catapult magazine

http://go.sojo.net/campaign/takebackourfaith

Something is very troubling about this petition. I’m not sure if it’s the attitude against the “Christian right” or the fact that a “petition” does not go far enough…but something just rubs me the wrong way. I like the idea of gathering the sheep who do not see themselves in the Republican camp but I am very disappointed to see Sojourners magazine throwing “divine appointment” out altogether. I’ve gone on a rant about this before…what’s so unbiblical about divine appointment? Does anyone else feel like this petition is the wrong way of going about things?

Grant.

I think maybe the problem is that signing a petition seems like the same motion as voting for Bush because he’s a Christian. It’s an agreement to join a camp that I don’t totally identify with…yet. As I’m reading Sojourner’s statements and biblical references, I’m thinking: “Yeah, but what about this verse?” and “How do you reconcile the Roman peace idea with Jesus’ mission…and how does your interpretation work in today’s context?” etc. etc. Maybe people who have read Sojourners more than I have can fill me in a bit more on their perspective.

As someone living in a Christian community, I must say that it is rather refreshing to hear that there ARE those who believe that it is not a Christian obligation to vote for Bush. I have become very frustrated with the apparently prevalent attitude that we can forget discussing the issues of this election—because we KNOW Bush is a man of God, conversation over.

I’ve even heard the following question posed to young Christian voters: “Do you want a Christian man running our country or a man who fights for abortion and homosexuality?” Suddenly we don’t have to be discerning, pray for wisdom, or carefullly weigh all platforms and issues. This kind of “Christian campaigning” encourages complacency.

Do I believe in divine appointment? Absolutely. God can certainly put the man of His choice in office. We need to respect George Bush as our authority and leader in this time. But I don’t believe in assuming that all of our Presidents have been placed in office by divine appointment. God allows us our choices and their consequences all the while working for good. He asks us to be responsible in our decision-making, and discern the fruit of a tree before declaring it good or bad.

There is a lot of weight in giving George Bush’s decisions God’s stamp of approval, and I want to give my vote only after much prayer and consideration. Let’s encourage each other to seek God, even as we read polls, articles and statistics.

Ok. Yes, Christians ought not to vote for people just because they claim to be Christians, but I’m not sure that all evangelicals are so narrow-minded. Many evangelicals like Bush because his principles match up with theirs. They don’t care that Kerry claims to be a Christian too, because Kerry doesn’t speak the language that they like. Evangelical Christians believe that our founding fathers were creating THE christian nation that would be a light to all other nations. They believe that we must be a morally upright nation in order to continue to be in God’s favor. These ideas are recalled in Bush’s own language when he talks about our role in the Middle East and when he stresses the importance of promoting a culture of life when it comes to issues of stem cell research and abortion. Such language resonates with certain people. Perhaps people put their trust in other people who think like them.

It’s hard to put my finger on what is so frustrating about this petition, but here’s my stab at it.

It doesn’t go far enough. What Christianity needs is a house cleaning. We’ve drug all this crap into the house we call Christianity, so that Christianity has become a matter of how you vote…or how you sign petitions. Christianity in the popular mind, as most people know it, has become all about another political stance. Candidates are willing to use God’s name to further their political agendas, and it trivializes God in a way I find offensive. Here’s the God who created all things, to whom the angels sing continually, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God almighty, who was and is and is to come,” drug out, prettied up, and made to perform all sorts of tricks and manipulation.

Neil Postman talks about the “great symbol drain” in his book Technopoly. “God” is drug into all these relatively trivial contexts, and through overuse, his name becomes nearly meaningless. God begins no longer to reign in majesty, splendor and holiness, but to be another commodity to help you sell your product, get you the votes you want, or get people to sign your petition.

Christianity needs to reclaim what it’s all about. Not votes, not petitions, not a subculture, not a style of music, not propaganda, not political, not a tool for advertisement, not an ecominic system, not therapy, not your preference, not educational, etc etc etc.

With Paul it needs to resolve to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

Right, these are the symptoms of a very serious problem in the church. God is not God, but a servant of man. We can go on believing that we have power—political, religious or technological—for a while, but God will show us what’s what, sooner or later. I agree with Sojourner’s attempt to bring like-minded believers together, but it’s going to take more than a petition published in the New York Times…which isn’t to say that it’s not worth doing. I guess I’m just really frustrated with the state of things right now (the absence of the Holy Spirit in the American church?) that just happens to be showing itself in the political arena. I have to remember that these divisions are only birth pains, but it doesn’t change the fact that this hurts like hell now.

we can “resolve to know nothing but Christ and him crucified,” but that must mean something for daily life because Christ is Lord over ALL creation. the things of life are the medium through which we express our worship of Christ, including petitions, music, advertising, therapy, and politics. any sort of housecleaning must engage these things.

though i cringe sometimes at the anti-Bushiness of Sojourners, i do agree with their basic premise that we need to be Godly, obedient voters who measure candidates by basic biblical principles rather than assuming that a particular political party is consistently more “Christian” than another.

the political partisan nature of Christianity in North America today does great damage to the church’s prophetic role because it polarizes people into artificial categories and makes Christians reluctant to call their party of choice into question. for example, i’m ashamed of our collective silence in the missing WMD fiasco—where are the voices calling the president to moral accountability, the same voices that were calling Clinton to accountability over a blow job? regardless of political affiliations, we should all be concerned that there was even a shadow of a doubt and the Church is seriously ill when it is silent in the face of such a huge question mark.

partisan politics mask our inability (or our reluctance) to discern between what is good and what is evil. partisan politics hide the light under a bushel (NO!) and render our witness extremely dim.

i agree kristen, and while there may be valid arguments made that the petition is not perfect, or would have been better if this or that, it’s an important first step to acknowledge that beyond the usual (and still very important) flash point issues like abortion (and now gay marriage), there are a host of other very important issues that commonly get overlooked in political and public discourse when the topic turns to values (e.g. a society’s call to care for the poorest and those who do not have the means to care for themselves; a society’s treatment of the environment…etc) and it’s good and appropriate to take away the ‘holy seal’ from either party and look at them both with newly critical eyes.

it may not be perfect, but it’s definitely progress, i think.

On one hand, I applaud the efforts to let the world know that Falwell/Robertson and the “Religious Right” don’t represent all orthodox Christians and that there are many Christians who are interested in more issues than just gay marriage and abortion.

On the other hand, however, I think the Sojourner’s ad is still partisan and one can tell from the way the ad is slanted just how the ad’s writers will be voting. The dichotomies they represent in their ad are, in my estimation, false divisions, e.g. protecting creation and advancing corporate interests aren’t mutually exclusive. Ditto “reward the rich” and “protect the poor.” Some of the language they use, e.g. “wars of choice,” “tell the truth in justifying war,” “fair trade” (instead of free trade) lead me to conclude they’re a left-of-center group – with the exception of raising the abortion issue.

As this Sojourners ad attempts to debunk the claim that Falwell/Robertson and the “Religious Right” speak for Christ and His followers in America, I would attempt to debunk the underlying claim of these left-of-center activists and those like them who think proper Christian perspectives on issues like the environment, health care, the economy, etc. are perspectives like theirs.

I realize only so much nuance can go into a newspaper ad, but there is a slant here that, in my opinion, was avoidable. As it’s written, it falls into the category of “political shot.” Because I think it was avoidable, I have to wonder at the real motives behind the ad.

1. Show respect for all positions on an issue, and for those who hold opposing opinions. It?s tempting, especially when one is reacting against a polemical, biased, chest-thumping opposition, to respond in kind and opt out of the Lord?s command about doing unto others.

2. Understand the opposing side so well that you can present its arguments as clearly as its proponents do. Each position has its upside and downside, as do opposing views. We tend to know our upside and their downside, but fairness requires we face our downside and their upside as well.

3. Begin your sermon by presenting the opposing case?s position. Present it so compellingly that people would believe it?s your position if you stopped your sermon midway.

4. Then present your position, rooting your position in biblical soil, admitting your position?s downsides.

5. Confess your openness to changing your thinking?thus modeling the teachability you hope your people will demonstrate.

Sounds like you feel they didn’t completely follow the advice they published, mrsanniep?

[edited 9-8 to fix misattributed quote]