Today’s Reading List – July 25, 2007
Noted evangelical blogger and BlogsforFred founder Joe Carter posts at his "home" site, Evangelical Outpost, on David Gushee's "Rules for Evangelical Politics." I really like what Joe has to say in this post, but find his opening paragraphs extremely interesting:
Rev. Jim Wallis, a liberal evangelical advisor to the DNC, often reminds anyone who will listen that, "God is not a Republican…or a Democrat." This is almost certainly true, for as Biola professor John Mark Reynolds notes, "He's probably a monarchist."
From this truism, though, some people derive the false assumption that since God does not provide his imprimatur for a particular party platform that the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican is morally neutral. This is almost certainly false. Political choices are almost always moral choices. Such decisions are fraught with moral danger and each Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must determine for themselves how best to follow their conscience.
Obviously some decisions are easier than others. Despite the excuses we may make for our historical-cultural setting, no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as "outrages against human dignity" (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). Other times the options may force a choice among the lesser of two or more evils (pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton, pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani, or a pro-life third party candidate?). In each case, though, the choice should be to follow one's conscience in applying Biblical principles to political decisions. [Emphasis added.]
What I find fascinating here is that Joe seemingly uses "morality" in a fashion that makes it appear inseparable from religion. Joe is a friend, and I doubt that is really what he thinks, but it is interesting how when we talk about these things we can get stuck in a linguistic trap.
Different religions can, and often do, arrive at similar and sometimes even identical moralities. This is in fact how a religiously diverse society can exist at all – in the public square morality is what matters – religion, from a societal viewpoint grants authority to that morality and certainly should be the primary enforcer of morality.
This raises one of the more interesting "chicken-and-egg" questions. One of the reasons we have seen the rise of the religious right in recent decades is in counterforce to the left's propensity for legislating morality, especially under the guise of moral neutrality, which is, in fact, a form of morality unto itself. Of course, the left charges that there was religious and moral oppression, and so it goes.
All of this arises from a very immature understanding of religion – while morality flows from religion - they are distinct. Morality is a code of behavior; religion encompasses morality, spirituality, ecclesiology, and a number of other things that really don't much enter into the public square.
My point is that it is morality, and only morality, that matters in the public square. No religion monopolizes morality. It is also interesting to note that some of the most despicable souls I have ever met operated under the public guise of being my creedal Christian brethren. In other words, not only can no religion claim to have a monopoly on decent morality, no religion can claim that all its adherents operate under its specified morality. Put another way, because religion is larger than just morality, persons truthfully claiming a religion, may not adhere entirely to that religion's stated moral code.
When it comes to picking leadership, Joe is right, it is morality, regardless of its origin, that matters. I think Martin Luther King may have said it best:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Within the boundaries of diverse religions that share similar moralities, one could substitute "religion" for "color of their skin" in that quote and remain right on target.
Lowell adds: I guess I could say "amen," but then John's creedal credentials would be suspect in the eyes of some. So I'll let you all guess at what I think.
Late update from Lowell:
Reader Randy Zernzach offers these comments: I applaud John's posting on 25 July. After the first Republican debate, I recall one of the other contenders in the post-debate spin claiming a certain "high ground" because he contended that "religion impacts decision making," thus Gov Romney's religion is "fair game." One flaw (and there is more than one) in this statement's logic is simply this-he missed the middle step: Religion informs the values one holds (eg. life, liberty, choice, accountability, family, rule of law, fairness, etc). Values then are what inform policy and decision making. This debate should be about values and morality, not about how one gets there. There are many religious traditions, as John states, that arrive at congruent moral positions. We agree.
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 25 Jul 2007 at 9:24 am #
The Boston Globe’s Scott Helman discusses the Thompson boomlet among “social conservatives”, with comments about the effect on Romney from Garry Bauer (but without overtly raising The Question). Hugh Hewitt calls this “today’s hit-piece” and focuses on the measure, unalarmed reaction from the Romney campaign.