politics

Correct Me If I'm Wrong

May 5, 2010 By heather 7 Comments

This is my last blog post in the trilogy (because trilogies are a nice round series) of politically charged (shocking? electrifying? electrocuted?) blog posts (introduction–On Politics: Taking Christ to a Bull Fight–to my questions about the possibilities of a just war–Only War.)

Politically and historically speaking, liberalism means "leave me alone." It carries the idea that I can make better choices for myself than you can make for me. This implies that Republicans are liberal when it comes to money and business (we can make the best choices for ourselves for both our individual finances and our nation’s businesses in a free market capitalist system with as little governance as possible) and conservative (to use what has come to be the antonym of liberal) when it comes to moral issues (such as abortion and marriage), meaning we prefer government to step in to help guide people in morals, and when it comes to military.

Democrats are conservative, then, in the issues of finance and business (businesses need regulations to keep them in check, and this has implications for personal finances) and liberal in moral issues (individuals have the right to choose whether they live in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, for example).

Of course, the lines are not cut and dry. For example, where does an individual’s right to bear arms fall? If we say it is a moral right, meaning we prefer the government to step in to help guide people for their own safety and for the safety of others, then we can see how the Republicans and Democrats flip on this issue compared to how they would normally fall in regards to moral issues.

And several issues arise when Republicans and Democrats see the underlying problem as different. Democrats argue that in the case of business regulations (e.g. in the insurance policies lately put into place) it stems from a moral problem, namely that the businesses are doing moral harm to people. This, of course, has financial implications for the individual. Republicans, while agreeing that the medical insurance business needs fixing, would argue that government has overstepped its bounds when it comes to their role, which should be a minimal one in finances and business. Government should take on a more liberal approach here, according to Republicans.

And then there’s the issue of immigration. In general, both parties agree that the system is broken. The Republicans I’ve spoken to don’t begrudge immigrants; in fact, they want to welcome them with open arms, provided they come legally. These Republicans (1) want to be fair to the immigrants who have come over legally and (2) recognize that something in our system should change to help more immigrants be able to be here legally. They are conservative in this issue, interestingly enough, for both safety issues (to help protect the citizens and legal residents of the U.S.) and financial issues (immigrants should be paying taxes to help run the country whose services they use). So they ask the government to step in for these reasons.

Democrats want a more hands-off approach for moral reasons (we are all immigrants and we should welcome those who need better opportunities to provide for their families), but there may be a bit of moral liberalism in here as well (don’t tell people what to do or how to live).

Or so the environment issue: Republicans call for a hands-off, or liberal, approach to give businesses more free reign to develop (believing that people will in general weed out that which is corrupt and choose that which is moral; or perhaps believing that that which is corrupt must ultimately fail; or perhaps believing that we shouldn’t impose our morals here) while Democrats call for moral regulations (believing also, perhaps, that as we guide them morally it will bring about the best for our country financially, which also results in better financial opportunities for individuals).

Keep in mind that at this point, I’m not arguing if the policies being put into place are the best way to accomplish these goals. I only want to sort out what the goals are and which goals I should approve or work toward in light of my religious sensibilities.

If I have a somewhat proper understanding of this, I’d like to get to my question: Keeping in mind that how I vote will not bring God’s kingdom to earth because God’s kingdom does not come via America, how can I vote in line with God’s kingdom? If my Christian values and morals come from an understanding of what God says is best for humans, humanity, and all creation on the one hand, but I also believe that these morals and values are empty and to some extent unachievable without the Holy Spirit (though I would also argue that the Imago Dei, corrupt though it may be, allows humans to act in good ways, too), how much should I impose my Christian values and morals on people who aren’t Christians (whether for what I believe is their own good, for the good of those around them, or for the good of creation)?

If I believe that my Christian value calls for hospitality toward the stranger and alien, shouldn’t I err on the side that risks protection of country?

If I believe God calls humans to take care of creation, shouldn’t I vote for government regulations on polution, what kind of cars we make, how we build our houses, even if it makes things more difficult for businesses?

If I believe that abortion is fundamentally killing another human being because life begins at conception, shouldn’t I ask government to step in and limit rights here, much like I ask it to limit the rights of thieves and murderers? Shouldn’t I ask them to also stem stem-cell research because of how it harms individuals? Shouldn’t I ask them to outlaw certain infertility practices that harm individuals?

How extreme do we take this: Should we outlaw adultery? Divorce? After all, both of these moral issues affect families, individuals, children, and communities. Should government limit rights here to protect our nation’s morals?

When do we correct people and businesses when they’re wrong, and when do we step back and allow them to make their own choices?

Discuss.

Filed Under: Christianity, ethics, incarnating Christ, morals, politics

Only War

April 26, 2010 By heather 10 Comments

War. What is it good for?

After a few silly days, I’d like to return to my political questions for discussion. Because right now, I have just that. Questions.

Question of the day: can or should Christians engage in war?

When Peter cut off a soldier’s ear to defend his Lord, Jesus told him, "Put your back sword in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword."

Earlier in that same evening, however, Jesus told them to make sure they had a sword as they went out into the world:

Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or
traveler’s bag,or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.”

Seriously, Jesus. Which one is it? Should I carry the sword or put it away?

And even if Jesus told them to take their swords, we have no evidence throughout Acts that they used them for protection. In fact, we see just the opposite. We see Jesus’ followers persecuted and martyred unjustly and without physically defending themselves.

Let’s throw another monkey in the barrel. Jesus and his disciples came into contact with soldiers in their ministry, but no where do we see them tell the soldiers to abort their office. In fact, when soldiers approached John the Baptist and asked him what they should do to prefer for the coming kingdom, he told them, "Take money from no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your pay."

In other words, do your job well and with integrity.

He did not tell them to stop being soldiers for the Roman empire.

Finally, in Isaiah 3, when Isaiah is talking about the future glory of Jerusalem, he says, "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." In other words, the instruments of war will be used for production. One might argue that this is a future time. It does not characterize today. But throughout the book of Isaiah, the prophet argues that we should live in light of the future. Our character should reflect what we know to be true about the future.

Does this mean we live as pacifists now?

The heart of this, I believe, comes from how we understand and live out two ideas: (1) Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you, and (2) protect the helpless.

Here, in specific, are my questions regarding war:

Is there such a thing as a just war? If so, what constitutes a just war? What does this mean for
the war in the Middle East, specifically against terrorists, especially
since they oppress others in their own countries? (I admit that the
reasons for this war are complex, and not all the reasons include
protection of others. But for my purposes here, I’d like to examine only
this reason.) Also, in light of the past and continuing terrorist attacks across the world, are we mandated to protect loved ones from possible
threats? (If the Bible says to take up the case of the helpless, I would
assume that his includes one’s own children, as well as the children of
strangers both in this nation and in other nations.) How far do we go to
protect loved ones? How far do we go to free the oppressed? What does
it mean to free the oppressed? Is God asking us to set up democracies
across the world?

Discuss.

Filed Under: ethics, just war, politics, war

On Politics: Taking Christ to a Bull Fight

April 9, 2010 By heather 9 Comments

Disclaimer, part one: I don’t talk about politics here, partly because I don’t like to talk politics, partly because I’m not some talk-show-radio-listening, political-blog-reading expert who has brilliant thoughts to contribute about the subject, but mostly because the topic is vicious. It brings out the worst in people. The conflict (especially between Christians) scares me.

That being said, today, I’m tip-toeing onto the frozen lake of politics. Most likely, the ice will crack, and I’ll plunge into icy water and end up fighting hypothermia at the hospital. I do this because political questions have been plaguing me, and since I believe that part of the role of social media is the opportunity to hash things out and learn in community, here we go.

Let me state my issue up front:

As a Christian, how do I best love the Lord my God and love my neighbor as myself through politics? How can I best contribute to the spiritual formation of others (or, putting it another way, how can I best help others be more human), as well as my own spiritual formation, in this arena?

Disclaimer, part two: Obviously, I believe that spiritual formation (or, as I now prefer to call it, human formation, as spiritual formation is the process of making us more human, meaning more like who God intended us to be) begins in the Church. My desire is not to take this responsibility away from the Church and give it to the government.

In truth, I’d prefer to ignore the whole thing, abstain from voting, and claim "Disclaimer, part two" as my way out. I don’t believe that is what God calls us, too, though. As I incarnate Christ, I do so in every aspect of my life. If I believe that Christ can transform culture, than I’m responsible to participate in his kingdom work through the power of the Holy Spirit in every aspect of culture.

Disclaimer, part three: I do not believe this means that any human government will be the government of Christ’s kingdom. I don’t believe we can rightfully call a nation or government "Christian," nor do I believe any nation or government (except for the Israelites) to be chosen by God. Again, I’d like to use this as my reasoning from withdrawing from the world of politics. But I say this more to assert that I’m not seeking a theocracy or a return to a Constantinian rule, nor am I looking to figure out which political party is more Christian than the other.

I pledge allegiance to God’s kingdom. In other words, I’m not concerned with how I can best serve America but how I can best serve God’s kingdom, specifically in the realm of politics. This means my allegiance to God’s kingdom, not my allegiance to America, affects my thoughts on issues such as healthcare reform, the war in the Middle East, and abortion. It affects my ideas of justice and how, as a Christian, I am to go about working toward justice (or, I suppose, am I to go about working toward justice?).

To be fair, I believe Christians who vote as Republicans and Christians who vote as Democrats consider this in their decision-making. I also suspect that Christians who vote as Republicans and Christians who vote as Democrats don’t consider this in their decision-making.

This is enough for now. On another day, I’ll work up the courage to ask specific questions on specific issues. I’ll perhaps even confess my struggles in the political arena (an appropriate term, conjuring up bull-fighting or rugby). Today, let’s leave things here.

Filed Under: Christianity, incarnating Christ, politics, spiritual formation

Commercial Break

April 8, 2008 By heather 3 Comments

Tomorrow, I’ll continue my interaction with the Transforming Culture symposium, specifically with Eugene Peterson’s talk (yes, the translator of The Message).

In the meantime, some random thoughts.

Politics in a Waiting Room

While waiting for my oil to be changed, I watched news loop on the TV. Some interesting observations. During the transportation of the Olympic torch, there’s been protests to free Tibet. People climb the Eiffel Tower and the Golden Gate bridge. While I agree with their cause, I don’t see how climbing dangerous edifaces makes the point. Hillary Clinton encouraged Bush to boycott the Olympics (or at least the opening ceremony) which I find ironic considering her husband’s history with China.

The guy next to me, a very large man with a wife beater, a beard, a redneck, and numerous piercings, said the only thing he cares about is gas prices. If a candidate–it doesn’t matter which one–promises to lower prices and keep them down, that’s who he’s voting for.

This is why America has a bad name.

The news showed the reconciliation of a released hostage with his family–the whole thing right there for us to view.

This is why media has a bad name.

In Japan, women can hire host boys to entertain them at dinner. It’s sort of like geisha girls, I guess (in some ways, the host boys, who are in their twenties, looked like geisha girls). They said this is a huge step toward equality.

Yes, now we are equally taking advantage of the opposite sex.

New Blog

My dad has begun a blog. I never thought I’d see the day. His latest entry’s about encouragement and how Christianity needs more encouragers.

Good job, Dad!

The Yellow Brick Road

I found out yesterday that I’m a finalist for Genesis! Wahoo! (Everyone, do the dance of joy.) Wait, maybe I’m not supposed to announce it. Oh well. Pretend you don’t know. Here’s how the conversation went (complete with my inner monologue):

"Is Heather Goodman available?"

Great. Sales rep. Like I have time for this. How rude is it to just hang up? Barely tempering my annoyed voice, I answer, "This is she."

"This is so-and-so–" (She didn’t actually call herself so-and-so but gave her actual name, but I’ve since forgotten it, and who needs names at a time like this?) "–from ACFW. I have good news."

Did I apply for the scholarship? I don’t remember applying. How cool would it be if they randomly chose my name from a hat and decided to give me a scholarship so I can go to the conference in September?

"You’re a finalist for Genesis."

Silence. It’s either that or screaming. She probably won’t appreciate screaming.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Transforming Culture Explained

If you want to see what a random sampling of mall critters have to say about the role of art in the church, go here.

I’ll leave you with David Taylor’s explaination of a successful artist. What I love about this is the fact that being grounded in God and Church makes for a better artist. Novel idea.

Filed Under: artists, Genesis, politics, random thoughts, transforming culture, writing

Why We Vote

June 15, 2007 By heather Leave a Comment

Fred Thompson: because I played one on TV

Hillary Clinton: because my husband did it, and anything he can do, I can do better

Obama: because Oprah said I could

Mitt Romney: because I ran a business or two, what’s the diff?

Guliani: because we need a hero and didn’t anyone see 9/11?

Filed Under: politics

Straddling the Fence

January 16, 2007 By heather Leave a Comment

Today is another one of those can of worms days. Sometimes I’m not sure which side of the fence I fall on (ha, I’m amusing myself with that pun), but I want to discuss the whole issue of building a fence between U.S. and Mexico. Yup, I just love getting myself in trouble. This issue has become more of a question in my mind while doing research for the book I’m working on.
I realize that the fence is a safety issue in that I’ve heard that terrorists are going to Mexico than accessing U.S. through that border. I also realize that this is affects issues with illegal immigration: economic, health care, education. But I keep coming across a couple of values that make it hard for me to say definitively we need to build that fence: hospitality and loving your neighbor as yourself. The ideal, of course, is that everyone who wishes to come to the States could go through the process and become citizens. However, the poor (who are more likely to want to come to pursue different opportunities), can’t get through the system. They would need a sponsor, and, honestly, how are they supposed to meet said sponsor?
Let me give you the model of the people of Indiantown, FL. When the Mayans were fleeing genocide in Guatemala, the people of Indiantown took them in, fed them, got them jobs, bound their wounds, taught them how to live in the U.S. (simple things like using Laundromats and showers, shopping in grocery stores, cooking on gas grills, disinfecting after working in fields that swim with pesticides), taught them English, set up schools where migrant kids intermingled with permanent residents. These Mayan Guatemalans worked for their citizenship and are now productive members of society. If there had been a fence, these Mayans would have been stuck. They first fled to Mexico, and though Mexico did not kick them out, the Guatemalan army raided the refuge camps in Mexico. The Mayans realized they needed to go further.

Children of the Maya: A Guatemalan Indian Odyssey

This is risky with all the homeland security issues, I know, but the Christian faith is risky. You might even get killed for it, Jesus said.
What about separation of church and state? you may ask. This smacks of Christianity. But our beliefs always undergird our vote. Why else would I continue to affirm the whole “do not murder” law the land has? Because I believe human life is to be valued and that murder is wrong. In this case, I believe the command to love your neighbor to be pertinent. I believe our value of hospitality should outweigh our value of security.
Yes, it presents difficulty. But how much more beautiful would it look to work with the Mexican and other govts to eliminate the risk (i.e. the risk of terrorists taking advantage of the situation)? How much more beautiful would it look to aid both other countries to eliminate the need for migration as well as helping the individuals become productive members of society?
Yes, some will take advantage of us. But there will always be those who take advantage of grace.

Filed Under: politics

Going Political

August 30, 2006 By heather Leave a Comment

I don’t like politics. I’m one of those who really doesn’t like to vote (although I did in the last presidential election) because I’m not always on top of all the issues, and, hey, what does one vote mean, anyway? But, I’ve been thinking about this whole middle east war thing a lot lately. Agonizing over it is more like it.
I don’t know what to think. On the one hand, I long to be a pacifist. It just feels right considering the pray for your enemies, blessed are the peacemakers, and turn the other cheek passages. How is building bigger weapons and shooting terrorists supposed to propagate peace? It just deepens anger and escalates. Aren’t we playing right into their hands? Aren’t we giving them exactly what they want? And who exactly are we fighting for and fighting against? Are we fighting the Iraqis? Are we trying to help the Iraqis? Are we fighting for oil?
On the other hand (I realize I sound like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, a great musical, by the way), I see and hear things about the terrorists and the extremist Muslims about them burning tourists alive in cars, about them drafting and brainwashing children to wield automatic weapons and commit suicide (while the leaders remain safely hidden in dark undergrounds). If I was alive during WWII, wouldn’t I want to stop Hitler? If someone had a gun pointed at my sister’s head, wouldn’t I want to stop them? Is this the same thing?
But how many Christians have died for peace knowing that it would be wrong to fight rather than to love? What about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Peter and Paul and Jesus?
And here’s another weird factor: the Muslims view this as a holy war, a continuation of the crusades. The United States is a poor representation of Christianity. And the Crusades were wrong the first time around. Even if politically we don’t view this religiously, they do. Shouldn’t we want to represent Christianity as something different from fighting?
What would it look like if the United States as a political force pulled the troops out and let the Iraqis settle their political issues? What if, instead, the church sent more and more Christians to the middle east (and I realize that if I say this, I would have to be willing to go) to incarnate Christ’s love? What if we focused on being disciples of Christ rather than defenders of our country? What if I loved my neighbor, the Muslims in my literal neighborhood?
But I don’t know. I don’t know what to think of the situation. Can’t we all just get along? The answer, truthfully, is no, because I am selfish and my neighbor is selfish. And why doesn’t the Bible just tell us how to handle war? The Church’s position before Constantine was pacifistic. War was wrong, and Christians shouldn’t participate. After Constantine came "just war theory." What does that mean for me? For the Church today? Oy vey.
And yes, here’s my hypocrisy: I’m not volunteering to move to Iraq. And how does my view of the situation change the way I act in my daily life? Just call me Janus.

Filed Under: politics