Which Comes First, the Religio-Ethical Chicken, or the Geo-Political Egg: An Inner Dialogue
April 22, 2010
What follows is a sort of dialogue with myself. In italics you will find the words of James the citizen of the United States, and in bold (because it’s more important) you’ll find the words of James the citizen of the Kingdom of God. This is not an attempt, of course, to speak definitively the words of the Kingdom, or even the proper opinions of a US citizen, rather this is a first attempt to disambiguate for myself where my opinions are coming from, and what foundation they ultimately have.
One of the things I am trying to work out here is whether my citizenship in the Kingdom of God actually determines my behavior as a citizen of the US, or whether it is the other way around. I am working off the premise that my committment to the Christian tradition and Christian ethics SHOULD determine my behavior always and in every way, and that any allegiance to a place, or that places’ history, culture and politics is ONLY important as much as it lines up with my commitment to Christ (A more controversial corollary is that all the things that make up the citizenship of any earthly kingdom SHOULD be held with a certain amount of detachment, if not suspicion by citizens of God’s Kingdom).
Again,
Italics= James, Citizen of the United States
Bold= James, Citizen of the Kingdom of God
– — – — –
I can think of two reasons why I am interested in politics and engaged in political discourse. 1. Self-interest. 2. I honestly believe that following Jesus demands I speak out and act for and against certain social issues that inevitably have a political element.
If anyone wants to be a member of the Kingdom of God, they must die to self.
President Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. Far from breaking with Bush’s flawed and misguided (if not evil and totally corrupt) administration, the Obama administration seems to be a continuation of it. The warmongering continues. The torturing continues. The wholesale disregard of the common good for the sake of profit and power continues. In fact, the essence of the American presidency hasn’t fundamentally changed since…well, maybe it never has: democrat, republican, or whig, Catholic, or Protestant, the President of the United States has presided over atrocity after atrocity: the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment, the Atomic Bomb, wars or covert actions in the following places: Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, El Salvador, Mexico again (I’m talking about NAFTA), many other Central and South American countries, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, now Yemen, maybe Iran…and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Christians are not to put their trust in earthly rulers, but in God alone. Christians do not believe in revenge. Christians do not believe that overcoming evil with evil is even possible, much less pleasing to God.
I almost sympathize with the Tea Party crowd. I say almost, because, if they are successful, they are going to put into place leaders whose moral compass will not be fundamentally different than either Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or…Nixon… or Roosevelt (take your pick)…or Jackson…or Jefferson…or…
I do not believe that any of these men had the best of interest of EVERY member of their country in mind when they made the most important and far-reaching decisions of the terms. I believe every one of them put power and money before the common good when making many history altering decisions.
There are ultimately several other reasons why I don’t quite line up with the Tea Party crowd.
In I Samuel 8, God warns the Israelites that if they get a king he will not have the common good of the people in mind. Even the best Israelite kings commit atrocities.
I, like the conservative faction of the US, am not a big fan of the healthcare bill as a matter of principle. However, to call it socialism is ridiculous and confusing (I am suspicious and at some level, somewhere, someone desires this confusion). The bill that creates billions of dollars in debt so that the government can subsidize millions of private insurance policies, thus enriching the very companies the politicians claim they want to change, is the essence of FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM, par excellence (to borrow Zizek’s favorite way of saying things).
Our government is not seeking and has never sought to bring capital and the means of production under its control. On the contrary, Capital has been in the process of bringing our government under control since the Industrial Revolution.
Jesus came and in direct defiance of Caesar Augustus claimed to be the Son of God. His early followers defied the empire by refusing to worship the emperor, and instead giving Jesus titles that by decree were only to be used by the Roman ruler: Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
You cannot serve both God and Money.
I, like the majority of the conservative faction of the US, claim to take a PRO-LIFE ethical stance. However, pro-life means more to me than anti-abortion. I feel like you have to be pro-ALL-LIFE in order to use the term without becoming a hypocrite.
The Tea Party loses credibility when they a) complain about the national debt, then b) claim to be pro-life, then c) support war efforts that are costing our country 3 TRILLION dollars.
Jesus says, ”Love your enemy.”
I recognize that under secular political philosophy dating back to the Greeks, a government by definition has the right and the power to violently punish crime, and violently protect its own interest.
Paul recognizes the “power of the sword” in Romans 13. But, how can a Christian honestly adhere to the injunctions of Romans 12–do not take revenge, overcome evil by doing good, live at peace with all people, etc.–and still participate in earthly governments as described in Romans 13?
I’m not a Republican, or Democrat, or Independent, or a Libertarian. I am a Distributivistic, Anarcho-Liber-Agrarian Localist.
My association with Christ and His Church is really the only one that matters. I desire to follow Jesus in the world, awaiting His return to reconcile all Creation to Himself. I suck at it.
– — – — –
Discussion questions:
1. Do my religious views, including my hermeneutic(s), determine my political philosophy or is it the other way around?
2. How would one go about determining which comes first political views or religious ones?
3. How are my political views in my self-interest?
4. How are my religious views in my self-interest?
5. Whatever else anyone wants to ask or comment on.
Non Sequiturs from the Political Realm
November 12, 2009
This one is just for fun, kids.
I rarely write about politics, and for good reason. As one who does not trust politicians as a general rule, it’s hard to follow the politics of any given party long enough to become well versed in the arena. However, I’ll venture out on to a limb and see if anyone wants to cut it out from under me. Here are few of the things I hear happening in political conversations that make me scratch my head in wonderment. Each of these, mind you, are statements coming from a single individual in any given number of settings.
1. We should fight against abortion — We should fight for capital punishment.
2. We should restrict (or cut) welfare benefits going to the poor and disabled, because they are really lazy and worthless for not working for a living — We should repeal “death taxes” because the rich ought to be able to make sure their children never have to work for a living.
3. We should vote against healthcare reform because Universal healthcare (single payer, public option or no) is socialism (er Marxism, er communism, wait… aren’t those all the same? Oh, I know it’s Nazism) — We should keep dumping money and resources into public schools, public transportation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage. They are programs that are helping the American way of life after all.
4. We should fight to get prayer back into the schools — We should fight to keep all Muslims out of the military.
5. We should fight for the sanctity of marriage and not allow same sex couples to be wed — We should uphold an individual’s legal right to divorce, prenuptial agreements, and annulment because over 50% of marriages fail.
Again, I’m no political expert, and the people I hear making these statements in the same conversation may not represent the accurate or “best” of their respective political ideology. Feel free to add your own or talk about how stupid I am for not understanding the nuance behind these contradictions. [Author’s Note: Just so you know, I am a registered Republican and voted for McCain, even though Palin scares the bejesus out of me, still - so please don’t assume I am one of those wacky “liberals” or one of those crazy "conservatives" for that matter.]
Toward a Theology of Bumper Stickers or Away from Bumper Sticker Theology
September 20, 2009
I’ve always loved bumper stickers, especially ones that are sarcastic, satirical and of a political or religious nature. Some of my favorites:
And my all time favorite, though I could not find an image:
WHERE ARE YOU NOW, JOHN WAYNE? AMERICA NEEDS YOU.
Up until recently I had a bumper sticker on my car that had words such as WAR, POVERTY, ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT all with red lines drawn through them. The point of the bumper sticker was that one should be consistently pro-life, and not just anti-abortion. Several weeks ago I was driving home and as I got into the turning lane to turn onto my street I noticed a red Subaru station wagon swerving across several lanes of traffic in order to pull up behind me. He tailgated me to my house, then drove away slowly, giving me an angry look. As he drove off I noticed that his Subaru (as all Subarus are) was covered in liberal bumper stickers, several of which seemed to have a generally atheist message. A block away he turned around and came back just in time to catch me walking to my front door. He rolled down his window and yelled, “My father is dying in the hospital right now, and your bumper sticker makes me feel like shit.” He was obviously crying as he drove off at high speed, running the stop sign near my house. I didn’t even have a chance to finish dropping my jaw before he was completely gone.
I’ve been thinking a lot about that encounter. I can only guess why my bumper sticker offended him, but the most reasonable thing to believe is that he was faced with the decision of euthanizing his terminally ill father. To anyone in that sort of situation I’m sure that my bumper sticker seemed coldly black and white (in actuality it is black and white only with those aforementioned red lines). I realized that I had inadvertently fed that man’s personal narrative concerning Christians. He officially believes me to be an uncaring, judgmental bastard. What’s more, and of course this is all speculation, he might even categorize me as of the same ilk of those who shoot abortion doctors and blow up pharmacies for selling the morning after pill. He gave me no chance to explain, or to ask questions, or to listen to his story, so why should he think otherwise?
I also realized that he too was feeding my personal narrative: Here was an atheist sinner (since he was driving a Subaru he clearly condoned lesbianism to boot), about to commit murder, and was rudely confronting me on my doorstep because MY bumper sticker filled his heart with the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Then my heart was filled with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. This was a man in pain, facing the enormous questions, responsibilities and emotions surrounding life and death, and I was using him to justify my own beliefs and opinions as they are inadequately expressed on a poorly applied 3×8 vinyl sticker. I finally took to heart something that I’d heard a million times and is, frankly, so elementary that I’m a little embarrassed about it: Bumper stickers serve no function besides patting the back of those fellow drivers who agree with you, and pissing off those fellow drivers who disagree with you. Either way it serves a selfish purpose, and one that many times dehumanizes some very important issues.
That man’s story, and the overarching issues of what it means to be pro-life are both extremely complex. The fact is, you simply can’t boil down all the complexities, the emotions, the politics, the morality and ethics of the pro-life debate into a bumper sticker; because for all of the polemics and sterile moralizing that goes on on either side of the pro-life debate (and other battlefields of the “culture wars”), at the end of the day we’re dealing with human beings, and in the process of defending our beliefs we sinfully ignore the humanity of others (which is ironic in my case since I am pro-life and talk about the sanctity of life and all that).
Advertising moral claims on your car to people that you have a slim chance of developing a relationship with, of explaining yourself to, and especially of genuinely listening to their side of things is counter-productive at best. We must acknowledge the image of Christ in our opponents and allies alike, and that’s really hard to do when the entire debate is fought with bumper stickers.
So, I covered up my politically charged bumper sticker with another one. It says:
I’VE KILLED PEOPLE FOR LESS, MOTHERF#$@&*, SO BACK OFF!
Rights and Community: A Christian Reflection on Abortion Ethics Part II
February 14, 2009
|
II: Prooftexts, Rights & Other Myths
If you want a peek at the rest of this series, Stanley Hauerwas’ “Abortion, Theologically Understood” is my cheat sheet.
After some study, it quickly became apparent to me that there is so much nonsense floating around masquerading as Christian abortion ethics that it was necessary to clear the air a bit before we could continue. This list was originally going to be a quick adendum to my first post but I soon realized it warranted it’s own roman numeral.
Below is a list of what I’ll call inappropriate categories to discuss abortion ethics. They’re inappropriate because they often mislead the lifers and the choicers into opposite sides on an issue that is, in reality, a proverbial rabbit hole. They’re grouped loosely into two categories: Scripture and Reason. Obviously, I think both will have something to say to my final ethic, but I think it’s best for me to explain just how I will use these two forms of authority by first clearly stating how I will not use them.
I also want to say out front that this discussion is distinctly Christian and uses my interpretation of the Church as a radically counter-intuitive community to the secular mindset. If you are not Christian, the arguments in these posts probably wont do much for you—rather, we’ll have to hope a Christian community living authentically will show you what we mean.
Scripture Holes
In most of the ancient cultures from which we get our Scripture, offspring is widely considered to be a gift. As my undergrad OT prof would say, “Israel’s greatest possession was not the temple or the promised land, but its sons and daughters.” For this reason, on intentional, systematic abortion Scripture is silent. Such an idea would’ve been as foreign as an iPhone.
This is unlike other ethical issues we’ve discussed on this blog where, at times, Scripture seems conflicted within itself or in contrast to contemporary experience. This is especially difficult for those traditions that demand something be explicitly spelled out in Scripture in order for it to be believed. Unfortunately, this leads to goofy interpretations of inculturated texts which only muddle the larger conversation.
1. Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17 “You shall not murder.”
To cite this as a prooftext against abortion is a bit embarrassing. No one is arguing in favor of murder. Rather, it is whether or not we can define abortion as murder.2. Exodus 21:22-25 “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage [...]“
This text is a piece of property law. If a pregnant woman is assaulted and dies, then the case is treated as an act of murder. However, if only the fetus dies, the husband is paid a fine since he has been robbed of a potential source of progeny. Interestingly, this text seems to draw a distinction between the life of the woman and the life of the fetus. However, its whole concern is on accidental abortion, not the intentional termination of a fetus.3. Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5 “[...]it was you who knit me together in my mother’s womb[...]“
These poetic passages are the most common “prooftexts” that I’ve seen. Certainly, they can say something to the debate but we must not put too much weight on their interpretation. They say nothing of a fetus’ status as a “person.” They are poetic expressions of God’s foreknowledge—God knew his creation before we were born, before our conception even. It’s not completely irrelevant, but it’s certainly not preoccupied with our modern definitions of personhood.4. Luke 1:44 “For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leapt for joy.”
This passage is entirely Christological. The author is not attempting to say something about the status of the unborn John as a person, but the importance of Mary as the mother of Christ.
Reason Holes
In the public debate, abortion ethics are discussed primarily according to the criteria of Reason. Too often, this has Christians falling into categories that have no foundation in our faith, but rather in secular ideals.
1. A Women’s Issue
Why is that we say only women have abortions? Was it just a woman who conceived of the child in the first place? The man who impregnates a woman and abandons her makes a decision about their child—whether he wants to or not. Gentlemen, it’s time we start taking responsibility for where we’re installing our appliances.2. A Conflict of Rights
Unfortunately, abortion is too often reduced to a competition between the rights of the mother vs. those of the child. Whoever said anything about rights?! As a Christian, I have no right to life—I have no rights at all! Life is a gift from God and no one has any claim to deserving it. No Christian has autonomy over their own bodies. We died to that when we decided to follow Christ and belong to one another. Negotiating rights is the way Liberal societies like ours achieve cooperative agreements between individuals who have absolutely nothing in common except for a fear of death and a mutual desire for protection. As Stanley Hauerwas observes:“We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature.
3. Privacy
This is the preoccupation of Roe vs. Wade and the most common argument for abortion today. In light of Christian community (and I must reiterate that this only makes sense within Christian community) the right to privacy or individual choice is distinctively unchristian. We are accountable to each other to see that individual choices both edify the community and exemplify God’s renewal of creation.4. The Sanctity of Life
I addressed this in my posts on nonviolence. A Christian does not preserve life because he believes it to be inherently sacred but because, as created beings, we don’t see another human’s life as ours to take. Our respect for life is not a statement about life, but rather about its creator. Again, I go to Hauerwas:
“To say that life is an overriding good is to underwrite the modern sentimentality that there is absolutely nothing in this world worth dying for. Christians know that Christianity is simply extended training in dying early.”5. Determining When Human Life Begins
This is an impossible task—both scientifically and Scripturally. Moreover, shouldn’t Christians be as hopeful as possible? Didn’t Jesus make a point of radical inclusion for just these gray individuals from the fringe of society?6. Quality of Life
It’s misleading to say that “no unwanted child should ever be born.” Just who is that doesn’t want them? The mother? Isn’t this the point where the Church should step in and say, “we want them” or “God wants them”? Is this not one step away from advocating infanticide amongst the poor?7. What if Mary had decided to abort Jesus?
“What if Hitler’s mother had decided to abort him?” Don’t waste time with hypotheticals.
Having cleared the work desk a bit, we can now move forward in building a Christian ethic. To all those visiting our blog for the first time because of the volatile nature of this series:
Have at me!
Rights and Community: A Christian Reflection on Abortion Ethics Part I
February 12, 2009
|
I: A Better Bumper Sticker
As a college student, I wrote an Onion style satire article with the headline, “ABORTION IS MURDER” BUMPER STICKER REPLACED WITH “ABORTION IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CUT AND DRY ANSWER.”
I feel we could all benefit from a dose of humility on this issue. This is partially true because abortion represents so much more than itself in modern American culture. Abortion is a clash of worldviews involving such vague conflicts as the definition of the body, and the rights of the individual vs. the state. Often (but not always!) how one falls on the abortion question indicates a set of other moral opinions as well.
With so much at stake, villianization and militancy is inevitable, making dialogue even more difficult. This series is an attempt to use my understanding of Christian faith to reflect on abortion ethics in hopes of creating genuine, productive, cruelty-free dialogue.
Obviously, I am writing from a Christian perspective, thus many of the points I argue will only make sense within a Christian worldview. Beginning with the next post, I’ll discuss:
II. both Scripture-based and Reason-based categories innapropriate for discussing abortion,
III. part of my Christian abortion ethic using themes from the New Testament,
IV. the rest of my Christian abortion ethic using reflections on culture,
V. final thoughts on the political ramifications of this ethic.
Finally, I must acknowledgte my debt to Richard B Hays’ Moral Vision of the New Testament for much of the textual research that I’ll post.
Move on to Part II.
Fr. Richard Neuhaus On Slate
January 11, 2009
http://www.slate.com/id/2208326/
The always open-minded yet stubbornly liberal Slate Magazine did a pretty good feature on the life of Richard Neuhas who died last week. Despite obvious reservations with his pro-life writings, the author is quite complementary of conservative Catholicism’s modern ethical champion.
An interesting quote:
After his conversion to Catholicism in 1990, Neuhaus tried to forge an alliance with evangelicals to address shared areas of moral concern. The effort caught the attention of, among others, Karl Rove, and the GOP improved its share of the Catholic vote in both 2000 and 2004. That effort was misguided from the start, and Neuhaus should have known better. He once wrote, “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.” But to Catholics, evangelicals are not orthodox and vice-versa, and the differences are not small. Catholic social doctrine, including opposition to abortion, is rooted in a dogmatic belief in human dignity. Evangelical political theology is rooted in Calvin’s belief in human depravity. Both groups may oppose abortion, but their approaches to the role of religion in society are vastly different.When religion is reduced to ethics, the church is permitted to enter the public square under the guise of a moral authority. But once you sever the link between the central animating dogmas of faith and the moral teachings that flow from there, you invite a cheap moralism, a religion of external conformity to prescribed norms rather than an internal assent of faith.
In case you’re worried the media is pretending to be an expert again in telling us all about ourselves, here’s the author’s bio.
Post-Election, Pre-Advent Reflections: “God’s Way of Dealing With Sin”
November 15, 2008
I have never been so concerned with politics in my whole life. I am not sure if this is healthy or not. Both before, and especially after this election, I have been wondering how to interact with the system in good conscience as a Christian. One of the main questions I have asked myself is how much power should we attempt to exert over a culture; especially in this, a democratic Republic? When is it acceptable to seek to change laws that affect the whole populace, but are motivated by our Religious conscience?
I even got in a heated discussion about gay marriage. Though I defend a traditional position on actual homosexual activity, I tend to be convinced that it is in the confines of the local congregation that that should be lived out. Not that I see the wider society benefiting in any great way by allowing gay marriage, but it is not an issue that seems worthy of court battles and reforendums.
Still, as my sparing partner pointed out, there does not seem to be a consistent hermeneutic in my position. “Why is it that I can allow for gay marriage, but would like to change abortion policies?” This election, and this question, has made me ask: “Do I want to change abortion policies?” Because I do abhor abortion, nonetheless I do not think that outlawing it and prosecuting poverty stricken young minorities is going to be the best way answer to that problem. So again…
In a democratic Republic, how should a Christian attempt to be political and still keep their soul?
As I have been adventing for advent, I want to offer to you some reflections I have had on Luke’s infancy narrative.
In ch2 we see Joseph and Mary in Nazareth. In the narrative before this point we have the Magnificat of Mary and the Benedictus of Zechariah. In both of these joyous poems we see the advent of Israel’s Messiah described in terms very familiar to those who can recall the words of the prophets. God, in his faithfulness, is going to restore the broken people, He is going to cast down the mighty, humble the proud, defeat the enemies of Israel. Jesus is described as a “mighty Saviour,” and as one from the “line of David,” a king indeed. So we might be excused for expecting something other than what we get in the next verses.
A baby. In a feeding trough. In a barn.
Indeed, a heavenly host is at this very moment coming in song and glory upon……kings and magistrates?
No. Shepherds.
It is almost in direct contrast to Herod, who in only a few verses, upon hearing the announcement of John the Baptist that indeed the Messiah is coming, will imprison him and will eventually kill him. This is how kings rule, and faithful Jews would probably have expected the Messiah to deal in kind to Herod. But apparently the King, who will dispense with the enemies of Israel, who will restore a broken people and rule over them, is a bit different than what might have been expected.
How is the Messiah going to give the Isrealites the forgiveness of sin? How was he to overcome the evil which is frustrating the plans of Israel’s God? How are we to overcome disregard for life and creation-denying sexuality? Luke tells us next, that Jesus lineage goes all the way back to Adam. Jesus is going to fix what Adam broke, and he is going to do it for the whole world. Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham, but Luke starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam.
In Luke Jesus tells us that the greatest is the one who welcomes the child in the name of Jesus. In Mark, when two of the disciples wish to be seated at Jesus’ right and left hands, ruling with him, dispensing justice with him, he says that the “Kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, but it should not be so among them. Instead they should serve on another.” Indeed, in John, when Jesus is given “all authority in heaven and on earth” he proceeds to wash the feet of the disciples.
In a democratic Republic, how should a Christian attempt to be political and still keep their soul?
Here is our king…a baby…in a feed trough…in a barn
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
