Christianity & Politics Do Mix

Christiane Amanpour (one of the most lyrical names I've ever heard) has reported a series this week on CNN about religion and politics.  Last night focused on Christianity and I just found it a tiresome retread of themes we've seem over and over.  Can somebody do some fresh reporting on Christianity?  She did one of the last interviews with Jerry Falwell, well-worn territory, hardly a fresh look at Christianity.  We're told consistently that we must recognize differences among Muslims because they're not all terrorists.  Very true.  Yet the media seem incapable of recognizing any differences or nuances among a tremendously diverse group as Christians.

Within this interview with Falwell that focused on abortion, she refers to the "radical opponents" that "have long waged" a battle against abortion, referring to the "angry zealots" who have bombed abortion clinics and killed abortionists and others associated.  These quotes give the impression, I think intentionally, that these criminals represent a sizeable portion of pro-lifers, which is completely false.  Eric Rudolph says he isn't a Christian.  Amanpour doesn't mention that these acts have been wholely and immediately condemned by virtually all pro-lifers.  But she has to find some Christian parallels to the Muslim terrorists in her previous reports this week.

The other segment that caught my attention for it's lack of originality was about Gregg Boyd's view that Christianity and politics shouldn't mix, that there is something inherently offensive about the idea that Christianity might somehow translate into definable political positions.  Why not?  Christianity certainly has principles that translate into values, and values are generally what inform people's politics.  If Christianity is something in particular, something more than our personal opinions and interpretation, it seems to me it will roughly work out into some general (and some specific) political applications.  That doesn't seem like a stretch to me.

I think Boyd is cautious, and rightly so, about making our fellowship as Christians too closely tied to politics or judging someone's Christianity by their politics.  That is a fair caution because our unity as the Body is based solely on our fellowship with Jesus.  But I just don't think it's outrageous or particularly surprising that Christianity would have some specific influence on our political views.  And certainly, our Christian values should also always dictate that we treat each other respectfully and charitably even when we disagree.  Maybe that's what's really bothering Boyd.

Amanpour tries to make the comparison when reporting on the moral standards at a Christian college.  She says this reminds her of totalitarianism, apparently the imposition of sharia law.  Christian political activity and even evangelism are based on persuasion.  It's fundamental to Christianity that imposition of a confession doesn't equal a true confession.  Christians seek to persuade not impose by power.  We engage the public discourse, we don't quash it.  "God's Warriors" is quite an equivocation in the CNN series because Christian activities are fundamentally different than radical Islam.

Joe Carter offers a good evaluation of the series.

Comments

[Kevin W]

Most of the time, not all, the person that says Christianity and politics don’t mix means that Christian moral values get in the way of their political goals and causes.

When anyone says “Christianity and politics don’t mix” I say “Atheism and politics don’t mix.”

See how stupid that sounds?

[Kevin W]

Joe Carter wrote a thoughtful piece on the CNN special at NRO today. It’s definitely worth reading.

It’s entitled: Theocracy in America

[Mark]

Interesting that even politically liberal bloggers are pointing out the myopia of Amanapour's report. Sharon Cobb is a former contributor to NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw:

God's Warriors' On CNN Severely Lacked Context And Contrast Last Night When Covering The Jews

http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2007/08/gods-warriors-on-cnn-severely-lacked.html

[James]

No christian I know wants to institute a theocracy. The real problem for the secularists is that we want to inform/conform the laws of the nation according to our moral beliefs.

But so what? The secularists want to do the same - conform the laws according to their beliefs. So what makes secular beliefs/ethics more right or correct than religious beliefs/ethics?

Why should we embrace one and reject the other....

[alan aronson]

It isn't that Christianity and politics don't mix; that is a silly statement. It would be impossible for ones moral underpinnings not to have consequences in ones political views.

The problem is that the same religious certainty that gives one spiritual comfort can lead to problems if that same certainty is applied to public policy without due reflection. Hence we have autos being stoned on the Sabbath and rape victims being stoned in Nigeria.

In this country this certainty is reflected in Scott's answer to my question in the below thread on rights. In this case the problem isn't that one seeks to reduce the abortion rate. This is a legitimate public policy concern. However, when one seeks to do this with a focus that is indifferent to the consequences then we are likely to have unforeseen consequences arise and they may be serious.

Christians are also citizens and we all have a responsibility, regardless of our religion, to consider the broader effects of that which we would inflict on our fellow citizens. If some Christians are indifferent to constitutional government, they should just say so. Scott was honest enough to so indicate and at least he gets credit for that.

[Kevin W]

>>”The problem is that the same religious certainty that gives one spiritual comfort can lead to problems if that same certainty is applied to public policy without due reflection.”

This is not exclusive to Christian certainty. One could easily say the same of those who speak with certainty on all other fronts. In fact, I rarely hear of political discussion (by politicians and others) where there is not a tone of ‘certainty.’

The fact is; we all think we have good ideas. Ideas as well as policy should be accessed on merit, logic, facts, and benefit to the citizens. I believe Christian moral values have all of the above, and one not need a Bible handy to prove it when in discourse about politics.

[Doug t]

Alan said,
"Christians are also citizens and we all have a responsibility, regardless of our religion, to consider the broader effects of that which we would inflict on our fellow citizens."

BZZT once again, you fail to see the irony of your own words. It is exactly the broader effects of murder inflicted on the unborn that we consider and you do not.

As a Christian, I can't imagine the difficulty of forcing my daughter to have a baby concieved by an act of rape...yet that's the logical outcome of my philosophical position. I acknowledge within myself what you will not in yourself.

Christians are NOT indifferent to constitutional government. We think the constitution should be applied to the rights of a broader group of people (the unborn) than you do. I know it's hard for you, but see if you can go a couple of posts without making this mistake again.

[James]

For Christians, Great!

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ac7b677e7241a531b617

[alan aronson]

"This is not exclusive to Christian certainty. One could easily say the same of those who speak with certainty on all other fronts. In fact, I rarely hear of political discussion (by politicians and others) where there is not a tone of ‘certainty.’"

Agreed Kevin, The certainty I refer to is that felt by all ideologues - religious and secular. I'm not questioning that good ideas can come from Christianity; I'm only pointing out that we have a proposal to alter our Constitution in a fundamental way and I haven't seen much serious discussion of the implications of that change.

"As a Christian, I can't imagine the difficulty of forcing my daughter to have a baby concieved by an act of rape."

If your daughter is old enough to get pregnant, she's too old for you to "force" her to do anything of the sort. Fortunately she can go to a judge and bypass dad.

I'm being consistent as I don't consider the state to have an interest in a pregnancy until around the time of "quickening" and we don't have a legal person until birth.

[alan aronson]

Oops, the last part of the above post refers to doug's, not Kevin's - sorry.

Hi Alan

first you stated: "The problem is that the same religious certainty that gives one spiritual comfort can lead to problems if that same certainty is applied to public policy without due reflection."

Then later you stated: "I don't consider the state to have an interest in a pregnancy until around the time of "quickening" and we don't have a legal person until birth."

Are you certain about that?
Are you going to apply this "certainty" to public policy?
Have you thought out the consequences if you are wrong?

seriously Alan, what if the unborn are human beings and really should be protected from unjustified harm?

It seems that you are so certain that the unborn are not human beings that you are willing to aggressively lobby for a policy that allows them to be killed.

sincerely,
Todd

[Doug t]

Alan said,

"I'm being consistent as I don't consider the state to have an interest in a pregnancy until around the time of "quickening" and we don't have a legal person until birth."

You want the sate to have an interest in killing the unborn (ending a pregnancy as you put it) so you do have the government's hands all over a woman's womb. And "quickening" is so arbitrary you might as well say "taco" while you're at it.

You're quick to remove the legal rights of every pre-birth human that ever existed...I suppose you still call this 'progressive'?

Luckily, if the states can take away the rights of the unborn you won't be able to complain when they take away the rights of pregnant women and arbitrarily ascribe the unborn with full human rights. One man's modus ponens...