Thoughts on Godly politics...

So, about a month and a half ago someone highly recommended Jim Wallis' God's Politics to me. Wallis' "vision for faith and politics in America" basically argues that both the Left and the Right have got it wrong, and that we need to reinfuse American politics with the values of our faith and our yearning for social justice.

In a way this book is right up my alley. I could not agree more that the rhetoric of "moral values" and "faith" in the political arena very often gets skewed and that the theologies that come out of campaigning are not often the most intriguing ones. I do long for the day when there is a consistent ethic on life and politicans actually reach into to tackle the problems of the environment and poverty. And indeed, I would be excited if the just war principles got more than just lip service in foreign policy circles, or if there were more leaders in the current administration who saw conflict resolution, international cooperation, and innovative human rights campaigns as a viable way to work in our 21st Century world.

However, Wallis' book is a lot of complaining to the his own crowd. He talks about all the wrong moves the Bush Administration has made. He gives us detailed timelines about all the social movements and groups (including his own magazine Sojourners) that worked to stop the War in Iraq from happening. He talks to the liberals by hitting all their right buttons, bringing up everything from New American Century to up-and-coming leaders like Barack Obama. Now, I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, but when you're coming out to criticize both the right and the left...you should do it.

But, that being said, he did pull from some of the good contemporary movements within the church and people of faith who are attempting to enter the political world in a thoughtful way. For example, this statement signed by many, many church leaders:

God is Not A Republican. Or a Democrat.

These leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.

We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion.

We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry—for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values. We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests. We also admonish both parties and candidates to avoid the exploitation of religion or our congregations for partisan political purposes.

By signing this statement, we call Christians and other people of faith to a more thoughtful involvement in this election, rather than claiming God’s endorsement of any candidate. This is the meaning of responsible Christian citizenship.

We believe that poverty–caring for the poor and vulnerable –is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)

We believe that the environment–caring for God’s earth–is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)

We believe that war–and our call to be peacemakers –is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies pursue “wars of choice” or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights–respecting the image of God in every person–is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13)

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS—and other pandemics—and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

We are not single-issue voters.

Wallis also made some decent recommendations:

• We as people of faith do need to help "change the wind" or transform the debates that go on in Washington so that the issues of justice are looked at as important. That is part of our call as Christians (and good citizens) and too often we do get caught up in our daily lives, our comfert zones, and the "politics" of it all and forget that is part of our job.
• The Democrats do need to learn how to integrate the rhetoric of faith into politics, and get more comfertable with letting moral values inside the Beltway debate. And the Republicans need to stop manipulating the "moral values" vote in ways that are dangerously undemocratic and immoral. [Hannah's opinion] More than either of those things - we need more dialogue about the ISSUES. Politics aside, there are important policies at stake. Policies that Republicans and Democrats have important disagreements about...but the emphasis should be ON THE DEBATE and DIALOGUE within the American community. Our leaders in the Administration and Congress should respond to the wider dialogue within the country and let moral values be a part of that dialogue on an issue-by-issue basis.
  
• The divide in this country over the "culture wars" only keep expanding. Wallis highlighted some important statistics that make this scarier than ever. Faith communities have to be a part of bridging those divides and letting the values and goals of our faith guide us.
  
• As Christians (or Jews, Muslims, or just moral people), we need to step up and make action a part of our political lives. It's not enough to complain about our leaders and write a letter to our senator once or twice a leader. We have to be an integral part of changing and shaping our communities. Only then can we transform the debate and build more capable leaders.
  

Overall, I didn't learn a whole lot new reading this...I definitely learned Jim Wallis' opinion and realized yet again how important it is to be active in this world, to develop a strong voice, to keep active in the personal and public struggle between faith and politics, and of course to vote.

The issues that really need to be dealt with in this world arn't easy ones and no one (even Jim Wallis who has been involved in the world of faith and politics for a long time) can give an easy answer about how to let religion guide our attempts at solutions. And sometimes even the most faithful people who truly attempt to live good, moral lives and promote peace and justice disagree about the best way to solve problems like poverty, international conflict, etc.

I've begun reading John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus and right away he hits on the inherent conflict in determining the ethics of the divine. This is how Yoder labels six strains of mainstream ethics that all point towards the idea that the Jesus is not the norm (pg 4-8).

1. Some think it's hard to know what Jesus' ethics would be because of the apocalyptic nature of his message: "His ethical teachings therefore appropriately pay no attention to society's need for survival and for the patient construction of permanent institutions...[His teachings] make sense only if it be assumed tha those values are coming to an imminent end."
   
2. Jesus was a simple rural figure. "His radical personalization of all ethical problems is only possible in a village sociology where knowing everyone and having time to treat everyone as aperosn is culturally an available possibilty."
   
3. Jesus and the Disciples lived in a time when they had little control over anything; now that Christians are in a place of power/privledge, etc they have to take on more responsibility.
   
4. Jesus dealt with spiritual matters not social ones..."Whatever he said and did of a social and ethical character must be understood not for its own sake but as the symbolic or mythical clothing of his spiritual message."
   
5. The impact of Christ's message presents a disconnect between God and humanity and between God's values and human values, therefor "relativizing all human values."
   
6. "How the death of Jesus works our justification is a divine miracle and mystery; how he died, or the kind of life which led to the kind of deaht he died is therefore ethically immaterial."
   

Whoa. Those are 6 really complex (to me) reasonings about how following Jesus could mean that having Christlike ethics may be a little harder than just reading the New Testament. Granted I'm hoping in the following pages Yoder sets forth a picture of Jesus that does present a guide for ethics and a mode for understanding how Jesus does connect with politics.

But it's interesting to me that in the context of Wallis' book, it is simply understood that the New Testament offers a guide for ethical action and that it is our job as Christians to go forward and shape the political debate as such. Yet, if the Christian views are as diverse as Yoder describes (those above not including the many ways people view how Jesus' teachings impact our political choices and policies), then it becomes a lot more understandable why too often we try to steer away from intersecting faith with politics.

I think the important thing to realize though (and maybe Wallis said it and I just missed it) is that the tension between views is important for both faith and politics. It's important to talk about how God calls us to act and then act upon what we believe, even if sometimes we differ about the semantics. It's important to gather together and be a strong voice in our society and make our differences our strength. For after, all it's that disagreement, that tension that is so incredibly important for both faith and democracy. It keeps us challenged and more faithful. It helps us try new avenues and be open to compromise. It makes our policies better and makes it easier to help the most people...even though sometimes it doesn't feel that way.

I think the challenge simply is remembering that and not letting the egos, corruption, or power-hungry getting in the way of faithful, well-meaning people who are truly trying to do God's work in the political arena. And if they do, well simply going on without them. God is stronger than the Left and the Right, and he will do his work through (and despite) people on both sides. Of course, it'll help him out a lot if we the people do a little work too.