Everyone who saw them (together or separately) would know they were in love! Their hearts were spoken for and they wanted everyone to know of their great love.
If we Christians wore our faith on our sleeves as those lovers wore their hearts, what a different world we would have!
I enjoyed your post.
Count:
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to this post.
You write, "When are things incontrovertibly clear? If you can figure that out, please let me know!"
That's sort of my point. Rare is the time when things are "incontroveribly clear." Therefore, the times when the Church as the Church or pastors speaking for the Church or the Gospel should make assertions about what is a "Christian" political position should also be rare.
It's clear enough to me, for example, that the Church ought to speak out against discrimination, even--maybe especially--when its victims are persons with whose life styles we disagree.
It's clear that we ought to seek justice for the poor and care about the earth, but it's not very clear to me how that might best be addressed politically.
I urge Christians to care about these issues. But I don't think the Church has the freedom to say, "This is the legislation God wants passed." Or, “This is the candidate you should vote for.” Or, “This is the party to which you should belong.”
Once upon a time, I believed deeply in political action by the Church. But now, except in rare cases--say, the rise of Hitler-style dictator, I think that it is flat-out wrong.
It seems to inevitably lead to a kind of idol-worship that subordinates Christ to one's preferred political agendas. It exemplifies what Bruce Cockburn calls “idolatry of ideology."
The congregation I serve as pastor is involved in witnessing and service in Christ's Name. To the latter point, we're involved with the Boys and Girls Club, a foster children's advocacy group, outreaches to the elderly, and so on. We help feed the hungry. We help build homes for the needy.
But, as interested as I am in politics, I totally lack confidence in my ability to discern what God wants other Christians to do with their votes. I think it's presumptuous for anyone to claim that they do.
I do think it's appropriate to talk about how Christians might look at various issues. To that end, I've written blog posts on 'How Christians Might Look at Immigration' and 'How Christians Might Look at the 2008 Presidential Election.' But I think that each Christian is free to prayerfully decide where they stand politically.
Carol:
As to Christians exercising their gifts in the political arena, I’m all for it. I even ran for political office myself once. (By the way, I think that was a mistake for me to have done so, probably.) But again, rare is the time when one can say of one’s political positions: “Thus saith the Lord.”
Elizabeth:
Thank you for the very interesting background on the phrase, wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. I agree with you about wearing our love for Jesus on our sleeves.
Thanks to both of you and God bless!
Mark
Excellent post. It certainly got me thinking. Here is an excerpt from what I blogged:
But I don't believe that there is a clear Christian political agenda. As I've said before, it's impossible to draw a straight line between the Bible and a particular political philosophy.
This is an excellent point. We are called to express our faith and even seek the Lord's guidance in who to vote for, what to believe, etc., but today several Christian leaders blur the line between what they believe and what God says. Often I am in agreement with them, but I think they really hurt the cause of Christianity and winning people to Christ, which is much more important than politics.
We must elect leaders who we believe have the same values as we do, and I think we need to elect leaders that share our faith. We also need to be united as One Church against today's secular world. However, a lot of our Christian leaders do more to hurt our cause than to help it. It is certainly a fine line as to how this must be carried out, but Mark has some interesting thoughts.
Thanks for your response, Mark.
I think your humility is commendable and pastorally sensitive in a world where much is not clear- especially in politics.
I'm still trying to find my way through somewhere between presumption and thinking politics are too dirty for a "real" christian to get into.
Post a Comment