Breakpoint Charles Colson November 1, 2006
Christians in the Public Square
Is it a sin not to vote?
That’s a question that’s been very much in the news in the wake of the supposed exposé by David Kuo, author of Tempting Fate. Kuo, a former aide to President Bush, says he became disillusioned when he heard administration staffers call evangelicals “nuts” and “goofy.” He was also bothered that staffers used political judgments in deciding where to hold briefings. Really? What administration since George Washington has not considered politics when scheduling meetings? As for the “nuts” charge—assuming it’s true—well, I’ve probably used the same term myself to describe some overly zealous brethren.
Kuo’s book is of particular interest to me because he credits my book Kingdoms in Conflict with both launching his political career and warning him about evangelicals in politics. I’m flattered that my writings influenced David, but he really needs to read my book more closely. And as a Christian who has worked with President Bush on issues ranging from AIDS to sexual trafficking to slavery in Sudan to prison rape, all of which the president delivered on, my experience could not be more different from what David describes.
. . . more
It’s not clear to me that when Kuo says that Christians need to “fast from politics”, he means they should abstain from voting. Kuo may be saying that Christians should be more discriminating in the political causes they become actively involved in, and not let themselves be exploited and used as the pawns and tools of various political groups. He may also be suggesting that the rancor and acrimony of the political arena may have a spriritually draining and detrimental effect on Christians as individuals.
Fasting from politics may mean remaining aloof and removed from the day-to-day, hand-to-hand combat of partisan politics. Probably most Christians find too close an association by the Church with any controversial political cause to be unsettling, whether it’s the ultra-liberal advocacy of the NCC, or the right-wing “voter cards” distributed at conservative churches. Jesus Christ ministered to all without regard to political belief, and established is Church to do the same. As American society grows more politically polarized, blatant partisanship by the Church towards either side of the political spectrum risks alienating substantial numbers of worshippers with differing views.
Dean writes:
Sure, but the emphasis here should not be on “alienating” but “views”. There are plenty of things on which reasonable people can disagree, but there are some questions that are closed — abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, for example. (Moral confusion among some Christians does not change this fact; it’s the moral tradition that matters here.) On these issues, the Church must be clear and unequivocal. Raymond J. Keating has a good article on this theme just posted on the main page Christians and the November 7 Ballot.
The article by Father Raymond Keating demonstrates the trouble the Church may get itself into by confusing subjective opinion with objective fact.
I disagreed with almost one of Father Keatings positions on the issues he mentions and could easily challenge the the accuracy and validity of every one of his statements. In fact, he offers almost no evidence to support his obervations, which are really nothing more than biased and misinformed personal opinions. Yet I’m supposed to accept every one of these as if they were chisled into stone tablets and carried down from Mt. Sinai by Moses himself.
First, Father Keating expresses his vehement opposition to both the minimun wage and the inheritance tax and states that the teachings of our faith have nothing to say regarding these economic issues. I’m sorry, but devout Christians, citining numerous Biblical passages that teach us to assist the poor and work for social and economic justice for the oppressed may come to a different conclusion. Some Christians may not agree with Father Keating that the fortunate offspring of the rich are entitled to receice obscenely large inheritances without giving anything back to society, while the working poor must toil for subsistence wages without access to health care or affordable housing. Matthew and Luke my have found the pursuit of great wealth and indifference to the poor to be stumbling blocks to salvation, but not Father Keating.
Next, Father Keating grossly over-simplifies complicated issues such as embryonic stem cell research, suggesting that if you support such research you have no respect for human life. Actually both the opposition and support for such research are equally motivated by a desire to protect human life; the later being motivated by a desire to relieve the suffering of fully grown and sentient human life afflicted with paralysis and crippling auto-immune diseases. According to Father Keating however, if you want an embryo that has already been created as part of a couple’s fertillity treatment and is now destined to be destroyed, to be used for research to help people with Parkinson’s Disease, apparently this means you hate life.
Without question, the Church has a critical and important duty to impart the of moral and ethical teachings of our faith to parishioners. But once this is done, once these general moral guidelines and basic principles of faith have been communicated, then parishioners ought to be left alone to decide how to apply them to the issues of the day, on their own.
Dean,
The majority of “social & economic justice” types have a view that is profoundly anti-Chrisitan. If they use the gospel at all it is in a Marxist/socialist point of view. They are infected with eqalitarian relativism which is tryannical at its foundation and usually have an essentially materialist outlook, i.e., they believe that none of our problems have a spiritual cause. All of our problems can be solved just by throwing enough money at them, but since the creation of wealth is essentially evil, the only way to get the money is to take it by force from those evil creatures who defiled themselves by making it.
Justice is not available on this earth period. Justice only comes from God, yet those seeking social and economic “justice” do not admit that fact. Add utopianism into the egalitarianism and you really have a recipe for tryanny.
As I have said before, the Christian response has nothing to do with government policy or programs of any of that BS. It has everything to do with using our own resources and those of our communities to meet the problems we can meet and allowing God to give the increase–pray, fast, give alms, repent. If Christians would get off our butts and really start caring for the people who need care, that would have a far greater and more lasting effect than any government program. So don’t give me that ‘structural problems’ that only government can address–that is just a thinly veiled plea for the use of governemnt power to force solutions on people. The same government power which you so vehemently oppose in other areas.
Note 3. Keating isn’t a clergyman. He is a journalist with a specialty in economics.
And the “former” isn’t? Deal with science, not moralisms or emotional appeals. The successes — all of them — have been with cord cells or adult cells. The Big Stem Cell Breakthrough.
While we are dealing with facts, let’s also be clear your progressive ideas are probably the greatest single cause of poverty in the world today in all places they have been tried. Other reasons exists too of course, but the record is clear that centralized planning does not alleviate poverty. It merely redirects the flow of wealth created to the ruling elites.
In fact, American progressives like Moore, Katrina van den Heuvel (publisher of “The Nation”), Soros, etc. are some of the wealthiest people around. BTW, did you know van den Heuvel (wealthy by birth) took her fight against inheritance taxes to the Supreme Court? She wants all inheritances consficated except her own. It’s one more example of progressive elites living off the labor of others.
Speaking of “The Nation”, did you catch the latest issue? It literally screams that President Bush is destroying Democracy. A bit much I thought given their record of supporting Stalin and others.
Fr. Hans writes: “BTW, did you know van den Heuvel (wealthy by birth) took her fight against inheritance taxes to the Supreme Court? She wants all inheritances consficated except her own.”
You have mentioned this several times, so you must think it has some significance. But what exactly is the significance? No details of the case are ever mentioned. So I have no idea what the issues were.
More importantly, I don’t know what is wrong with following standard procedures, even legal procedures. For example, I am in favor of a progressive income tax, but I also itemize deductions so as to lower my taxes. Does that make me a hypocrite? If so, is that somehow an argument against a progressive income tax?
By the way, Keating is the “chief economist” of a small business lobbying organization. Of course he’s going to oppose minimum wage, estate tax, etc.
Fr. Hans: “While we are dealing with facts, let’s also be clear your progressive ideas are probably the greatest single cause of poverty in the world today in all places they have been tried.”
Based on what? The numbers I’ve seen show that in 1960 the poverty rate for blacks was around 55 percent. By 1970 it had dropped to around 30 percent. In 1960 around 60 percent of all black children lived in poverty. By 1970 it was around 40 percent. I have a hard time understanding how progressive ideas “caused” poverty.
There is a children’s book that I used to read with my son many years ago. The book is designed to help learn the alphabet with little clever poems for each letter. I was thinking of that book today in regard to the letter P: P, P, P, what begins with P, Pusillanimous politicians pandering to the polity. Until we demand that our representatives actually govern instead of merely being conduits for tax money into their districts our government will only get worse. Todd Tiahrt is the U.S. House of Representative member for the district in which I live. His latest add is a laundry list of all the money he has garnered for us. It’s enough to make me puke especially since a good portion of it is federal dollars for education. He was originally elected on the Contract with America pledging to eliminate the Department of Education. So much for integrity.
Our very disagreements on these issues are a reason Christian churches need to step back from politics as Kuo suggests. As we refer to the Bible and the writings of Saints and respected theologians, the moral and ethical teachings of our church can be presented as objective fact. However as we move away fromgeneral guidelines and attempt to apply those moral and ethical teachings to specific issues of the day our intepretations of them become more subjective.
Some issues are morally clear-cut and uncomplicated, most others require a careful weighing of competing and conflicting interests. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions. Where do we draw the line between the objective and the subjective?
Or even if we can agree on moral goals, for example, reducing poverty or abortion, there can still be disagreements on which policies will help us achieve the goal. Most clergymen form their opinions on information that is anecdotal or theoretical; but to formulate effective policy you have to rely on information that is concrete and emprical. If experts at the Brookings Institure and the Heritage Foundation can’t agree on specific policy issues how can we expect the church to provide a more authoritative recommendations?
Likewise, the process of evaluating candidates is often equally complicated. Often you find yourself agreeing with a politician on some issues and disagreeing with him on others. Does the Church really want to be in the business of saying:
“Congressman Smith accepted money from Jack Abramoff, steered federal funding to defense contractors who contributed to his campaign, kept a mistress, and cackled maliciously as he voted to cut off nutritional assistance to indigent seniors and children living in poverty. But he opposes gay marriage so vote for him anyway.”
Conservatives won’t agree with my opinion that we need a higher minimum wage and inheritance tax, and that is their right. But how would they like to have to hear me express such views from the pulpit, Sunday after Sunday? Would they view my comments as subjective or objective?, Would they consider the Church an apropriate venue for the discussuion of subjective political views? Would hearing my political views, enhance or diminish their worship experience, and would they want the name of their Church associated with my views?
Note 6.
It’s simple Jim. When it comes to others, Progressives are always the first to tell them how to live, what to do with their earnings, etc. When it comes to themselves, they operate by a different set of rules. It’s a lot like Ted Kennedy holding his inheritance wealth in off-shore trusts to evade taxes. Noam Chomsky does the same thing. Nancy Pelosi owns vineyards that use non-unionized labor. They portray themselves as defenders of the “little man” but in their private lives exersize the privileges of barons.
On countries holding progressive ideals — Cuba, Russia, Nambia, American inner cities, increasingly England (read “Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses“) etc. Progressives want, ultimately, centralized economic planning because it allows for social engineering.
Note 8. In general terms I have no fundamental disagreement with your points. I wouldn’t use the subjective/objective distinction (doesn’t really work) but overall, sure, there are many issues on which reasonable people can disagree.
Still, there are some questions that are closed — usually the moral issues that are the most contentious. On some occasions, speaking out is not only appropriate, but needful.
Take statements by Met. Iakovos and Met. Maximos on the Terri Schiavo killing for example. Moral leadership was needed here, and they provided it. (Both men are bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church.)
Apb. Iakovos’ march with Martin Luther King in Selma, was another example. (BTW, he was the first major religious leader to march with King. As a result, the King family is still grateful to the Greek Orthodox for it.)
Here is a nice, brief meditation on politics and religion from the great Catholic philosopher Thomas Merton.
The Merton Reflection for the Week of November 6, 2006
From Contemplative Prayer. New York: Doubleday, 1996 edition
with an Introduction by Thich Nhat Hanh: pp. 112-113
I think we all can agree with that, whatever our political stripes.
Note 12, Dean, I think he shows a lack of respect for the democratic process
It is common to heap contempt on politicians but if one consigns all the politicians in a democracy to perdition then one also gives up hope for the ideals of self-government.
While we are at it, what does “launch us into the full current of historical reality” mean?
This second block quote is a pretty thoroughly going dismissal of all politicians, and as such, it dismissed democracy. Washington, Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln and other great American leaders were politicians, they were also great leaders. We mustn’t make an idol of an individual leader, however, many are worthy of respect. Good and ethical people are not encouraged to step forward to seek public office, if religious philosophers like this one heap contempt on all politicians.
Note 11. Dean, do you have any real idea of what Merton is trying to say? I don’t. It sounds deep, but is it really? I can’t see what his reference is, who he really is talking about. If he doesn’t have anyone in mind and is speaking of politicians/rulers only in general terms, well, this doesn’t say much since we have both statesmen and tyrants who rule alongside the mediocre self-seekers. Surely they are not all the same?
You know, I am in the religious field, but I have to say that religious professionals are often the ones who abuse their standing to pontificate about things they don’t really understand. Unless I am missing something that should be right in front of my face, I just don’t see much wisdom in the piece.
Maybe he is just saying that politics and religion are two different things, or that for some politicians their politics functions like a religion. If so, why doesn’t he just say it?
When evaluating Thomas Merton it is important to remember that he was a Trappist monk who was a hermit within his own monastery. Toward the end of his life, he was leaning away from Christianity toward Buddhism or at least away from a Christianity that was truly Incarnational. Our Lord tells us to be in the world, but not of it. It is quite possible that Merton took the rejection of the world a little too far. There is a way of approaching political questions and political activity from a Christian perspective rather than a political perspective. We must resist the temptation to look at “competence” from a purely utilitarian perspective while at the same time refusing to make an idol of any political ideology. As the posts on this blog frequently illustrate, it is difficult to achieve such a balance.
Given the obvious fact that both of the primary political parties in the U.S. are corrupted by power, the question becomes how to effectively govern with real principal. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the democratic process either. IMO it easily lends itself to charlatans and demagogues especially where the government controls the educational system. When people swayed by emotion, indigestion, and whether or not they had sex the night before, people who don’t even know who governs them or care, still vote–that’s democracy. Mass ignorance does not produce intelligence unless you are a Darwinist, but even there it takes millions of years. The fact of the matter is that if someone runs a principled, intelligent campaign, they will loose. They will be overwhelmed by money, dirty tricks, ignorance and apathy.
We are unable to communicate effectively with those who purport to govern us. When I sent an e-mail to my congressional representative asserting my belief that we needed to curtail Muslim immigration, I received a two page position paper on illegal immigration issues (read Hispanic) signed by a machine. How does one break through such massive layers of crap? I requested from him a communication of why he thought I should even vote or be part of the policital system–that was ignored. The only way to sway anyone is to get a whole bunch of people together and march in the streets or buy influence. That’s the democratic process.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the most unprincipaled, dirty politicians we have ever had in this country. The sleazey personal attacks his political cohort, James Madison, produced to win elections were far worse than anything Carl Rove has done, or Carl Begalla. As President, he violated most of his stated principals of government.
Changes in government only come with changes in us. If we expect our politicians to govern us, we have to govern ourselves in accordance with the Gospel. As a priest friend of mine once remarked, we should think that everybody else is going to heaven except me.
Welcome to how the world works….and doesn’t work.
Somehow, it’s a beautiful day, anyway. Somewhere