catapult magazine

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

I think I’m frustrated because we speak of an important distinction between church and state and so often run riot over it. We end up with bad theology and bad politics, because we lose the central focus of each. Political theology and theological politics.

For instance, I was disappointed when during the Republican National Convention this week they invited a Jewish woman to give a “benediction.” She started out, “O Lord God…” I couldn’t tell if she was praying or delivering political discourse.

My point in the earlier post was that as Christians we need to uphold the distinction between civil and sacred realms. As citizens we speak one way; we speak about a great many things that are important to us. As members of the church we speak another way; we are faithful to say what God has said and to give our words the same proportion and focus as God gives his words in Scripture. So, as God is centrally concerned about Christ and him crucified, the church ought also to be.

The problem is that so often Christians give their ideas about politics the same authority as their beliefs about God. We must be careful to discern where God has spoken and where he has not. God has inspired an interpretation of “Christ and him crucified.” He has not, however, inspired an interpretation of the missing WMD fiasco. Thus, there is not one only right way to think of the WMD fiasco that we could give the same authority as God’s revealed interpretation of Christ and him crucified. The greatest damage to the church’s prophetic role is when we as Christians say or imply, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” when in fact God has not spoken such a thing.

The church has to stick to what God has said. Christians must endeavor to apply God’s Word to all of life, but they must also confess that sin still clings to them in every part and clouds their judgment. So we have to make a distinction between Scripture and our judgments about how Scripture is to be applied to all of life, especially those aspects which God has not as clearly addressed in Scripture. The church can and must speak authoritatively, but not about any and everything (even though God is Lord over all creation). It must speak authoritatively where GOd has spoken authoritatively.

below are some responses to the campaign that Sojourners published in their most recent e-mail newsletter. interesting to see

. Karl A. McKinney writes from Baltimore, Maryland: [/b:442d8020d6]

While I agree with the slick ad that “God is not a Republican…or a Democrat,” I believe the national political arena is not the place for the body of Jesus to sort these things out…. [Unfortunately], whether in black churches or white churches, in conservative circles or liberal circles of the church, the church upholds an unrelenting allegiance to political parties that will not even yield to the authority of the Messiah. Christendom is not only the problem of evangelicals, it is the problem that plagues liberal Christians as well. We are prevented from living faith in Jesus the Messiah, not by leaders of our particular religious clubs but by our own idolatry. We don’t need to “take back” our faith; we need to do things far more radical, like live it out without the aid and support of either political party.

Parra writes from Chile: [/b:442d8020d6]

As a Chilean, I am not involved in voting in November at the U.S. election. However, as a Christian involved in the often difficult and unpopular task of thinking about my faith and my commitments through the teachings of the whole scriptures, I fully agree with your extraordinary efforts to tell your country that God is not aligned with partisan views and convictions.

I remember times in Chile when evangelicals here used to say that Pinochet was something like “God’s one,” designated to save Chile from Marxist revolution. I am personally far away from Marxism, and I believe God is involved in history and life, but it is quite difficult for me to believe that God could back up the horrors of the repressive machinery Pinochet and his lieutenants ran during those years in my country.

I would say that even if a Christian feels that he or she would prefer to vote for Bush, this should not be on the grounds that this is God’s will – or commandment. This is a crude way of avoiding the responsibility to promote, by thinking and action, a civil and social life in which the acts of a ruler are under the judgment of truth and justice – beyond the ruler’s personal beliefs. I salute your standing for responsible Christianity.

Bender writes from Gainesville, Florida: [/b:442d8020d6]

I was delighted when I found your magazine. Previously, I spent a lot of time wondering if all Christians were single-issue voting Republicans, and now I know it is not true. I appreciate your thoughtful and often scripture-based articles on current issues. I also enjoy the satirical pieces (as David Batstone’s response to the Bush-Cheney Election Campaign [SojoMail 7/28/04]), with the understanding that satire is part of the art of writing and more generally of interlocution. Even Jesus used verbal satire when making illustrations, especially concerning the religious leaders of the day.

My reason for writing is a concern with your satirical flash video on the “Heavenly Convention” of the Religious Right. I don’t doubt your sources, and I am deeply disturbed by the Right’s use of religion to promote the election of President Bush, but I find this video to be disrespectful and ultimately divisive like so many other media creations from the supporters of one party or another. Most who agree with the viewpoint will find it funny. Likewise, most who disagree with the viewpoint will be inflamed. Couldn’t you have explored a more “loving” way of pointing out the error of your brothers in Christ?

Senter writes from Durham, North Carolina: [/b:442d8020d6]

While I agree wholeheartedly that religion in this year’s election is a very strange and dangerous thing…I was deeply troubled by your Web animation. The bluegrass soundtrack, the poorly done Southern accents – it all manifests a most unfortunate anti-southern bigotry. As if ignorance and narrow-minded religions were a monopoly of the South. Though the most visible leaders of the movement are from the South (a purely historical artifact), fundamentalist Christians live in every state of the union. Anti-Southern bigotry is one of the few bigotries that are still socially acceptable in progressive circles. I expect more from Sojourners.

Cagle writes from Waco, Texas: [/b:442d8020d6]

I really enjoy your e-mails. I send them on to several newspaper editors, liberals, conservatives, and college folks who I know will enjoy them one way or another. I’m one of those who wish heartily that “none of the above” was a viable ballot alternative. I’ve even been thinking that I’d prefer Hillary Rodham Clinton and Teresa Heinz Kerry as candidates; they seem to be capable of turning the U.S. government and the world upside down, in better fashion than the men. Laura Bush is indeed a nice lady, but I don’t think she reveals her “true self” much at all. I think she has caved in to that right-wing conviction that women belong in the background, period. Your satirical video of “The Heavenly Convention” is dandy. Thanks for doing it.

Solliday writes from Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: [/b:442d8020d6]

Admit it. You just loath Christians on the right with a seething passion. Your video clearly demonstrates that. For as partisan as you are (and that is okay), you should seek no cover in the technical fact that you may not officially endorse a particular candidate. I am on the Christian right but am no fan of Falwell or Robertson. Yet, their apparent endorsing of Bush is more a mark of forthright honesty than your hiding behind the refusal to officially do that for his opponent.

Ward writes from Charlotte, North Carolina: [/b:442d8020d6]

Grow up. God is clearly a Democrat. All this “nonpartisan” talk is destructive to the very ones I know you want to help. Everything is partisan in a capitalistic republic. Just try to get a street light fixed or provide medical care for the 40,000,000 uninsured. Keep up the good work, but don’t be naive.

great commentary on this issue from chris noyes at CCO jubilee: a christian center

An excerpt from Peter Leithart

“What is true of Solomon is true of all civil rulers, of all rulers in any sphere. Because God is king of kings, and because Yahweh sees the thoughts and intentions of the heart, and because Yahweh sovereignly turns the heart of the king like a watercourse in any direction He wants, because of all this the key issue for any political ruler is the orientation of his affections, the direction of his heart.”

“This should be part of your calculation as you determine who to vote for in two months. While you cannot read hearts as God can, you can draw conclusions about a man’s heart from the fruit that he produces. Does the candidate you vote for show any signs of devotion to God? Does he manifest any fixed orientation? Does the candidate you vote for hold to unpopular positions and stand against the tide of public opinion and media attack, or does he trim his sails to the shifting winds of political opinion? You are voting for a man, not a set of ideas, and you have to make some judgment about the man’s character and heart. Humility is one of the key signs of a rightly ordered heart. Does the candidate believe that he is capable of producing national health and prosperity by his own programs and politics? Or does he show some awareness of his limitations and the limitations of political life in general?”