Rev. Dr. Liz Mosbo VerHage

Pastor. Professor. Consultant. Coach. Author. Wife & Mom.

Moral Values and/or Political Theology?

FAITH & POLITICS, practicing THEOLOGY

sojo-cover.jpgEditor of Sojourners and Convener of Call to Renewal, Jim Wallis, recently blogged on the start of the political season marked by the Iowa Caucuses. He wrote the following before the results were in that have now placed Obama and Huckabee in the lead (for the Democratic and Republican nominations, respectively), but Wallis’ thoughts are still interesting to ponder. Following Wallis’ publication of the New York Times Bestseller “God’s Politics” and his growing influence in the last political cycle, his blog is casting a wide net of his thoughts for this round of politics and how faith might affects the candidates and the voters. 

Below is an excerpt from his blog that I find interesting and well-done overall, but that raises a question for me starting with his comment about Martin Luther and the following paragraph on “moral values.” I’ve highlighted the sentence below in context that is most troublesome in my mind. It is, “What a candidate’s moral compass is should be more important than his/her theology or the doctrines of his/her religious tradition.” Maybe Wallis is arguing a broader point than this blog can portray, but I don’t see how one’s moral compass is formed by anything other than his/her specific, particular theology. I would NOT say that a competent Turk cannot lead a country well (as the example below points out), but instead I am wondering why a candidate’s particular theology would not, and should not, be examined as the fundamental aspect of what forms his/her moral compass? I count on Wallis himself, as well as other political and religious leaders, to be formed by their specific traditions, their church communities and doctrines, and to therefore look and act differently as a result.  How else would a candidate discussing his/her moral compass describe said morals or values? Any thoughts from you political junkies out there?

Here are Wallis’ helpful thoughts:       

“I believe the religious landscape of the 2008 political year will be dramatically different than it was in the 2004 election. And it’s quite amazing how much the issue of faith and politics has changed in such a short time. There are two fundamental shifts which have occurred, and, taken together, they constitute a real sea change in American politics.

First, in what TIME magazine has called “a leveling of the praying field” the Democrats now speak as much about faith and values as the Republicans do. For example, it has been the Democratic presidential candidates who have devoted the most time in outreach to faith communities in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina – not the Republicans. We have seen top level faith outreach operations as central to the Democratic candidates’ campaign strategies and decision-making, their “faith forums” in primary states, newsletters on family and values, and even gospel music tours. All three Democratic front-runners have spoken quite comfortably about their personal faith and its relationship to public life in national forums and debates, at religious institutions and congregations, and in media interviews. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards frequently speak of their history as committed lay persons in their denomination and know the religious community as their own; and Barack Obama sometimes sounds like a public theologian. All three, as well as other Democratic candidates, have explicitly connected their faith to a broad range of issues from poverty to health care, criminal justice, HIV/AIDS, human rights, and to war and peace.

In a striking contrast this year, the Republican Party, which has so associated itself

https://cialico.com/interactions/

with religion and “values voters” in recent years, has had a serious “God and marriage problem,” as many have pointed out. Several of the Republican frontrunners like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson have often seemed uncomfortable and awkward when the language of faith comes up, and, as many have noted, the only one among the early Republican frontrunners with a history of just one wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney, whose minority religion is suspect among many conservative evangelicals. The candidate with the strongest Christian identity, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, couldn’t get the backing of the key leaders of Religious Right and finally surged to the top tier by appealing on his own to the grassroots religious base of the party in places like Iowa and South Carolina. The contrast from 2004, when many in the GOP were describing theirs as “God’s own party,” is quite stunning.

It is now much clearer that “God is not a Republican or a Democrat,” as our bumper sticker from the last campaign read; and that is a good thing. There should be no religious litmus tests for politics – committed Christians will, and should be, on both sides of the political aisle. Indeed, people of faith should never be in any party’s or candidate’s political pocket and should, ideally, be the ultimate swing vote because of their moral independence from partisan politics. Let’s all try to remember that this political year.

Martin Luther once said that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than by an incompetent Christian, which is a good piece of wisdom to keep in mind this or any election year. What a candidate’s moral compass is should be more important than his/her theology or the doctrines of his/her religious tradition. What kind of leader will a candidate be, what are his/her guiding personal and social values, and what is his/her strength of character? These are all key questions.

Second, and even more important than the religious identities of the candidates on either side, is how the agenda of faith communities has undergone a very significant shift. Very clearly, abortion and gay marriage are not the only overriding “moral issues” for many people of faith now, though the sanctity of life (more consistently applied) and healthy families (without scapegoats) are still critical concerns. But now other key moral and religious issues have taken on great importance in the agendas of faith communities. These issues include both global and domestic poverty, pandemic diseases which ravage the developing world, the extreme violations of human rights in places like Darfur, the alarming threats of climate change and the imperatives of “creation care” of the environment, and the need for a more ethical response to the genuine threats of terrorism and a foreign policy more consistent with our best moral values.

Many recent polls show that the votes of millions in the faith community are “in play” this election season, and whichever candidate – Democrat or Republican – speaks the language of moral values and seriously addresses the wider and deeper religious agenda will find resonance this year among the faithful. And for many in the faith community, both character and competence really both matter in choosing the next president. I hear strong positive responses among people of faith when they see the qualities of moral leadership in presidential candidates.”

8 thoughts on “Moral Values and/or Political Theology?”

  1. “What a candidate’s moral compass is should be more important than his/her theology or the doctrines of his/her religious tradition.”
    I am wondering why a candidate’s particular theology would not, and should not, be examined as the fundamental aspect of what forms his/her moral compass?
    How else would a candidate discussing his/her moral compass describe said morals or values? Any thoughts from you political junkies out there?

    Good questions! And it the hope of providing good answers, I offer the following:
    + Few of us make any intelligent or moral choices about our faith. We’re “born with it”.
    + At some point in our lives we have to decide whether to embrace it, reject it outright, or virtually reject it by ignoring it,
    (a decision that we can return to any number of times).
    +there is something DEEPER and more basic than our “faith” which directs those decisions.
    To illustrate, see my http://WhatkindofGod.org/, which appeals to the deepest conscience in “believers” to decide if they can embrace and promote EVERYTHING their bible says about “god”.

  2. I just want to recommend a good site for learning about and civilly discussing the candidates personal values. It’s called http://www.fittobepres.com (Fit to be President) and it lets readers rate the candidates’ different personal attributes. I do wish that we could discuss the candidates’ faith and moral compass in a more civil manner and I think fittobepres.com is a good start. Thanks.

  3. hi liz. I read that article the day it was in my inbox and came to the same conclusion as you. I wonder if somehow he’s saying something like, “If your theology tells you that your religion is the only way, this does not mean you treat someone different… you follow a morality that treats all human being as human beings.” I am with you – our decisions should come from our theology, but I just wonder if his use of the word theology is different than what he’s thinking. I mean, how does he separate theology and morality in the first place anyway? (but if he thinks he can do this, my example would be one way I could see someone justifying the separation.) Does this make any sense? not really a political junkie, but I like it as a side hobbie. 🙂

  5. In general, I do not think that a candidate’s particular theology should be examined for any reason because it is contrary to Art. 6 of the US Constitution: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
    to any office or public trust under the United States.”
    I don’t want to ask what a candidate believes; I want to know what the candidate will do, or not do.

  6. Thanks for some great thoughts here all – I will post more later on this topic, but wanted to say yes, I agree with you Johnna that there is a lot of room for exactly what those terms all mean (which I think we need to define better then!) And yes, the whole point for me is that particular theology SHOULD be examined for a political candidate, for Christians anyway. If our allegiance is first to Christ, and all of life is part of God’s mission in the world, then how could we not have faith be part of the political realm? This line of thinking does not in any way contradict the necessary separation of church and state, which does more to help the church then the state I think – but that is another post!

  8. Hi, Im from Melbourne Australia.

    As an Australian I find USA presidential politics to be an exercise in a make pretend collective psychosis—full of sound and fury and signifying nothing (of substance about anything whatsoever). This is especially true of the Republicans.

    Also full of double minded hypocrisies all the way down the line. Imagine the response to someone like the current French President!

    That having been said please check out these two related references on religion, culture, and politics.

    1. http://www.ispeace723.org
    2. http://www.coteda.com

    Plus I quite like this assessment of the Reagan years—especially as their seems to be a growing nostalgia for the “golden” years.

    1. http://www.psychohistory.com/reagan/rcontent.htm

    All of that being just a minor prelude to the full scale assault on the USA and world body politic, by the current psycho-paths in Washington!

Comments are closed.

© 2006-2024 livingtheology.net - Liz Mosbo VerHage All Rights Reserved