Allegiance and Politics

Thanks to a friend who posted this link on his blog to an article about Obama and faith. It got me thinking that I wanted to post the story sometime soon and reflect on it, and then I realized that in order to even remotely have a chance of the information being helpful before the primary election, I should throw it online for your reading pleasure – uh, now. So – here is the link to the story, posted on the Wallis and friends “God’s Politics” blog, which mostly clears up some of the accusations and mis-information about Obama’s background and faith that have been floating around in the media.

This story also brings up for me the larger (and more important) issue of how I think a candidate’s faith – his/her particular, tradition-inspired, community-specific, historic, acted-on and lived-out, faith – SHOULD greatly matter to voters considering a candidate’s potential leadership ability. In an earlier post, I discussed a bit about how advocating that Christians look only at a candidate’s “leadership ability,” or “integrity,” or “trustworthiness” (as some have suggested people of faith do), is incomplete. I have a much larger theology behind this thought, but basically it boils down to the idea that as a Christian, I believe that everything ought to be situated under the lordship of Christ. This means that politics is not only a matter of personal choice (or on the other hand, irrelevant to one’s personal relationship with Jesus), or a matter of only being effective or driven by a philosophical decision (motivated by sentiments like “I prefer small government” or “I prefer diversity.”) Decisions about politics – along with everything else – ought to flow out of my journey with and toward God, and so they become a matter of faithful allegiance. I might like small government, or diversity – but why? Does God say anything about these preferences, for example? Out of my first allegiance, I should listen to what God says first - above personal choice, preference, philosophy or government theory.  

So while God says something significant about qualities like being trustworthy, or effective, or faithful – God also tells us a lot about many other qualities that ought to matter to Christians when considering public leaders: God’s Word and the church tell us how we are to see the world, relate to our neighbors near and far, why violence rips apart creation, why biblical justice matters, why stewarding relationships and economics matters, why life matters - and every other issue under the sun (including concepts that relate to why or why not specific questions like “small government” and “diversity” might matter). Jim Wallis and others during previous elections used language somewhat related to this concept when they argued that “moral values” were broader than the stereotypical hot-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. I DO think that God has a lot to say about those two issues (along with many other moral issues like those already mentioned), but a particular political philosophy is what drove those two issues to becoming primary for certain people within certain political persuasions. And that allegiance to that political philsophy is what lets many of those same voices now say that Christians should NOT look too closely at a candidate’s religion, but stick to if they are trustworthy and good leaders (such as these endorsements for Romney – particularly those from Falwell, Colson, and Thomas – and comments found in this article, seem to suggest). Allegiance means that we ought to subject our preferences, opinions, and personal comforts to what we think God is asking of us – and that sometimes requires taking a step back in order to even see where our preferences are coming from, what “worldview” is grounding our decision.

Allegiance also means that we value particular faith – as embodied by specific traditions, actual fleshed-out communities and concrete faith practices – and not just general “conservative values” or “socially moral beliefs” (or “liberal” values), as some have argued when looking at a candidate. I am not saying anything negative (or positive) about particular candidates here (like Romney, for example) - but again, am questioning what is behind the endorsements, conversations, and philosophies. Is one’s particular faith really not important for most Christians? Or has a ‘foreign allegiance’ – to a political philosophy of ‘conservative values’ in this case – subsumed the primary place that our theological worldview should have as we make these decisions? (There are of course many foriegn allegiances of many stripes, across the spectrum – ‘liberal’ philosophies, ‘fundamentalist’ ones, etc.) An interesting conversation would be if someone argued, for example, that her particular biblical, theological worldview held X, Y and Z concepts as most important, and that a specific candidate (i.e.Romney, or whoever) best embodied those values; but I haven’t heard as much related to that conversation. I’ve only heard the argument that comes after this thought process – as in, X candidate fits this certain philosophy, so I like X. I am more interested in knowing why, and how, that candidate made it to the top of the list – why, and how, someone adopts a philosophy, and where faith entered into that decision. So particularity, worldview, and analyzing what is behind ‘endorsing’ a candidate points me back to the issue of allegiance for the Christian once again. All should be subject to Christ – which implies that all should be thought through, looked behind and honestly evaluated – in light of Christ’s call on my life.

Of course, thoughtful and faithful Christians whose first allegiance is to Christ can arrive at different answers to what they think God wants for our public life. I respect and enjoy discussing those differences – especially when we all start from a place of acknowledging allegiance to God first – and think that those types of conversations and dialogue based on how and why we interpret scripture, theology, and the place of the political/public life are crucial to have within the church, across “political lines.” I think that practice can help us as faithful people discern and grow together within the church – and put party politics, philosophies, and personal preferences underneath our faith convictions (wow – check out the unintentional “p” alliteration in the end of that last sentence! 🙂 ) Exploring the “why” and “how” of how we might connect faith and politics produces engaging and fruitful conversations – but I think that we must start with the common conviction and end goal (telos) as faithful people that Christ motivates all other decisions.

Ok – soapbox over – your thoughts on this on the eve of election day?