Opinion: Religion and Politics

I try very hard to keep theology and politics separate on my blogs for a number of reason, and this post is a good example of why I try to do so--because it. gets. messy.

This post was inspired by a Facebook discussion that, frankly, is better suited for monologues than short bursts of information in between other comments, which is why I've now taken to two blogs to discuss it.

If you'd like the whole back story on how this meme came to be, read the post over on my theology blog.  I'd like to give a little back story here on the political reasons I had for my post.  It was meant all along as a political post, but when you mix politics and religion, confusion seems to be the inevitable result.

The point of this meme, and the post inspiring it, was not to say that one can't have religious views or have them inform one's political views, but rather, that it is better from a policy and public square standpoint to make your case based on reason, logic, natural law, knowledge, etc. than it is to make it from a "Bible tells me so!" perspective.  Such arguments persuade no one.

Additionally, I use Christian examples since that is what I am and see most often, but this applies equally to all religions, including secular ones like humanism, Marxism, progressivism, atheism, etc.  "Because Marx tells me so!" is equally unpersuasive.

At any rate, this whole thing got started with posts I've seen on the Israel/Gaza/Palestine conflict.  Being a non-interventionist (not anti-military or defense by any means, just against entangling ourselves in conflicts unnecessary to our immediate protection) by nature, I have issues with us talking about being involved there anyways, but that's a policy discussion for another time.  Here are some observations on the discussion I've seen on Facebook of late:

• Using any heresy (which dispensational premillennialism is) to justify bad policy is... well... awful.  Claiming we have to protect Israel because of the rapture (an entirely false "doctrine") is insane!  (I should note I haven't seem much of this directly in my feed, but it is something I've heard many times.)  It's not the job of America to swoop in and "save" a nation because a 19th century theologian decided to invent a new heresy (except it's actually based on an early Gnostic heresy, so it isn't that new I suppose--it just experienced a revival... see what I did there?).  If you do actually believe that (and I won't attempt to convince you otherwise here), why not go there yourself if you believe it so strongly?  Why must the government do it instead of individuals?  Just curious.
• Israel can be considered a good ally for the U.S. for non-religious reasons (again, being a non-interventionist, I'm not a fan of alliances either, but that's a discussion for another time).  Wouldn't we be doing better by them to NOT be sending any kind of aid to their enemies?  That'd be like Israel sending aid to the North Vietnamese during our involvement in the war there.  It makes zero sense to me, and even less sense why more people aren't talking about that aspect of this issue.
• Israel has one of the best armies in the world.  If we stopped aiding their enemies, they might actually have the opportunity to win.  It'd also be nice if the peanut gallery in the U.N., E.U. and D.C. would stop trying to tell them what to do.  Let them fight it out.
• If you're dead-set on intervening, while I myself disagree with intervening in this conflict, there are non-religious arguments you can make (good ally, only stable country in the region, being attacked first, humanitarian issues, etc.--again, I don't agree with them all, but they exist) that are far more persuasive than any religious argument I've heard.

This is far from the only issue where theology comes into play.  All social issues have that undertone, as well as a slew of other issues.  It's certainly not any better making strictly religious arguments about other issues, I'm just using the Gaza conflict as a good example since it's been in the forefront lately.  

Morality and theology are not the same thing.  I know both moral atheists and amoral Christians.  Let's use our God-given brains to make logical, articulate, moral arguments that can persuade instead of arguments that have zero persuasive value to those not of our religion.  Heck, I'm a Christian, and I find many arguments by those of other denominations about policy to be not persuasive (the Gaza conflict is a perfect case in point).  

If the intent as Christians is to make an impact on the world, we do a poor job of that if we can't persuade anyone.  The government was never meant to be a hammer to force belief, but to be a curb on sin and arbiter of justice when necessary.  It cannot have the Gospel (Jesus) because it is all Law.  Any move towards theocracy is worse for us than it is for anyone else (and it's pretty bad for others, you can look to Islamic countries in the Middle East for examples of why it is bad).

Let me end with a simple plea.  Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop abusing my religion to advocate bad policy!  In fact, stop abusing all religions in general to discuss any policy, good or bad, period!

“A Marriage of Athens and Jerusalem…”

I normally try very hard not to cross the streams of the left and right hand kingdoms, mostly because I am just as passionate about theology as I am about politics and am probably just as polarizing in both realms, but here goes nothing.

I took a brief hiatus from Party politics last week to attend the 49th Rocky Mountain District Convention for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 7-9 June in the Denver Tech Center.  This was quite unexpected.  At our May voters meeting at Church, I was elected as a last-minute alternate to replace our other alternate who had a conflict arise, just in case our delegate couldn’t make it.  No one else volunteered, so I did.  Our Delegate swore up and down that he would be there—and I know it would have taken an act of God to keep him from it.  Which is what happened.  Those incredible rains came last week in Colorado Springs, and late Wednesday evening, I got an email from him informing me his house had flooded and he couldn’t make it.  Our Pastor’s house flooded, as did my mothers.  All three live very near each other.  So I, living in Denver now, ended up attending as our congregation’s voting delegate.

After a little kerfuffle with the sign-in (I was so last-minute my paperwork wasn’t there, and because my Pastor, who is the District Secretary, had a flooded house, he was delayed in getting to the convention), the fun began.

Without getting too much in the minutia of the theology of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, let me give a brief overview for those who aren’t too familiar.

We are a creedal church, meaning we confess the Ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athenasian).  We believe in Faith Alone through Grace Alone by Scripture Alone.  We believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.  We are a sacramental church, which means we actually value the saving properties of Baptism and Holy Communion (which we believe in Real Presence, which means that the Body and Blood are in, with and under the elements—not transformed into, nor merely representing).  The Book of Concord is our confession of faith, and is entirely based upon and in accordance with Scripture.  We hold tradition and history to be important, but not on the same level as the Bible.

Anyone who wants to know more may certainly ask.

Now, as with party politics, there are essentially two sides in our synod.  The “confessional” side, the Quia subscribers to the Book of Concord (“Quia” is simply Latin for “because”, meaning that we believe in the Book of Concord because it is supported by Scripture, indeed, in full support by Scripture), are all very conservative.  The liberal side, the Quatenus subscribers to the Book of Concord (“Quatenus” is Latin for “insofar as”, meaning that they believe in the Book of Concord only insofar as it is supported by Scripture), are the folks who promote things like ordination of women and contemporary worship.

I am just as conservative in my church politics as I am in my party politics.  In fact, on Facebook, I identify myself as a “Confessional Quia Reformed Catholic”.  Originally, the word Lutheran was a pejorative used to try and convince others that those subscribing to the Augsburg Confession were following a man, not God, so while it is an identifier now, I prefer to not use it when at all possible.  When not using it as a title, I also specifically use small “c” catholic (like my many rants on “l” vs. “L” libertarianism) because it refers to the church universal, not the Roman Catholic church.

Hopefully that helps give you a foundation to understand where I’m coming from religiously now, so that the rest of this makes a little more sense.

I hope sometime soon to have the chance to expand this more, but for now I am just throwing out some notes I made during the convention.

·         Confessional Lutherans seem to have a slightly small “L” libertarian tendency—this, largely, I think is due to our strong left-hand, right-hand kingdom doctrine (one that, interestingly enough, Kevin Miller—a non-Lutheran—used as the basis for his book “Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally or Socialism”)

·         Lutherans really do just have more fun.  How many other church bodies can you think of where you can sit down with your Pastor, the President of the Synod and your husband… drink whiskey, smoke cigars, listen to U2 (on the iPhone of the Synodical President) and talk left-hand kingdom politics?  I dare you to find me one.

·         Speaking of our Synodical President, Matt Harrison… you might know him as the man who kicked serious butt testifying before Congress earlier this year on HHS rules.  If you missed it, it is so worth it to watch/read (various video, audio and statements can be found here).  Find me another church body that, on their website, implores their members to actually study the Constitution (“Learn about our rights under the U.S. Constitution to freely exercise our beliefs and to speak of Jesus Christ and our conscience in the public square.”).

·         There was a huge political emphasis at this convention.  Colorado Right to Life was present with a table and petitions to take to churches.  The banquet speaker (which I missed due to a previously-scheduled conflict) was the National Right to Life President—a Missouri-Synod Lutheran, I might add.  Tim Goeglin was one of the session speakers.  Even during President Harrison’s address the opening night of convention, a few political questions were asked.  This is a church body that, more than most I can think of, is engaged in and understands public policy and the left-hand kingdom.  I’m glad they are getting more engaged as Pastors, as we only have 6 LCMS Congressmen right now (one of them is our own Cory Gardner, though!), and I think that may be changing soon.

·         On a less political note, Colorado has some absolutely incredible confessional Pastors.  It was such a blessing and salve for my soul to be around God’s servants who preach, teach and confess everything I hold dear.  For too long, we’ve been fighting against the infiltration of liberalism into our Synod (anyone who knows me knows that I refer to the ultimate outcome of Seminex, the formation of the ELCA, as the E?CA, because they’re not Lutheran but I don’t know what they are…), and I am so pleased to see a marked return to our confessional roots.  In speaking to several there, it appears this is a pretty drastic shift from even 10 years ago.  I couldn’t be more pleased.

Now, for a few thoughts on the parallels I saw there between the GOP and the church politics.  Maybe I’m just reaching.  I’d love your input on whether or not I’m crazy or if there are the actual parallels I’m seeing, particularly from those who were in attendance.

Topic	GOP	LCMS
Declaration of Independence/Bible (conservatives)	Our ‘roadmap’ for the founding of this nation given to us by our founding fathers	The ‘roadmap’ for the foundation of Christian life and doctrine, given to us by our Lord
Declaration of Independence/Bible (liberals/progressives )	Worth reading, but an old history lesson	Worth reading, but not always right
Constitution/Confessions (conservatives)	Sacred, means today what it has meant always, unchanging	Sacred, means today what it has meant always, unchanging (quia, because the Word of God is unchanging)
Constitution/Confessions (liberals/progressives)	A living, breathing document, can change over time to mean whatever we want it to mean	A living, breathing document, can change over time to mean whatever we want it to mean (quatenus, because the Word of God is not sacred and can be reinterpreted to “fit the times”
Conservative	Traditional, “old-fashioned”, time-tested principles with a focus on actually retaining and promoting those principles of governance	Traditional, “old-fashioned”, time-tested principles with a focus on actually retaining and promoting those principles of faith
Liberal/progressive	Focused on growth and unconstitutional practices to gain the illusion of more power, principles can and are sacrificed in order to obtain more power	Focused on growth and extra-biblical practices to gain the illusion of more power, principles and doctrine can and are sacrificed in order to obtain more ‘power’

Like I said, maybe I’m reaching, but the parallels are pretty obvious to me.  The fight of principle vs. the illusion of power is alive and well in the GOP, and appears to be in my church body too, which of course means I just can’t sit idly by, I must engage in this battle.  Party politics is important, and I will likely be engaged in it for the rest of my life.  But church politics… that is of eternal importance, and so I can’t be uninvolved any longer.  I’m looking forward to the 2013 Synodical Convention now.

Let me be clear… this is not the time or place to debate me on religion.  Comments like that will be removed because they have nothing to do with this post.  Notice I didn’t evangelize in the least here, I’m simply talking about my faith and am looking mostly for input from those who share it (meaning all of Christendom, not just Missouri-Synod Lutherans).  Don’t attempt to evangelize me on your beliefs or lack thereof here.  We can do that another time.  Just talk to me on the elements here.  Thanks!

Oh, and one last comment—that was the best run convention I’ve ever seen, bar none.  Somebody there knows Robert’s Rules of Order pretty darn well (actually, I think most of the attendees knew RROO pretty well, which helped significantly).  There were a few nit-picky things I noticed, but not enough to really even bug me.  The GOP could learn a thing or two (or ten) from them on how to run a meeting.