It’s My Party – I’ll Believe What I Want
Today I want to spend some time discussing the intersection of politics and religion, more specifically, how our opinions about subjects converge (or diverge) and play out in our lives.
First, let’s start by establishing one foundational principle: The Bible is the sole authoritative source of information regarding how we should conduct our lives. Of course, there is much more I could say about this, but I think this simple statement is sufficient for the rest of this discussion. It’s okay if you don’t believe this to be true. However, that does not change the fact that it is true. If we accept this foundational principle as fact, and then begin to examine the vast array of ideas, philosophies, opinions, social mores, and strongly held beliefs, we will just begin to scratch the surface of what is potentially an enormous problem for believers caught in the middle. I say potentially because it only becomes a problem if we depart from this foundational principle.
If we go back to that foundational principle for a moment – the Bible is the sole authoritative source of information regarding how we should conduct our Lives – the Bible becomes a collection of writings that is less subject to our individual interpretations than it is a telling of what has happened, what is to come, and (perhaps most importantly) what is. With the exceptions of poetic and prophetic writings, the Bible stands on its own legs. In other words, it says what it says… at the point where we decide to interpret scripture we potentially place ourselves on a slippery slope. I say potentially here because not all interpretation is bad. Interpretation, where it lacks appropriate historical context, revolves around individual belief structures – which are then imposed upon the scripture – is bad in that it creates erroneous conclusions and unstable theology. Interpretation of this sort can lead to cherry picking. Cherry picking is generally the result of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning (assuming the conclusion is valid without having proven it), where scripture is concerned, is very dangerous. That said, there is a case to be made for sound Biblical interpretation.
Responsible and sound Biblical interpretation relies heavily upon historical context (which, in this case, is also religious context). In other words, this is when we come to the scripture and allow the scripture to completely define every element of the world in which it exists. To put it more plainly, when we come to the scripture, we must do so as a clean slate. The more we try to bring our own ideas, cultural values, personal values, ideals, social ideals, Etc, into the interpretive process, the less likely we are to walk away from the scripture with a stable and accurate understanding of what God is trying to convey.
Now that we’ve established the framework, let’s talk about the problem that occurs when our political and social ideas intersect with our religious beliefs when those beliefs have not been established through a sound approach to the reading and interpretation of the scriptures.
I recently spent some time scrolling through my Facebook feed when I came across something that hit me as just slightly odd (side note – I don’t condone communicating critical or complex ideas through memes as it leads to oversimplification and misunderstanding). When I looked at the organization that created the post I noticed they claimed to be Christians who aligned with a specific political point of view. Unfortunately, this is not that uncommon. I say unfortunately because, in the United States we have two major political parties; however, there are numerous Christian sects, denominations, Etc. To me, it seems odd that all these (sometimes divergent) religious beliefs could be distilled down into two political factions. They almost make it seem like the parties perfectly represent the beliefs of their adherents. This should be our first clue that there is a problem when we try to overlap political viewpoints and religious beliefs. At any rate, I decided to click the link to first go to this organization’s Facebook page and then their website. When I went to their website I didn’t immediately notice anything terribly troubling (other than the fact that they were heavily touting their political views and denigrating those that held opposing views, which I expected).
However, as I started to carefully read what they had to say I noticed a number of problematic themes and ideas. The more I read, the more of the issues seemed to multiply. Please don’t misunderstand, it wasn’t that all of the ideas or themes were necessarily erroneous, so much as the fact that there were very valid points intermingled with misleading ideas, problematic opinions, and flat-out lies. I think most of us probably recognize that the most effective lies are the ones that are carefully intermingled with perhaps larger amounts of Truth. We see Satan (and those aligned with him) use this tactic in several Biblical passages. I think most of us also recognize (using the strictest interpretation of true and false) that when someone makes a statement and one small part of that statement is false it invalidates the entire statement. In most courts of law this would be considered perjury.
So as a whole, when I looked at many of their ideas, those ideas were based on Biblical principles. However, their interpretation of those principles, how those principles should be played out in our lives, and how those principles intersect with our political viewpoints, were sometimes fundamentally flawed because they departed from the foundational principle that I articulated earlier. That is, they brought their own sense of morality and personal beliefs to the scripture and used the result to push forward what they think Christianity is about – and ultimately, their agenda. And of course, I saw the obligatory rant about how the opposing side is absolutely wrong. I’ll pause here to let you know that the reason why I have not specifically called out the political affiliation of this entity is because this issue exists at both ends of the political spectrum.
Organizations like this (and yes, this one certainly does) will tell you that certain things are more important than others because of the amount of emphasis placed on them in the Bible. They will assert that we should focus on certain sins, behaviors, actions, ideas, Etc, based on Biblical Focus or time spent discussing them. If we were to apply the same logic to murder, for example, one could argue that murder is less important to God than money simply because by percentage more scriptures talk about how we deal with money than the fact that we must not commit murder. If money is not more important than murder, why does the Bible spend so much more time talking about money? Enter the use of moral absolutes and plain logic… The Bible declares that murder is wrong. There is a specific penalty for murder. This seems fairly straightforward, yes?
If we take the logical fallacy of what I’ll call “a proportional approach” to scripture, one step further, our society as a whole should be very concerned about how people spend their money and not really concerned about whether they’re killing each other. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, that’s because it is…
By using this “proportional approach”, it is evident that some people believe some of the things God has to say to us are less fundamentally important than others. So let me ask you this: if you were standing face-to-face with your Creator right now and He were to begin speaking – and speak perhaps for one to two hours – would you feel that some things he had for you or less important than others? At what point would you decide to just tune out? Or, would you recognize, in that moment, that you were standing before the Creator of the universe and that everything He has for you is important? Is it at least possible that the reason the Bible spends more time discussing money that it does murder is that proper stewardship of money is a more challenging subject/issue for us to grasp?
How does all of this relate to the intersection of politics and religion? Well, here it is…
When we decide that we will use our own individual lens of interpretation to understand scripture then cherry-pick scriptures to support our ideas about what is right and what is wrong then further anchor those biases by arguing based on the flawed notion that some things God has to say are less important than others, we are practicing idolatry. If, in your mind, God and His word must conform to your innermost feelings about what is right and wrong, you are practicing idolatry, not Christianity.
When we decide to align our religious beliefs with our political affiliation we are practicing idolatry because, the Bible is our framework for what is and what should be. Any attempt to alter the word of God or His fundamental nature and characteristics, based on our individual positions is an indication that we believe God is a creation of our minds rather than the Creator of all that is. Furthermore, as stated earlier, there are two major political parties and a vast array of different approaches to the Christian faith. Neither party has a monopoly on truth or morality.
Where does this leave the average Christian who wants to be in right standing with God but also wants to participate in electoral processes? The answer is simple… It may seem cliché; however, if we do our homework about candidates and ballot measures then vote according to what we know is right, we stand the best chance of yielding a positive result. We must also take into consideration the fact that, as Believers, we may all want the same things but have different ideas about how to achieve them. Perhaps the best example of this is how we approach helping those in need.
There is one school of thought that says the state should care for those in need. There is another school of thought that says the individual should care for those in need and that individual accountability for outcomes is essential to success. The Bible is absolutely clear on this subject – believers are to care for those in need (and yes, individual accountability is essential to success). The difference is that one faction believes we can and should help those in need by using government resources while the other faction believes we should accomplish this through private giving. Both factions argue that you cannot force people to do what you believe is right through legislation. However, both factions attempt to do this according to their own agendas. At the end of the day, the question is, what are you (the individual) doing to change the situation? Having an idea about how to change something (and attacking those who disagree) is far less powerful than actually changing something.
Having said all of that, I would strongly caution you against looking for a perfect candidate. This is also why I personally find it problematic when candidates tout their faith as a selling point.
