Yesterday, on a classically dreary November night, I happened to be in Chicago again. I drove along Lakeshore Drive and to my left through my rain-blotted window were the bustling, twinkling streets of skyscrapers when suddenly I noticed to my right the blackness of the lake. I could only see a few blue waves wildly crashing close to the shore. I clutched the wheel and turned onto Clark Street. There I met a good friend of mine and over Vietnamese food he gave me our next topic.
Not being religious, he is deeply troubled by the fact that every politician has to at least profess faith to be elected in America. The odds are that many of them have lied (even, maybe . . . Obama and McCain!). Additionally, the segment of our population that has the highest intelligence also has the highest rate of atheism, and so brilliant people from the scientific community, for example, are barred from being elected. These two factors seem to limit the chances that we can have leaders who are both honest and intelligent, or either. He faults religion and America's hypocritical demand for it from leaders for producing bad ones like Bush and potentially Palin, who in his mind are neither honest nor intelligent.
This prompted me to think about whether it is even possible to helm a country like America as a Christian. Do any of you really believe our politicians are faithful? If not, why do we have this requirement for them? Should Christians expect to see a Christian leading America? On the other hand, could you elect an atheist?
So I guess the big question is: what role does faith have in American politics? The small question is: if Obama broke the race barrier, what "transformational figure" will break the religious barrier and is that a good or bad thing?
7 comments:
I, like many people, have been thinking about this a lot lately. Sure, I would love for our leaders to be God-fearing followers of Christ. However, I'm also aware that it probably won't happen. So, do I still fight for that, or do I go on doing what God has called me to do regardless of the leaders. Right now, I am leaning towards not worrying as much about our leaders religious beliefs. Since social issues will rarely be changed through politics, I have decided to base my vote on everything else. For example, even if the McCain/Palin would have won, the abortion issue still would not have been addressed. (I'm not even convinced it needs to be addressed, but that's a discussion for a different day) So, I don't want to spend my time trying to change things though politics because it is not effective. God will change people when we simply lift him up.
As far as our politicians being Christians, I have decided to trust them and look at their fruits. I don't care if they don't believe like me, and it's not my place to judge their hearts.
I find your comment refreshing. Thank you for contributing. It's good to know that there are other Christians who are seeing the value of . . . maybe we could call it "separation of church and state."
Stanley Hauerwas has a fascinating essay that I think relates to this question. His essay is actually about Christian participation in war, but I think we can use his same argument for participation in government. In his essay, called "Why Gays (As A Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (As A Group)," Hauerwas lauds gays for being the kind of people that people inherently don't want in the army (this was before the don't ask, don't tell, policy). In the article, Hauerwas wishes that Christians could be untrustworthy as soldiers by virtue of who they are just as many people don't trust that gays are good for the military because of who they are. For instance, Hauerwas notes that soldiers who confess to serve a God who created all might come in conflict with orders from their commanding officer. He also wonders whether a group of soldiers praying for those who persecute them and striving to loving their enemies might be considered bad for morale in a unit of soldiers.
Anyhow, the point is, I wonder similarly whether it is possible to really be a Christian and get elected to national office. Who wants a president who values the kingdom of God over the good of a particular nation?
I don't think America does. People want a candidate with virtues, but not one really serves a higher power. That's why we've had problems with Kennedy (a catholic) and Mitt Romney (a mormom). Both candidates had to convince the populus that their religious beliefs were merely private, and would not affect how they act in the public realm over the good of the American people.
Similarly, Obama had to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright because of people being uncomfortable with a critical-prophetic stance toward America (I'm not denying that Wright said some crazy things, but I think what people really didn't like is that he spoke against America).
So can people really vote for someone who has committed to bringing about the kingdom of God? Can we put in office someone who values all people in all nations as being created in the image of God, rather than putting the interests of a particular geopolitical population over others.
I personally don't think so.
Dave
Thanks for writing everyone, you have provided great food for thought.
- Andy
C'mon, Abstainer, is that all you've got for us? You should have plenty to say on this as someone who was silent on the election for something like this reason. Or maybe not.
I just have to point out that this idea actually comes from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion which I ended up reading this week. That book is rich with ideas for us to discuss, but too many to cover right here. I just wanted to add that as a source on this topic. He gave me a few pangs of doubt that I have to nurse for a while but overall he never touched the core of my faith. I recommend reading it.
Joe, I'm not so sure of the validity of your friend's idea that the best people for the job are scientists and other brilliant people.
Although many brilliant people do not believe in God, there is something to say for those with a moral compass set on God. Although the US is not a Christian nation we were founded on Christian values and morals (see the Declaration of Independence). PatriotPost.us has a feature that sends a quote from the founding fathers every day. Obviously, each quote is sent with a pro-Christian, pro-conservative bias, but when they mention Christianity, it is always the moral values they suggest are the most important. Although atheist may have a moral compass (just as the Gentiles did before Christ) someone who says man is the highest power does leave himself to choose what is right and wrong.
I also do not want to say that all Christian leaders are moral. We have learned that so much I will not even waste time listing one such example.
However, if you look at the worst leaders in the world, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Josef Stalin and even here where I live, they all share one thing in common. They all believed man to be the highest power in the universe. They were brilliant scientist. And millions died so they could help mankind become perfect.
That is not to say scientists have no place in government, but that role should be limited, just like our founders thought the government should have been. But if you look at the modern era and look at the worst Christian government leaders I do not think they will be as bad as the alternative.
Post a Comment