« Vandal Attacks Radish, Breaks Hearts | Main | Sorry... »
November 18, 2005
On Faith and Politics (again)
One of the bloggers I don't read as often as I should is Mark D. Roberts. He's the senior pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church in Irvine, California, and the author of a book on prayer that I enjoyed quite a bit, No Holds Barred: Wrestling with God in Prayer.
Recently, Roberts wrote a series about a church in California that has run afoul of the IRS. The pastor is accused of using the pulpit to deliver partisan messages. As part of that series, Roberts puts into words something I've often thought when dealing with politics and religion:
Furthermore, preachers who delve into partisan politics often fail to recognize that they are no longer articulating what can be plainly known from Scripture, but rather that which depends on a host of other political and economic ideas. Let me provide an example I've used before. I can with great confidence call my congregation to care for and seek justice for the poor because Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, is abundantly clear about such things. I stand on solid ground when I preach that God cares for the poor and that we much be committed to working for a world in which there is less poverty, both in our country and throughout the world. I can applaud efforts our church makes to alleviate poverty in places like northern Mexico and Swaziland.This is an important point. Jesus told us to take care of the poor. He didn't tell us how. Despite our best efforts to fit Jesus' command into whatever economic theory we prefer, Jesus was not a follower of Smith or Keynes. I think His expectation is that if we are blessed with wealth, we should do more with it than indulge our own desires.But if I were to begin to advocate specific economic and political solutions to the problem of poverty – more government aid, free trade agreements, redistribution of American wealth to other countries, the expansion of capitalism in the third world, or whatever – then I would have imported a whole bunch of economic and political theories into my equation. Thus I would have greatly muddied the water, while losing the moral clarity and authority that comes from the trustworthy and obvious exposition of Scripture.
The problem in churches is not that we interpret scripture differently, but that we too often accuse those who disagree with us of being wrong or less devoted to Christ.
Posted by slublog at November 18, 2005 12:05 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1963
Comments
It's such a weird line between "religion" and "politics" anymore. You can't bring "religion" into "politics." But if you talk in "religion" about anything that also appears in "politics," then you're also in trouble.
Who knows? At the rate some in our government want are taking, it won't matter because we'll have a global caliphate telling us about both.
Posted by: Hal at November 18, 2005 12:40 AM
Wait a sec ... I thought Jesus was a Republican! He's not????
Posted by: MainiacJoe at November 18, 2005 08:15 AM
Shhhh...don't tell.
Posted by: Slublog at November 18, 2005 08:41 AM
Seriously, now.
One problem I see, using caring for the poor as an example, is that politics takes a grey area with a relational dynamic and distills it down to policies that 1. are intended for universal applicaition and 2. can be voted on yea or nay. Jesus is all about relationship and not about rules, even his two greatest commandments are "Love God," and, "Love Your Neigbor," which don't really say anything specific about what to do in a particular situation.
My wife and I work with Helping Hands in our town. There are two distinct groups of people HH assists: people down on their luck needing a boost to get back on their feet, and professional moochers. 30 years of HH have not yet seen a policy for this organization that is adequate to handle both of these groups fairly; any attempt leaves either the ones needing help facing needless hurdles, or enables the moochers.
Since politics is also one-size-fits-all, why is anyone surprised that it is equally ineffective? Yet another way of saying what Peter said,
The problem in churches is not that we interpret scripture differently, but that we too often accuse those who disagree with us of being wrong or less devoted to Christ.is saying that religion is one-size-fits all too, for some people. These are the ones that find it so convenient to mix religion and politics. They make for a powerful one-two punch, when you are trying to keep from being thrown out of the lifeboat.
Posted by: MainiacJoe at November 18, 2005 10:21 AM
I've thought for a while now that if the church were more devoted to caring for the poor and downtrodden, then we wouldn't have to worry about the government trying to do it in the first place.
But then, that would require responsibility, and we'd much rather (unreasonably) expect government to be responsible than to be responsible ourselves.
Posted by: Hal at November 18, 2005 02:26 PM