« Prepping for the Oscars | Main | This explains my life »
February 21, 2008
Christianity cannot be reduced to issues
I'm the first to claim that the Christian Right is an aberration on the history of Christianity. The role of Christians in politics has not always been as it is today.
All the columnists and Christian talking heads now talk about how Christians emphasize different issues, such as the environment, poverty, social justice, and torture. People like Rick Warren and Jim Wallis lead the charge to "take back" Christianity from the clutches of the religious right. The rest of the world welcomes this change with open arms.
While the evolution of Christian political emphasis is laudible, I'm worried that Christianity will still get yoked to a few issues, as it did before with abortion and homosexuality. Even more, the mass media is noticing how people of all different faiths unite in solidarity on these issues. It's a sign of God's common grace that we can bridge our differences and fight injustice in this world, but I'm worried that, as a result, Christians will lose a sense of the transformative power of the Gospel and how it touches every area of our lives. Our faith cannot be reduced to our reactions to a few, albeit very important, issues.
I was inspired to comment on this when I read a Metro column about Jim Wallis' visit to Park Street Church last week. Several of my friends attended this event. While I can't say much about Wallis himself since I've read and seen only snippets of him, I noticed that he talked almost exclusively about poverty. This troubled me because, although Christians absolutely have to be involved in eradicating poverty, it strikes me as reductionistic. Jesus himself cannot be reduced to these issues, so neither should our faith.
I disagree with Wallis' political philosophy (which is shared by many Christians) that we shouldn't want to hear what a political candidate believes, just that he or she has a good "moral compass." While this sounds good, and indeed gets cheers from a secular crowd, it's not quite in line with true religious freedom. I believe that political candidates, whether Christian or not, should feel free to talk about what they believe in (and they do). Additionally, as Jim Skillen points out in his essay Faith and the Presidency, we need an altogether new, holistic Christian political philosophy, one that is driven by Kuyper's idea of sphere sovereignty.
Am I way off base?
| By laurajuanita | 05:39 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bostonblogs.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/495
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Christianity cannot be reduced to issues:
Comments
I think you are exactly right that this is a reductionist way of viewing Christianity. The problem with politics is that it separates non-political groups into interest groups, and once Christians speak out in the public sphere we get siphoned off into an interest group, and the ones speaking the loudest represent all of us. Not only can Christianity not be reduced to issues, but it cannot be reduced to "politics" in this sense. Wallis is politicizing Christianity in his own way.
My other complaint about politicizing Christianity in the past and present is that it makes it seem that Christians are only now caring about things like poverty, when in fact what is happening is that some American Christians are merely changing their views on how the government should be involved in these problems. That is an important distinction to make and goes into issues of sphere sovereignty which I won't discuss now (thanks for the link).
In terms of candidates stating what they believe, I would add that I wouldn't necessarily vote for candidates based on their faith but would welcome clear statements on this subject, just as I would welcome hearing about other aspects of their lives, their "moral compass", and their policy proposals. A candidate is a person, not a set of presidential objectives, and I am interested in that as a voter. Why shouldn't others be?
Posted by: Anna at February 22, 2008 04:28 AM
I was just thinking about Wallis this morning (as he is going to be here this summer). You are absolutely right that Wallis is polarizing with his own issues. But I do want to point out a number of things.
The Christian Right that you are referring to must be understood from within the context of a specific people at a specific time. The work of those that we so like to "abhor" was hard work which not many can say they replicated. What the Robertsons etc have done for Christianity and its place in the public sphere in the US is a very important thing. To make light of the fact that they mobilized a significant amount of the population who otherwise would not vote on
"moral" issues such as abortion, euthanasia or even vote or develop position papers at all is important.
Its also important to remember that the Wallis is living off of a negative opinion energy of one issue voters, and or the coupling of these issues with a misunderstanding of the Bush dynasty. The fact that Bush has spent more on education than any previous president is significant. The fact that Bush has sent large amounts of money to Africa to fight AIDS is significant. Bush may not have won because of this platform but he sure has done a lot while in office for which Wallis et al should be thankful.
Posted by: Lau at March 18, 2008 09:31 AM
