Back to Blogland after a very busy Advent season! The Magi came bearing gifts, I come bearing questions. I read Jeff Kahl's posts, some of which are political in nature (Poli-Sci undergrad, what else can I expect?) and I reflect on the commonalities between politics and religion. With politics, we have our parties: Republicans, Democrats, Independents. All hope to make positive changes and influence the world in positive ways, utlimately. They just have very fundamental disagreements on how to bring about such changes. Many democrats can't stand George Bush. Many republicans couldn't stand Bill Clinton. All are pretty much united against Hillary. Just kidding. But my point is, each party believes wholeheartedly that, in many areas, they are right and the other is wrong. Enter religion. Don't we see the same thing? Catholics believe they (and only they!) have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. In Methodism, the traditionalists believe they are right, the contemporary folks thing they have it right, the Conservatives believe they have the answers, the Liberals believe they do, and on and on and on. Without attempting to be divisive, I raise the question - who's right? Who's wrong? Who's indifferent? What really matters, and what doesn't?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Right, Wrong, or Indifferent?
Back to Blogland after a very busy Advent season! The Magi came bearing gifts, I come bearing questions. I read Jeff Kahl's posts, some of which are political in nature (Poli-Sci undergrad, what else can I expect?) and I reflect on the commonalities between politics and religion. With politics, we have our parties: Republicans, Democrats, Independents. All hope to make positive changes and influence the world in positive ways, utlimately. They just have very fundamental disagreements on how to bring about such changes. Many democrats can't stand George Bush. Many republicans couldn't stand Bill Clinton. All are pretty much united against Hillary. Just kidding. But my point is, each party believes wholeheartedly that, in many areas, they are right and the other is wrong. Enter religion. Don't we see the same thing? Catholics believe they (and only they!) have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. In Methodism, the traditionalists believe they are right, the contemporary folks thing they have it right, the Conservatives believe they have the answers, the Liberals believe they do, and on and on and on. Without attempting to be divisive, I raise the question - who's right? Who's wrong? Who's indifferent? What really matters, and what doesn't?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Gostei muito desse post e seu blog é muito interessante, vou passar por aqui sempre =) Depois dá uma passada lá no meu site, que é sobre o CresceNet, espero que goste. O endereço dele é http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . Um abraço.
si, senioritus.
Can anyone translate the first post?
For English, press one.
Para espagnol.....
As to your question, Jeffrey:
I think Keith McIlwain's post gives some helpful hints: You definitely want a guy (or gal) in office who possesses character and integrity.
However, just because a person has integrity and character, doesn't mean they'll be effective at the practical realities of governing. So you also want someone who has been tried by significant experience in public life.
Thirdly, I'd say you want to ask whether the individual reflects your FUNDAMENTAL convictions about the role of government in the life of a nation. If you are a person who thinks government fundamentally exists to protect the God-given rights of individuals and allows them to prosper on their own, you'll tend to vote for a person with a conservative agenda. On the other hand, if you think government should actively engage in monitoring and controlling economic and social matters, you'll tend to vote liberal.
So, after evaluating the candidate's character and experience, try and discern what his or her fundamental convictions are about the nature and purpose of government.
After that, vote your conscience.
About your post, who cares?
Thanks for that, Brett! It reminds me of Rule # 6. Perhaps I should have titled the post - which idiot are you, the one on the right or the one on the left?
The problem is that those of us who consider ourselves evangelicals (such as Jeff Vanderhoff) believe that there IS such a thing as "absolute truth". The greatest and most important absolute truth is, of course, that Jesus is God incarnate in human flesh, come to reconcile Creator and creation.
Things get sticky when we are asked the question, "Is that an ontological truth or simply (but powerfully) a poetic truth?" And, stemming from that, "What does that mean in terms of authority?"
This is the problem with the contemporary Church. And, whether or not they realize it, this is the issue (in my view) that our General Conference folks will be grappling with in a few months. Incidentally, the Jurisidctional delegates will be dealing with it as well, less directly but perhaps more importantly.
The problem with politics and politicians is that they say whatever they have to say to get or keep their job. They use focus groups to find out what people want to hear and then they say it...convictions don't seem to really matter much when it comes to holding public office
What parallels does everyone see within the church?
Well, the "we're right/they're wrong" thing is a part of Church life. And sometimes that's just divisive.
But...sometimes, one side IS correct. Those who say, for instance, that Jesus is not a unique and authoritative revelation from God are simply wrong. For us to compromise that truth would be a sin. So we need to find loving, gracious ways to proclaim the truth even while rejecting error.
I'm not sure we've done a good job with that, and, too often, ecclesiastical leadership seems too eager to accept compromise. That's been true in so many denominations.
I agree with Keith's perspective.
There are some issues where we can adopt a both/and attitude. In church, an example would be traditional liturgy versus more contemporary forms of worship. In politics, it would be privatizing social security versus reforming the existing system.
But there are some fundamental issues where I believe a person simply has to take a stand. In church, you can't stand on the sidelines on whether or not Scripture is the authoritative Word of God or simply a nice book of "religious teachings." Conversely, in politics you can't be neutral over whether or not the government has the right to redistribute my income in the name of "charity" or "economic justice."
I think the problem in both church and politics is that few people even understand the FUNDAMENTAL issues anymore, and even fewer are willing to stick their necks out and take a stand on them. They'd rather just keep their mouths shut and keep not offend anybody.
Is that in keeping with the spirit of Jesus, Paul, Luther, and Wesley? I don't think so!
Post a Comment