Mary Katherine May of QualityMusicandBooks.com
a response to Ancient Faith Today: Faith Informing Politics
The highly charged current
American attitudes in relation to national policies among Christians is at
least as diverse as the number of Christian doctrines espoused throughout the
land. Though many Christians feel that they
are in the limelight of the debate, other religions do agree with biblical
teaching on particularly popular issues.
Religion defined as a
belief system leaves no one out of the fray when speaking about how separation
of church and state, or perhaps instead it should be phrased separation of religion and state, is interpreted in
the 21st century, and thus an ideology that particular groups police
for abuse and champion as the utopia they long for is really not an issue at
all. What the point to be debated actually
encompasses is how we the people and our elected legislators carry out policy
within the framework of such a huge number of diverse theological bases, and
how policy compromise may be executed without anyone being placed in the
position of denying their core beliefs.
Christians themselves are
not in agreement even when determining what it means to be a Christian, and
thus it is foolish for any Christian to have the expectation of a united front in relation to government,
voting criteria, and support of elected officials. I would like to say that Christians are
unique among the people in committed faith groups, but there are those believers
who do not follow Christ’s biblical teaching of turning the other cheek. We might then claim that those who resort to
violence and pushing other people’s stress points until they react are not
Christian at all—yet, are there not those in other groups who would withhold
relationship for the same reason?
I don’t have the
definitive answer. In response to the
thought provoking discussion I listened to through Ancient Faith Radio hosted by Keith Allen about
legislating Christian agenda in our diverse American society between two men who
were described as one being a conservative
and the other a liberal, I can understand
though not necessarily agree with both of them.
It is perhaps grand and
noble to claim generous benevolence toward those with whom we disagree as AmirAzarvan (political science lecturer at Kennesaw State University) did in this discussion—and yes, of course, without being in
a police state we cannot possibly govern at least what others publically
espouse to be their belief system—yet, when and if we cast our vote based upon
our Christian faith and choose against another group’s political agenda, our
claim of neutrality philosophically and essentially becomes a lie. For this reason Azarvan’s concept is in the
Christian framework of having love and respect for all is correct, but as he
presents it is poorly stated.
On the conservative side
of the discussion, William Hinkle (Minority Whip, Washington State) stated that
he votes for the candidate that most agrees with his Christian beliefs, and
this is perhaps at times the best any of us can do. The only other option in some cases is to not
vote, which then leads to the question of whether non-voters have a right to
vocalize any public opinion since they did not have a part in the decision. In the U.S.A., however, even the right to
vote is a free choice while it is required in other democratic countries.
Regarding the vote, is it now
time in America to have a conscientious objector status? For the Christian, whatever kind of Christian
the believer claims to be, the decision of how to vote should be a faith-based
decision. Having respect and love for
all people includes casting votes for what we believe is the one true way. When we say that God is love, then it also
follows that to love anyone is through our love for God. True, I cannot be anyone else’s conscience
but my own. It grieves me when my love
for family, friends and others is in conflict with what conscience is telling me with firm
conviction--that I cannot vote for sin despite what name might be hurled at me
or how I will be branded by society.
In conclusion, I am
reminded of two Bible verses relevant to this topic. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day
whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the
other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell:
but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15 KJV) and For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I
seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of
Christ. (Galatians 1:10 KJV)
