Frustration with the Political Climate

This is a very sad video, but I'm posting it because it sums up very well the disdain I've been feeling toward the political environment of late.

I first became aware of Sen. McCain in the 2000 Presidential Primaries, and had he won the Republican nomination, I would have voted for him in the general election.

I did not vote for him in 2008 because I believe he came to represent things that he probably doesn't actually stand for, but I was worried his potential administration (symbolized by his unfortunate choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President) would have allowed those forces that ran the Bush administration to stay in power.

That being said, I have great admiration and respect for the man. His true character came through in campaign events where he vocally rejected trumped up lies about the character of President Obama, and was booed for doing so. This video shows him in a recent town hall meeting doing the same thing, and receiving the same reaction.

It's sad to see an honorable public servant be booed for refusing to participate in the outright lies, smear tactics, and fear mongering of the radical base that is ruining his party. More often than not I find myself aligned with the moderate political left, but I greatly value the positive contributions and balance that the voice of the moderate right (folks like George Will and Bill Kristol before he became a darling of Faux News) has to offer.

Sen. McCain, I don't agree with you much of the time, but I respect your integrity and honor your service to our country. Keep up the good work even if your base doesn't appreciate you.

Addendum- not an hour after this posted, I learned of Sen. Ted Kennedy's death. Kennedy represented the mixture of strong ideological belief and willingness to dialogue and compromise that is sadly lacking in our current political climate. This rare mixture often gets one labeled as "wishy-washy" or a "flip-flopper", but is more properly called "integrity". Sen. Kennedy, and the integrity he represented, will be sorely missed.

"Spreading the Wealth"?

This year's Presidential election (which has lasted the better part of two years and is, blessedly, almost over) has had its fare share of sound-bytes and applause lines from all sides. Most of these are distortions of facts, half truths, and outright lies. As a Christian who strives to know the truth it bugs me whenever any candidate resorts to these tactics, even though my candidate for whom I voted has used them to great effect.

One of these sound-bytes that has emerged as a theme in the last few weeks has been the phrase "spread the wealth". The phrase was used in Barak Obama's now infamous exchange with "Joe the Plumber" regarding Sen. Obama's tax proposals. The Republican establishment, particularly Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin, have picked up on this phrase and used it as evidence that Sen. Obama is a socialist. (According to the Socialist Party USA, Sen. Obama is not a socialist, but that is beside the point)

There's nothing wrong with being against socialism. Redistribution of wealth through tax policies is a complex and controversial issue that deserves a fairer treatment that can be given here. The bald hypocrisy of this sound-byte lies not in the opposition to socialism as a political and economic philosophy, but in the fact that this line has become a favorite of the Religious Right.

James Dobson, leader of Focus on the Family, recently published a letter entitled "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America", in which he uses the "spread the wealth" line (the bulk of the letter is devoted to hate speech against persons of non-heterosexual orientations). 

Mr. Dobson is a hypocrite for using this line of attack. He opposes "spreading the wealth", and yet he frequently argues for returning to "biblical values", particularly advocating that the church return to the ecclesiological model laid out in Acts 2. But Acts 2 describes the earliest Christians sharing their wealth with one another. In fact, there are many people who describe Acts 2 as the basis for what they call "Christian Socialism"!

In Acts 2:44-45, the author describes how the Jerusalem Church shared their wealth from the beginning: 

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

If Mr. Dobson is, as he frequently claims, committed to a "biblical model" and an "Acts 2 Church", then why does he use the phrase "spread the wealth" as a negative attack against a presidential candidate?

The answer is simple. He uses certain Bible verses as a means to an end to support his conservative philosophy. His loyalty is to these conservative principles, and particularly to the Republican Party, first and foremost. Christianity is a means to an end for him, not the end unto itself.

James Dobson is grammatically correct when he calls himself a "Conservative Christian". "Conservative" is the adjective, dictating how the noun "Christian" behaves. 

He is lying, however, when he claims that he is a biblical literalist, because if he truly was, he would not be so opposed to "spreading the wealth".

An Open Letter to Governor Sarah Palin

Dear Governor Palin,

First of all, congratulations on your nomination for Vice President. Your candidacy is truly historic.

But as glad as I am that your candidacy represents the great steps toward gender equality that our society is making, some of your recent statements give me cause for concern. OK, I’ll be honest. Some of your recent statements flat out scare me.

In your recent interview with Charles Gibson, he asked you about your view of your fitness to be Vice President. This is an especially important question given the age and previous health problems of Senator McCain. To his question, you said, “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on — reform of this country and victory in the war. You can't blink. So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”

I find this disturbing given the practices of the administration you are seeking to replace. President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and those who serve them have demonstrated their “commitment to the mission” (to use your words) of preventing any future terrorist attacks on this country that they have authorized the invasion of a country that posed little threat to us based on evidence that we now know to be flimsy and intentionally misleading. In their “commitment to the mission” they have authorized torture on individuals to extract information, something which you as a Christian should oppose.

I appreciate and celebrate your commitment to keeping our country safe, but “not blinking” seems to suggest that you will continue the policies of the current administration, and not bring the change that you and Senator McCain are promising.

If you aspire to be one of the leaders of this nation I would hope that you would want to be a moral leader, as well. A true moral leader holds themselves to the highest standards in how they treat all people, especially those to whom they owe nothing. A true moral leader asks difficult questions of themselves and those that follow them to make sure that they are, indeed, doing unto “the least of these” as they would to Jesus Christ himself. A true moral leader considers the complexities of the issues they face and thinks through their decisions before committing to a course of action.

If what I have just described is what you consider “blinking”, then I hope you, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, or whomever else may sit in the Oval Office will “blink” and think through their decisions in a timely manner befitting the seriousness of their duties and respecting those whom they serve.

Sincerely,

Rev. Matthew L. Kelley

Give God what is God's

“Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give unto God what is God’s.”

So says Jesus in both Matthew and Luke’s gospels. This is one of the best known sayings of Jesus, even among those who rarely if ever crack open a Bible. And let’s be honest, it’s one of the most overused proof texts ever. This verse has been used to justify Christian non-involvement in political issues, the idea of total non-participation in “secular” society, the idea that one should never question governmental authorities, and to justify labeling certain brands of right wing politics as “Christian”. I’m sure the same kind of loose proof texting has been used by those on the political left, too. I’ve just never encountered it myself.

I’ve commented on the intersection of religion and politics on a number of different occasions (they were my two undergraduate majors, after all), but the reason I’ve been thinking about it lately has been because of James Dobson, founder of “Focus on the Family”. Dobson is perhaps the last major voice of the first generation of the “Religious Right”. Jerry Falwell is dead, and Pat Robertson’s frequent outlandish comments have relegated him to practical obscurity. Recently Dobson went out of his way to continue his criticism of Sen. John McCain, who will be the Republican party’s Presidential candidate in the fall. Dobson said that he still wasn’t sure if McCain was a “true conservative”, and not so subtly implying that that massive voting bloc that he controls (whether this control is real or imagined and how big said bloc may be is up for debate, of course) may not support McCain in the general election. Dobson clearly fancies himself a king maker, or at the very least a major power broker in right wing politics.

Seeing people like Dobson make these kinds of comments makes me think of the Middle Ages when the popes gladly swung about their “two swords” (as defined by Augustine) of temporal and spiritual power. There’s a story about one particular pope (I can’t remember who at the moment) who got mad about something a European monarch did, so he excommunicated the king. The king, knowing darn well that he would be bound for Hell, if not in reality then at least in the minds of his subjects, realized he was defeated. The king proceeded to travel to the castle where the pope was staying and stand outside in the snow, barefoot, for several days before the pope agreed to absolve him of his sins and let him back in the church. While Protestants have no official means of excommunication, threatening to withhold votes from a politician is the most comparable weapon a religious leader can have today. But is having, let alone using, such a weapon really a good idea?

Religious leaders like James Dobson are committed, at least in theory, to doing the work of the Kingdom of God. Dobson believes that by following his teachings, people will be more in line with God’s will. In theory, this is “giving unto God what is God’s”- the hearts and minds of people. So how effective can one be in doing the work of the Kingdom when they’re so preoccupied with determining who gets to be Caesar? The Roman Emperor, the Caesar, was unquestionably the most powerful person in his time. Who holds such a position today if not the President of the United States? So forget about “giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, some religious leaders are obsessed with the power to crown Caesar!

I like Martin Luther King, Jr.’s take on the intersection of religion and politics (we’re mourning the fortieth anniversary of his untimely death tomorrow, by the way): “the church should be neither the master of the state nor the servant of the state, but the conscience of the state”. Threatening to withhold a large bloc of votes seems to be an effort to be the master of the state. Unconditionally supporting a war and all the atrocities that come with it because Caesar claims the Christian faith seems to be acting as the servant of the state.

For us to be the conscience of the state we have to be engaged in what it is doing, but to be clear that our first loyalty is to God. This means more than allegiance to a particular political platform, no matter how many Bible verses we may be able to whip out to prove that it is the will of God. I’m not sure exactly what being the conscience of the state really looks like over the long term because I’m not sure that anyone has been able to sustain it for an extended period of time. So all that I can say is that when we find ourselves disagreeing with Caesar, not liking the direction our government is going, we need to identify ourselves as the loyal opposition. The concepts of loyalty and opposition aren’t mutually exclusive, but they are in tension with one another. So perhaps tension is the best way for us to be the conscience of the state: wanting the best for it and occasionally having to resort to some tough love. It’s not an easy job, but it’s one that is sorely needed.