In Sunday School yesterday, at the suggestion of the confirmation teacher, we combined the confirmation and senior high classes to discuss a rather pertinent topic - "Politics and Religion." I announced it in the first service and received numerous chuckles from the congregation. On the way out after service, I had numerous people pat me on the back giving me forlorn looks and an occasional, "good luck!" I felt like I was marching to the gallows. It seems that this is just a topic that we inherently fear, whether we think that they shouldn't be mixed, should be mixed, can't be mixed, can't help but being mixed, or some combination of the above. But everyone has an opinion, and as I soon found out, even kids.
We kept it as basic as we could, keeping the discussion to things like the purpose of the separation between church and state, etc. What amazed me, however, is the assumption that seemed to permeate the room that politics is one thing and religion a completely different and never the twain shall meet. Thus, when we asked whether a person's religious beliefs should influence their policies, the general response we got was no. Perhaps I am ignorant but I do not see how someone who is a follower of Christ can somehow put those beliefs on a shelf when he or she goes to do his or her job. If we are a follower of Christ, should not his values affect everything we do?
The kids also did not think that Christ was a political figure or that the church was a political body. I think this seems to be a common thought as well. Without seeing Christ as a political figure, it is hard to make sense of why the Romans crucified him. Perhaps Christ was saying a bit more than keep your religion at home. And when the church lays a claim on our lives that is absolute, how we are to live, where we are to spend our money, etc. it is difficult to see how this cannot be a political body.
I don't think we ask the nature of the relationship between them enough. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
my thought is: 3 blogs in 5 days ! Good to have you back :)
So it sounds like they discussed and were interested? Isn't that half the battle right there?
I would not have had many intelligent opinions to voice when at that age. Actually nor do I at this age, so I'll just hope to enjoy others' who weigh in.
Good thoughts Jackson ! MmK
Hey thanks for the comment! So nice to see after so many goose eggs. Yeah I have tried to be a bit more consistent these days. Unfortunately it will probably drop off again as paper season continues to rear its ugly head. We'll see what we can do.
Hmm...this would make interesting fire escape conversation. (Matt and I actually discussed church/state the other day.)
I lean toward the separation of church and state. Since I can see your point about if we are a follower of Christ, his values should affect everything we do, I can see that a good thorough conversation would be beneficial (more than I can hear or type through blogging). I do not think that government should mandate Christianity, particularly in a free democracy. Freedom of religion is essential – in my opinion – for a democracy to function with individual rights and liberties. I'm not saying that government should be without any belief framework (i.e. "In God We Trust") but since Christian values and morals are on such a wide continuum, to have the two conjoined without any separation would bring up a host of dilemmas. If they did, whose "version" (for lack of a better word) of Christianity would form the political system? Seems freedom would be denied or limited to others for that to work, depending on the value system/version. I'm just rambling now. Thanks for a very interesting post...
Hi Cindy! Great thoughts.
I am in absolute agreement with you that there needs to be a separation of church and state. We need this to protect personal freedoms, not only in the event that a certain brand of Christianity would become normative (a la Pat Robertson's or Jerry Falwell's), but also in some event that a non Christian religion would become normative. In other words, if there were no divide between church and state, then there would be nothing logically keeping a person who practices a religion other than Christianity to force this on all the people. This, I think, is ultimately why the founders conceived of the amendment.
What I don't think that the separation implies or warrants, however, is the view that politicians who are Christians must check any Christian influence at the door. How is this possible anyway? If a person is a Christian, then he or she has a certain way of viewing the world that cannot be put aside when it comes to voting on issues. In other words, a Christian politician will (and should!) vote according to his or her beliefs on things like war, the economy, social services, etc.
What we see too often is persons running for office partly on the pretense that they are Christian and then doing nothing while in office that suggests the fact that they are a Christian. These people I think are likely not Christian to the core of them and view the world through American eyes as opposed to Christian eyes. The two are not the same.
"Oh!" (said with dumb blonde tone - even though I'm not blonde)
I read your original post the wrong way...oops. I couldn't agree more with what you just wrote.
Going a step further, in the way that politics run in this country today, I would think it rare (if not impossible) for someone who really embodies Christ on a daily basis (strong relationship, ethical, moral, above reproach) to even make it to the national level. The amount of money that has to be raised, the deals and "you pat my back and I'll pat yours" back room agreements, and such that actually get someone the nomination from their party for positions is staggering. (Not counting the tens to hundreds of millions that have to be raised for national positions.) I don't see how one could raise that kind of cash for a campaign without shelving his/her beliefs at one time or another, or end up with certain people or groups that now feel "owed" something in exchange for their support.
The finances coupled with the power involved in holding political office, and I just don't see how that world attracts Christians that are motivated by love, service, and the greater good. I'm not saying that there isn't anyone motivated by public service and Christian ideals. But I do question if by the time they make it to any significant office, they have gotten swept up in the power and prestige or made some questionable deals along the way. Between that and lobbyists, voting within a Christian framework may no longer be possible.
Great post by the way…got me thinking! (except for the blonde blunder)
Post a Comment