Neutering the Gospel

Pope Francis

Jon Stewart recently skewered Fox News’ Stuart Varney. Varney disagreed with the pope’s recent critique of capitalism; Stewart’s sharp satire exposes the intellectual and moral vacuity of Varney’s protests against the pope’s comments. (If you haven’t seen it, you can find the link to Jon Stewart here.)

One of Varney’s moves is to attempt to separate the political from the spiritual. He says, “I personally do not want my spiritual life mixed up with my political life. I go to church to save my soul.”

In this context, separating the political from the spiritual is a way to nullify an essential part of Jesus’ teaching and ministry: the building of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was not strictly, nor even primarily, concerned with saving souls: the prayer that he taught his followers is, “… thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven….” The Lord’s prayer expresses the desire that the world be put in order, and that that order be under the authority of the God who is always on the side of the widow and the orphan; on the side of the outcast and the poor.

Those who claim that the political and the spiritual do not meet may be, in fact, followers of one of the world’s great religions– but it isn’t Christianity.

There are good reasons why we have “the separation of church and state,” but Varney is not supporting the continued prohibition of state-sponsored churches. What he is supporting– and anyone else who dismisses the political dimension of religious conviction is also supporting–  is the tight-banded neutering of the gospel. It’s a convenient way to avoid the claims that God makes on our communal life together– of which the political is part– and thereby to avoid questions of conscience.

via AOL Mail – Message View.

Huckabee’s Right, But He’s Confused

Mike Huckabee has come to represent how conservatism has come off the rails, and become reflexively (rather than thoughtfully) illiberal. This is unfortunate, because America needs a good dose of a thoughtful conservatism that is current. Huckabee’s reactionary agenda continues to include one-size-fits-all positions on abortion, immigration, and Israel, for example.

This is too bad, because what makes Huckabee worth the time to write about, and to think about, is his correct assessment that much of what bedevils American society is spiritual. Where he goes wrong, is to believe that this situation can be remedied by adopting policies– the ones he advocates– that are godly. This belief is worse than having the cart before the horse: “having the cart before the horse” is a simple confusion, clarified by reversing the order, whereas Huckabee’s mistake is confusing the kind of thing politics is, and the kind of thing religion is, in a 21st-century pluralistic democracy.

In the excerpt below, Huckabee trots out the tired memes of “government is bad” and “the Democratic party is godless.” While these memes play successfully to a certain audience and score points for his side, they do nothing to promote the healing of the social body, or to solve political problems. Huckabee’s deeper confusion is to think that politics is a suitable place for people of faith and parties of principle to express their faith and rectitude.

The authentic religious perspective for our time with regards to politics begins with a much larger dose of humility. Not timidity; not (moral) relativity– but a humility that recognizes the limits of any human– or group of humans– to possess the complete and final picture of what is good and true.

That’s the religion Huckabee ought to look toward, as his starting point.

Here is Huckabee in the immediate aftermath of the November election:

There is a lot to be disappointed by in the election results this evening and I am disappointed, but not despondent.

Tonight’s results only remind me that our country has slipped into a deeper state of dependence on government than I wanted to believe. Where the Goliath of government has grown so too has our dependency.

It’s also increasingly apparent to me that our real problems are not political, but spiritual. Both parties have failed to acknowledge that. Democrats have not wanted to even acknowledge the need for God in our public institutions, but sadly, many of the Republican leadership will acknowledge God, but not because they believe we should be humble before Him, but to use God in our speeches and platforms. We wear our love of Israel like a badge of courage but on the issues of life and marriage too many of our leaders are more like lambs than Lions of Judah.

Well now maybe our Republican Party will look at itself in the mirror. I feel that we shouldn’t pack up and quit, but gear up and get ready for the next battle. That’s what we do as people of faith and a party of principle. We don’t stop believing what we believe. We do a better job of doing what we’re supposed to do. That’s how you attract voters and win elections. And that is how you save America from herself.

Permalink: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2012/11/statement-on-the-election

via Statement On The Election – Mike Huckabee News – News – Mike Huckabee.

Save Us A Vote, Mitt

I saw a hand-painted political road sign this morning– all caps, no punctuation, black lettering on a white-painted square of plywood: SAVE US A VOTE MITT. I briefly wondered if Mitt were somehow hogging all the votes, before realizing that the message was: Save USA– Vote Mitt.

Any use of the word “save” in the political arena arouses my suspicion, and reminds me of the times in Biblical history when the people of Israel cried out for a leader (divinely ordained) to “save” them. Didn’t work then, won’t work today. The story that unfolds in the Christian Bible is a story of the ultimate triumph of a power different from political power– the power of self-emptying generosity and grace, which appears to this world to be weakness and foolishness.

The Biblical account also reminds us that the saving of the USA will come in the most surprising and astonishing ways– in ways that flip our expectations and change our minds beyond any change we think is possible. As unlikely as it seems, saving the USA might come in the contemporary equivalent of a figure who is sold into slavery and then forgives the sellers (Joseph); of a figure who is not a lawyer or businessman but a poet and musician (David); or of a figure whose serpent-like wisdom confronts hypocrisy with truth, and whose childlike innocence heals enmity and brokenness (Jesus).

3 Debate Questions from RIB

Here are three questions Religion in the Balance would ask Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tomorrow night:

1. Define the American dream, for this time in our history. If you use the phrase “pursuit of happiness,” define “happiness.” You may refer to economic prosperity and/or income growth no more than once.

2. Formal offices of power, such as President of the United States, confer great power upon the office-holder, but they also constrain the office-holder from certain kinds of bold action and bold truth-telling. Reflect on the limits of presidential power to make the changes America needs. You may refer to Congress and lobbyists no more than once.

3. What period in American history is most closely analogous to our own time, and therefore has lessons for us today; and, on the other hand, to what extent do we face unprecedented challenges/opportunities (unparallelled in history) that require creative, adaptive learning?

What Is of Concern

The Capitol, Washington DC

Two years ago, I ran into a highly-respected former member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, whom I knew through church. We got to talking. “The partisanship and shenanigans are getting out of hand,” I remember him saying. “Really?” I said, “Is it really getting worse?” Oh yes, he said– much worse.

I’m not too concerned about attack ads anymore, or about negative campaigning in general. Truth (frankness, openness) is almost always a casualty in political speech, whether it’s campaign season or, after the campaign, when it’s spin season and those who have been elected are trying to look good in front of the camera. This has been the case since at least the time of Cicero.

Of concern is not what you and I are presented by candidates for consumption, but the inability of politicians– once elected– seriously to consider policy options and to act in the best interest of the country. It’s as though they actually believe the fatuous pablum of the campaign, and can’t adjust to the reality of governing– a reality that requires reasonableness, and the skill of compromise. Both of the major parties are guilty.

If politics is always a zero-sum game, we will lose (if we haven’t already) the domestic tranquility that is the result of good governance. The exercise of politics does not determine the meaning and worth of an individual life, or even the meaning and worth of a society: politics is too clumsy to be that fine. As the preserver of a public order in which individuals and communities can thrive, however, politics is important; and more wisdom in our political life– even (perhaps especially) if it’s behind the scenes– would be helpful.

Religion, Government, and Social Policy: Theological and Philosophical Differences

Some quotations lifted from a recent event at Georgetown University offer more substantial reflection than usual, regarding the proper role of government  in social policy. The key concept is “subsidiarity,” a principle of Catholic social teaching, which was intended to stand in the breach between the unfettered individualism of laissez-faire capitalism, and the freedom-choking domination of totalitarian communism. Today it seems we are more endangered by unfettered individualism than by overweening governmental power– income inequality not seen since the 1920s would be evidence for this perspective– although the massive military necessary to maintain global hegemony would be evidence for the other side. I have to wonder: are we caught in the worst of both worlds? Are we suffering from both the atomization that comes with unfettered individualism, AND the disempowerment that comes from the domination of  impersonal governmental and economic forces?

This following is clipped from Howard Friedman’s blog “Religion Clause”:

Georgetown University today was the scene of an unusual debate over how to apply Catholic teachings to U.S. budget policy. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, delivered Georgetown’s Whittington Lecture. Ryan explained his budget proposals and justified them in light of Catholic social teachings, saying in part:

“[S]ince we meet today at America’s first Catholic university, I feel it’s important to discuss how, as a Catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the Church’s social teaching.

Simply put, I do not believe that the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government…. In this war on poverty, poverty is winning. We need a better approach.

To me, this approach should be based on the twin virtues of solidarity and subsidiarity – virtues that, when taken together, revitalize civil society instead of displacing it.

Government is one word for things we do together. But it is not the only word. We are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another – and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.

….We aim to empower state and local governments, communities, and individuals – those closest to the problem. And we aim to promote opportunity and upward mobility by strengthening job training programs, to help those who have fallen on hard times.”

A contrary perspective was voiced by some of the Georgetown faculty and administration:

Before Ryan’s speech, nearly 90 Georgetown faculty and administrators sent him a letter objecting to his attempts to use Catholic doctrine to justify his budget. The letter full text says in part:

“[W]e would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few….. In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love….

While you often appeal to Catholic teaching on “subsidiarity” as a rationale for gutting government programs, you are profoundly misreading Church teaching. Subsidiarity is not a free pass to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices. This often misused Catholic principle cuts both ways. It calls for solutions to be enacted as close to the level of local communities as possible. But it also demands that higher levels of government provide help — “subsidium”– when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address…”

via Religion Clause.

Believe in America?

“Believe in America” could be as simple as a call for the nation to buck up and find a new resolve to face its problems unafraid. However, for a culture that despairs of transcendence (its many outward appearances of religiosity often masking that despair, rather than seriously meeting it), “Believe in America” can be read as an invitation to pledge allegiance to the god of nation. This is an idolatry that a certain strand of triumphalist American Christianity– in thrall to the idea that America has God’s special favor– has aided.

The larger observation is that theological language is increasingly part of political discourse. One reason this is happening is that a large group of people see god [the small “g” is intentional] as being on their side– their party, their candidate– and so theological language seems natural and appropriate; another reason is that a different large group of people have no religious grounding, and so their deepest longings for purpose and meaning get projected into the political realm. For them, politics serves as a substitute religion.

The problem is obvious: no human being– no party of human beings, no nation of human beings– can fill the need we have for hope, for belief, for restoration. Meanwhile, parties and politicians will continue to appeal to our willingness to believe that, yes, they can deliver the new life we long for– even as we become increasingly angry when they inevitably cannot.

Restore America Now– A Sign for the Times

A thoughtful reader [editor’s note: all of our readers at this point qualify as “thoughtful”; apparently we are not attracting the “TMZ” crowd. Although I shouldn’t presume. You may confess your secret TMZ obsession confidentially, offline] writes the following regarding Ron Paul:

His message is generally that we should not be locating power in political institutions, and especially that America should not be militarily intervening abroad (much to the embarrassment of the other Republicans at the debates).

This thoughtful reader gets my larger point (whether he agrees or not, I’m not sure) that it’s problematic– and perhaps even wrongheaded– to look to the realm of politics for the restoration of America. The follow-up question, then, is: Can a politician’s anti-federal-government views, and proposed policies, effect– or at least abet– the restoration of America? And a related question– a question that goes way beyond Ron Paul– is: Is being anti-government the same thing as recognizing the limits of politics?

As a society I think we are seriously confused about that second question. I think there is a deeply shared feeling in America that we’ve gone badly astray. One response to that general dis-ease is to re-emphasize personal responsibility [a good thing]– and blame government [not altogether a good thing]. There are some things that we need government– even the federal government– to do, given the unprecedented-in-world-history interconnectedness of peoples, cultures, and economies. To recognize the limits of the political realm to effect the renewal we need, is not the same thing as saying– as many in our state of New Hampshire and around the country do– that government is, always and everywhere, bad.

To claim that government is always and everywhere bad, is the same coin– flipped, of course, but still the same coin– as claiming that the hope of the nation can be neatly pinned, like a campaign button, onto the outcome of a presidential election. The restoration of America– if it is to come at all– will come from a deeper place than where the “Got Hopers” and the “Tea Partiers” are looking.

Restore America Now?

A Ron Paul Bumpersticker

The political yard signs for president have emerged here in New Hampshire. I passed a Ron Paul “Restore America Now” on the way to work. Taking it at face value for the sake of discussion, does anyone really believe anymore that the restoration of America will happen because of who is president? Or because of which party controls Congress?

Don’t Look Here

The Politicians

EJ Dionne, another thoughtful and balanced observer of American culture, has a trenchant (love that word) commentary in Commonweal about the debt crisis, and the growing failure of politicians to provide leadership. An excerpt, and the link, are below.

We expect too much of our politicians, but even the minimum that we can expect– some semblance of seriousness– is missing. That’s a problem, but it’s hardly– sorry to say– new.

It’s my contention– and will remain my contention until I change my mind– that the problems and challenges we face here in the early 21st century are better addressed by artists, psychotherapists, theologians, and prophets than by politicians. In other words, our problems and challenges are more about spirit and meaning, than they are about law and policy.

EJ Dionne writes:

The first week of August 2011 will be remembered as a singularly irrational, wasteful, and shameful moment in the political and economic history of the United States. It reflected much of what is wrong with the priorities of our political elites and the obsessions of those who now hold effective veto power over our government….

via Debt Debacle | Commonweal magazine.