Political watchdawggieAs the 4th-year “silly season” approaches, we can expect religion and politics to start inter-mingling yet again.  As a Christian and a voter, weighing ones civic responsibility with the give-and-take nature of politicians, 2008 sizes up to be a year of few clear choices.  To wit:

Democrats: For many Christians, the Democrats support of abortion rights is enough to eliminate any thoughts of voting for one (I never have in a general election – though where I live there are few Democrats who run for local positions, as ‘Democrat’ and ‘Communist’ are semi-synonymous.)  Besides this, the D stance on homosexual marriage, religion in the public square and economic issues rule many of their national candidates out for Christians.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner, and as Jezebel reborn (remembering her tenure as First Lady), she’s one of the clear candidates that most church-going folks I know would rather eat broken glass than vote for.  Her stances on family issues, her hostility toward those serving in uniform (on a personal level), and her involvement in the vast corruptions of her husband’s administration make her unpalatable, to say the least.

Barak Obama, who has received some discussion here as a result of his speaking on AIDS at World AIDS Day at Saddleback, is currently in a distant second place (according to some polls). His stances on key issues, coupled with his relative inexperience make him a weak candidate.  His ‘newness’ (compared to the rest of the field) and more techno-savvy image have given him a boost to this point, but – looking beneath the surface – he’s not someone I’d ever consider voting for.

Republicans:  Despite suggestions to the contrary, God is not a Republican.  While a number of issues claimed by the GOP are much more compatible with a Christian worldview (conservative judicial philosophy, family-friendly policy, pro-life, emphasis on personal responsibility and private/local autonomy in caring for the poor), their record at actually carrying out laws and policies congruent with their stated values is, to be kind, wanting (at best).  In many ways, Christians have become to the Republican party what African Americans have become to the Democratic party – a crowd to which you have to pay lip service, but whose interests don’t need to be served.

In 2008, the front-runners appear to be John McCain (whose policy record is all over the map, and who has some stated antipathy toward Christians in the public square), Rudy Guiliani (who is anti-life, socially liberal and has a number of personal issues that can be paralleled with a certain ex-governor of Arkansas), a Mitt Romney (a Mormon with a mixed policy record).

Of the candidates running, or considering running, the only one I can even register a pulse of interest for is Fred Thompson, who – ironically – does not make his religion (Protestant Christian) a political issue, but whose voting record in much more in line with what I believe to be supportive of the interests of Christians.  He’s not declared himself a candidate yet, but appears to be likely to do so.  Regardless, though, he’s not a front-runner.

A Christian’s Response

I know that there are Christians who, for a number of reasons, do not participate in politics – whether at the voting booth or in office – and that is their choice.  I, however, believe that, as a Christian, we should participate as individuals, but that we should be VERY careful in trying to have the church take on the role of a political spokesman.  It does not behoove us to be linked to any one political party, because we serve Christ – not man or manmade organizations. 

I believe that Christians can and should run for public office, and should maintain a high level of integrity in such offices which they may obtain.  However, with the compromise required in office and the conflicting weighing and balancing of governing, it is dangerous to make assumptions that a Christian in a governing position will automatically be governing as Christ would.  Changing lives happens one person at a time, led by God in community with His people – not via political movements – which is something I think many American Christians have forgotten.

As an individual voter, I think that personal character and a demonstrated record of support and action on issues which most align with Christian principals.  The rub comes when there are trade-offs to make, which the 2008 race is sizing up to force us to make, more so than usual…

2008 will be an interesting year…

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm and is filed under Original Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

16 Comments(+Add)

1   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Have you (Chris L.) or anyone out there read David Kuo’s book “Tempting Faith”?

It kind of ties in to a few things you’re saying here…I would love to hear what others thought of that book…

2   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm

I have not read David Kuo’s book, but my understanding is that it talks about how people in the Bush administration have kowtowed to the Religious Right while berating the likes of James Dobson behind their backs.

Does Kuo offer any ideas for Christians to productively engage in politics?

I am afraid that the book will just get me more upset with the Religious Right, the current administration and also with myself for having marched in lockstep with their agenda for so long.

3   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Politics is a money drenched, self boasting, opponent smearing, and promise breaking illusion that many have fallen into. Christians should avoid it and concentrate on the real kingdom.

4   David C    http://davidcho.blogspot.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Well, Henry. You just described Evangelicalism and those characterizations cover not just mega churches, but Ken and Ingrid’s brand as well.

money drenched – CHECK
self boasting – CHECK
opponent smearing – CHECK!, or should I say Slice!
promise breaking illusion – CHECK

5   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm

So, Henry, let me see if I get this straight. Not only should Christians not be of the world, but they shouldn’t be in it, either?

6   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm

One of the (few) good things about elections is the primary/general pairing. In the first, you get to vote your conscience. In the second, you vote your pragmatism (even if you have to hold your nose when approaching the ballot box).

7   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 am

I just see we need ot be good citizens and vote our conscience as Followers of Christ (King) Jesus.

It is pretty simple and with God’s Kingdom in the forefront and as the filter, I just vote the best I can…

I do not see “political” lines as I vote as recently we had a choice of a crook and a Democrat who I feared would take our vote for him as a sign people did not believe the war Iraq “just”.

The crook lost and Dem seems to be wavering a bit on the anti-war idea, yet at least in Montana most Dems are closer to Cali Rep in ideology… (Slight exaggeration there).

Blessings,
iggy

8   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am

Hey David C., that was pretty clever and I agree with your assessment. Remember when the Bible was written there was no democracy. Democracy is a man made invention that allows the flesh of man to govern himself. There are many and varied problems with Christians being involved, not the least of which is the illusion that it accomplishes anything.

For example, We’ve had how many years of Republican presidents and sometimes with a corresponding Republican congress? Reagan – 8yrs, Bush I – 4yrs, Bush II – 8yrs., all total 20 yrs.

Question, in those twenty years how many bills were presented to congress for a vote that would overturn Roe v. Wade? Answer = NONE. Not even for a vote.

So whose been played the fool?

See you next year in November, this time it will be different…

9   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
May 24th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Kuo’s last chapter recommended that Christians “fast” from politics. Not necessarily not voting, I don’t think, but more in activism. Really, I thing the books is worth the read, as is Kuo’s blog.

He doesn’t go about slashing and burning past friends and relationships, but plainly talks about his experience in a fair fashion. I also liked that he mentioned Jesus on probably 85 percent of the pages. He doesn’t shy away from talking about Jesus. At all.

I think Kuo really points out that politics and power corrupt, and makes a few interesting comments about the kind of person drawn into that power.

10   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 25th, 2007 at 8:34 am

Kuo’s main point is that the Republicans have taken advantage of the religious right (whoever they are).

He stole my notes.

11   Tim    http://tothetuneoftim.blogspot.com/
May 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Chris,

Not to defend his opinion, but rather to correctly identify it, Guiliani is not “anti-life” as is the common misunderstanding.

Guilani has stated several times that he hates abortion, is personally opposed to it, and as a personal matter would advise someone against it. But as a political, legal matter, he doesn’t believe put a woman in jail for it, that you have to it as a disagreement of conscience.

Here is an exact quote from an interview with Hannity & Colmes that is consistent with other interviews I’ve heard Guiliani give on the subject:

HANNITY: Where does Rudy Giuliani stand on abortion? And do you think Roe v. Wade is a good law, a bad law?

GIULIANI: Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don’t like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.

However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html

12   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
May 27th, 2007 at 5:56 am

Tim – Here’s Hitler’s position on Jew burning. He is personally against it, he hates it, but he believes in Himmler’s right to choose. He respects the SS’s right to choose.

See, an indefensible paradox. Murder is murder no matter who chooses. Two things we know Guliani doesn’t hate, adultery and divorce.

13   Tim    http://tothetuneoftim.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2007 at 10:09 am

My goodness, Rick. I don’t think that is a fair or synonymous example.

14   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
May 29th, 2007 at 10:28 am

Tim,

I think that what has to be looked at is the boundary at which point “allowance of choice” becomes implicit acceptance.

The gospel is about both communities and individuals – the Kingdom and those who exist within it. God judges both people and peoples, but in America we tend to put most, if not all, emphasis on the individual – which has then spilled into the church. The northern kingdom of Israel was judged because of its idolatry, but particularly because of those who gave their children to the fire of Molech. I am sure that there were many individuals who were faithful and despised such practices, but they were judged along with the guilty as a society and suffered the earthly consequences as a result.

Being ‘personally pro-life’ but ‘pro-choice’ in policy is in the same vein, and I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a leader with that stance…

15   Tim    http://tothetuneoftim.blogspot.com/
May 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Chris, I’m not asking you to vote for Guiliani or saying his stance is a good one. I was merely pointing out the a misrepresentation on his personal opinion and stance.

Your vote is your vote and it is no business of mine unless you want to share it, which is fine either way. I have no idea which way I’ll go in the election, primary or general, but I have to admit that I’m intrigued that Guiliani was willing to admit his dilemma. Remember, he was a district and U.S. Attorney before being mayor, so like them or not, he had to follow the laws. Just as we can’t pick and choose what God asks us to follow, he had to follow this law as well. Just interesting… nothing more

16   Jeff    
July 24th, 2007 at 9:29 am

I know this post is old but I encourage all christians who are fed up with where the republican party has gone and could never vote democrat to look into Ron Paul. You tube him and tell me if he doesn’t inspire you. Look at his consistant voting track record.