"How Would Jesus Vote?" Liberalism and privatization of faith

The title "How Would Jesus Vote?" isn't from a Washington Post article written by a conservative, Christian evangelical, but a self identified liberal evangelical.

The story is a justification, without giving any basis, for why a self identified evangelical can vote for a candidate with whom they fundamentally disagree with on the great moral and social issues of the day like abortion and homosexual marriage.

I think the fundamental question, which the author doesn't address, is how should one's faith implicate how and for whom one votes? What issues are of paramount importance and which aren't? And if the paramount issues aren't paramount in your thinking has a person in effect privatized or neutered the implications of his or her faith?

It also points out how the postmodern mindset, e.g. truth is privatized or relativized has infected so many Christians. To simply say, I'm an evangelical (or whatever) and I can vote for whomever I want, doesn't cut it.

For instance, is abortion on the same moral plane as a low income program? Is homosexual marriage on the same level as an early childhood education program?

The author Amy Sullivan seems by implication to say yes. But is that a morally defensible position? I think not.

Is not protecting human life of more importance than funding a specific welfare program? I think it is for a number of reasons. First, the protection of human life is fundamental. A welfare program in the US is not dealing with a life or death issue. We don't have people starving on the streets. Second, might that government program in fact be counterproductive, e.g. discouraging work and personal responsibility; what we saw with welfare programs until welfare reforms of the 1990s. Thus this program may actually do more harm than good.

Sullivan seems to be saying, my faith justifies me voting for candidates who diametrically oppose my deepest moral convictions but that's OK.

I frankly don't believe that's morally justified or OK.

The tenor of the article is "Accept me into your political club and I'll keep quiet about my moral beliefs. Just don't reject me." In essence, she's placed politics and acceptance ahead of truth and what's right.

This is shown by her example of the governor of Colorado. We'll vote for you for governor as long as you don't act on your pro-life views.

That same fall, an antiabortion Catholic Democrat, Bill Ritter, won the Colorado governorship after convincing his party's activists and donors that a pro-life politician need not be actively anti-choice.

Where is the salt and light in this politician's moral convictions and religious beliefs? There is none. His religious faith has no public significance or consequences for an important moral position he holds. Yet the Bible is very clear about the connection between one's faith and actions. You don't believe what you say you believe if you're unwilling to act on them.

Liberal former Lutheran bishop Chilstrom wants it both ways

I often get a kick out of members of the "religious left" who attack people on the "religious right" for somehow politicizing and co-opting Christianity. After making such a charge they usually turn around and do the exact same thing they accuse conservative Christians of doing -- asserting that their faith leads them to arrive at certain policies and positions.

An excellent case in point was the recent Star Tribune opinion column by Herbert W. Chilstrom, formerly, very liberal bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America entitled, "What being evangelical means to me" with the subheading "By taking on a political agenda, some have sullied and secularized what once was a revered term." In a rather disjointed piece the bishop takes to task conservative Christians for co-opting and perverting the term "evangelical" for political purposes.

Chilstrom says in part,

So why am I so emphatic in saying that I am not an "Evangelical Christian"? It's because I now find myself living in a culture where some folks who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" are putting a very different twist on that old and revered term. They have sullied and secularized it by tacking on a political agenda. They tend to identify themselves not simply by what they believe, but by the stance they take on controversial issues. The majority of them are anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, anti-gay rights, pro-preemptive war, anti-immigration, pro-home schooling, anti-Palestinian rights, pro-Republican party, anti-Democratic party, pro-literal reading of the Bible, anti-higher taxes, and so on.

As I look over the list of things these "Evangelical Christians" espouse, I find that in some areas I agree with them. In most, I strongly disagree.

He's upset, it seems to me, because his understanding of evangelical is now associated with the a wide variety of policy positions he disagrees with, strongly disagrees with, in most instances. These religious conservatives have "sullied and secularized it by tacking on a political agenda" according to Chilstrom.

Thus while attacking conservative evangelicals for somehow politicizing "evangelicalism", Chilstrom immediately turns around and states that he's on the exact oppose side of most of these issues. (I can guess what they are.) He goes on to say who his favorite president is - a southern Baptist aka Jimmy Carter and states what criteria he'll use for selecting the next president on foreign affairs: "In the presidential contest, does the candidate have the potential to become a respected statesperson in the community of nations? And will this person be likely to seek to resolve international conflict by dialogue and political negotiation, using military force only as a last resort?"

It appears to be a little bit hypocritical when the former bishop does just what he accuses conservative evangelicals of doing -- identifying his view of evangelical with particular political and policy positions.

To top it off he says that his view of evangelical Christian is rooted in reason and by implication the evangelicalism of those pesky conservatives isn't. "So when one applies all of this to our common life in the public square, what is the difference between being an evangelical Christian and an 'Evangelical Christian'? In my opinion, it lies in the emphasis evangelical Christians put on the use of reason in relationship to their faith..."

Again, a jab at conservative evangelicals.

Frankly, I'd love to see more debate and discussion on the role of faith in politics and the public square. I think it's an extraordinarily important and useful discussion. Unfortunately, former bishop Chilstrom and many of his fellow travelers on the religious left would rather name call and attack than engage in real dialogue.

Evangelicals for Romney?

I recently came across an interesting endorsement of Mitt Romney for president by Wayne Grudem. Grudem, a respected, conservative, evangelical professor of theology, has written many theological books, including a massive treatise called Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I've never seen him weigh in on past presidential candidates though that's not to say he hasn't.

With different evangelical leaders lining up behind other Republican candidates and giving various reasons for doing so, I think Grudem has written a thoughtful piece laying out his rationale for supporting a particular candidate, in this case Romney. He also tackles head on the Mormon issue, where there are extremely significant theological differences with evangelicals.

How it will all shake out is anybody's guess. If nothing else Grudem has supplied a well written defense of Romney and why he as an evangelical supports Romney for the presidency. I'm sure Romney will use Grudem's article in his efforts to persuade other evangelicals to support his candidacy.